[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7890-7905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01479]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0106]
RIN 1018-AZ22


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a 
Nonessential Experimental Population of the North American Wolverine in 
Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to establish a 
nonessential experimental population (NEP) area for the North American 
wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) in the Southern Rocky Mountains of 
Colorado, northern New Mexico, and southern Wyoming. The distinct 
population segment (DPS) of the North American wolverine occurring in 
the contiguous United States is proposed for Federal listing as a 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We propose to 
establish the NEP area for the wolverine in the Southern Rockies 
portion of the DPS under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, 
and to classify any wolverines introduced into the area as a 
nonessential experimental population within the Southern Rocky 
Mountains. This proposed rule provides a plan for establishing the NEP 
area and provides for allowable legal incidental taking of the 
wolverine within the defined NEP area. The proposed action would not 
result in reintroduction of the wolverine; rather, the NEP area 
designation would provide the regulatory assurances necessary to 
facilitate a State-led reintroduction effort, should the state of 
Colorado determine to reintroduce the wolverine. The best available 
data indicate that reintroduction of the wolverine into the Southern 
Rocky Mountains is biologically feasible and will promote conservation 
of the species.

DATES: Comment submission: We will accept comments received or 
postmarked on or before May 6, 2013. Please note that if you are using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES), the deadline for 
submitting an electronic comment is Eastern Standard Time on this date. 
Public meeting: We will hold a public hearing on March 19, 2013 at the 
Hampton Inn, 137 Union Boulevard, Lakewood, CO 80228. A public 
informational session will be held at the same location from 2:00 p.m. 
to 5:00 p.m. followed by speaker registration at 6:00 p.m. and then the 
public hearing for oral testimony from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. People 
needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in 
the public hearing should contact Brent Esmoil, Montana Ecological 
Services Field Office, as soon as possible (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R6-ES-2012-0106, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search 
panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, 
click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You

[[Page 7891]]

may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: [FWS-R6-ES-2012-0106]; Division of Policy 
and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. 
Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    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).
    Copies of Documents: The proposed rule is available on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Public meeting: The March 19, 2013, public meeting will include a 
public informational session from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., followed by 
public speaker registration at 6:00 p.m., and then the public hearing 
for oral testimony from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and will take place at 
the Hampton Inn, 137 Union Boulevard, Lakewood, CO 80228.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brent Esmoil, Field Supervisor 
(Acting), Montana Ecological Services Field Office, Helena, Montana 
telephone 406-449-5225. Direct all questions or requests for additional 
information to: WOLVERINE QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Montana Field Office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT 59601. Individuals 
who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay 
Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under section 10(j) of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
(Act or ESA), an experimental population may be identified outside of 
the current range of the species for the purposes of reintroducing the 
species. Before an experimental population may be designated, the 
Service must first determine that the population is separate from other 
populations and whether the experimental population is essential to the 
continued existence of the endangered or threatened species. If an 
experimental population is designated as nonessential, critical habitat 
may not be designated for that population.
    This rule consists of:
     A proposed rule to identify a nonessential experimental 
population (NEP) of the North American wolverine in the southern Rocky 
Mountains of the United States.
    A proposed rule to add the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the 
North American wolverine to the list of threatened and endangered 
species under the Act is published concurrently in this issue of the 
Federal Register. Also, a draft Recovery Outline for the proposed North 
American wolverine DPS in the contiguous United States is available on 
our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolverine/ or on http://www.regulations.gov.

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, 
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We 
particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) Whether the boundaries of the proposed nonessential population 
area are appropriate.
    (2) Information on wolverine occurrences in Colorado, especially 
any occurrences for which physical evidence might exist, that would 
indicate that a population of wolverines exists within the proposed NEP 
area.
    (3) Information on threats to wolverines in the NEP area that have 
not been considered in this proposed rule and that might affect a 
reintroduced population.
    (4) Information on the effects of reintroducing wolverines to 
Colorado on public and private land management, economic activities 
such as agriculture, forestry, recreation, mining, oil and gas 
development, and residential development.
    (5) Information about the feasibility of conducting reintroductions 
of wolverines into other areas within the historical range of 
wolverines that may be appropriate. Examples include the Sierra Nevada 
Range in California, Bighorn Range in Wyoming, Uinta Mountains in Utah, 
and southern Cascades Range in Oregon.
    Before we issue a final rule to implement this proposed action if 
it is deemed appropriate, we will take into consideration all comments 
and any additional information we receive. Such communications may lead 
to a final rule that differs from this proposal. All comments, 
including commenters' names and addresses, if provided to us, will 
become part of the supporting record.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Comments 
must be submitted to http://www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m. 
(Eastern Time) on the date specified in the DATES section. 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.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide 
personal identifying information in your comment, 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.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours at the Montana Field Office. 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Meeting

    We will hold a public informational session from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 
p.m., followed by public speaker registration at 6:00 p.m., and then 
the public hearing for oral testimony from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and 
will take place at the Hampton Inn, 137 Union Boulevard, Lakewood, CO 
80228 (see ADDRESSES). Persons needing reasonable accommodations in 
order to attend and participate in a public meeting should contact the 
Montana Field Office, at the address or phone number listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section as soon as possible. In order to 
allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than 1 
week before the meeting. Information regarding this proposal is 
available in alternative formats upon request.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy, ``Notices of Interagency Cooperative 
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' which 
was published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinion of at least three appropriate independent specialists regarding 
scientific data and interpretations contained in this proposed rule. We 
will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer reviewers 
immediately following publication in the Federal Register. The purpose 
of such review is to ensure that our decisions are based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis.

[[Page 7892]]

Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal.

Background

Statutory and Regulatory Framework

    The North American wolverine DPS in the contiguous United States 
was designated a candidate species on December 14, 2010 (75 FR 78030), 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.). An NEP can only be designated for a species that is listed under 
the Act. Therefore, in addition to the proposed NEP, today's Federal 
Register includes a proposed rule to list this DPS as a threatened 
species. The Act provides that species listed as endangered or 
threatened are afforded protection primarily through the prohibitions 
of section 9 and the requirements of section 7. Section 9 of the Act, 
among other things, prohibits the take of any endangered wildlife and 
the Service typically extends this prohibition to wildlife species that 
are listed as threatened . ``Take'' is defined by the Act as harass, 
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 
attempt to engage in any such conduct. Section 7 of the Act outlines 
the procedures for Federal interagency cooperation to conserve 
federally listed species and protect designated critical habitat. It 
mandates that all Federal agencies use their existing authorities to 
further the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs for the 
conservation of listed species. It also states that Federal agencies 
must, in consultation with the Service, ensure that any action they 
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act does 
not affect activities undertaken on private land unless they are 
authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency.
    The 1982 amendments to the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) included 
the addition of section 10(j), which allows for the designation of 
reintroduced populations of listed species as ``experimental 
populations.'' Under section 10(j) of the Act and our regulations at 50 
CFR 17.81, the Service may designate as an experimental population a 
population of an endangered or threatened species that has been or will 
be released into suitable natural habitat outside the species' current 
natural range (but within its probable historical range, absent a 
finding by the Director of the Service in the extreme case that the 
primary habitat of the species has been unsuitably and irreversibly 
altered or destroyed). With the experimental population designation, 
the relevant population is treated as a threatened species for purposes 
of section 9 of the Act, regardless of the species' designation 
elsewhere in its range. A threatened species designation allows us 
discretion in devising management programs and special regulations for 
such a population. Section 4(d) of the Act allows us to adopt whatever 
regulations and prohibitions are necessary and advisable to provide for 
the conservation of a threatened species, as we have proposed to do so 
for the wolverine DPS in the proposed listing rule that is also 
published in today's Federal Register. In these situations, the general 
regulations that extend most section 9 prohibitions to threatened 
species do not apply to that species. This section 10(j) rule contains 
the prohibitions and exemptions necessary and advisable to conserve the 
proposed NEP.
    The proposed NEP would not proceed to a final rule if the wolverine 
is not listed under the Act. The wolverine is proposed for listing in 
the proposed listing rule published concurrently with this proposed NEP 
designation. Should we subsequently determine that the wolverine is not 
warranted for listing, this proposed NEP designation will be withdrawn. 
Nothing in this proposed NEP designation should be construed to affect 
the listing decision itself.
    Before authorizing the release as an experimental population 
(including eggs, propagules, or individuals) of an endangered or 
threatened species, and before authorizing any necessary transportation 
to conduct the release, the Service must find, by regulation in 50 CFR 
17.81(b), that such release will further the conservation of the 
species. In making such a finding, the Service uses the best scientific 
and commercial data available to consider:
     Any possible adverse effects on extant populations of a 
species as a result of removal of individuals, eggs, or propagules for 
introduction elsewhere;
     The likelihood that any such experimental population will 
become established and survive in the foreseeable future;
     The relative effects that establishment of an experimental 
population will have on the recovery of the listed species; and
     The extent to which the introduced population may be 
affected by existing or anticipated Federal or State actions or private 
activities within or adjacent to the experimental population area.
    Furthermore, as set forth in 50 CFR 17.81(c), all regulations 
designating experimental populations under section 10(j) of the Act 
must provide:
     Appropriate means to identify the experimental population, 
including, but not limited to, its actual or proposed location, actual 
or anticipated migration, number of specimens released or to be 
released, and other criteria appropriate to identify the experimental 
population(s);
     A finding, based solely on the best scientific and 
commercial data available, and the supporting factual basis, on whether 
the experimental population is, or is not, essential to the continued 
existence of the species in the wild;
     Management restrictions, protective measures, or other 
special management concerns of that population, which may include but 
are not limited to, measures to isolate or contain the experimental 
population designated in the regulation from natural populations; and
     A process for periodic review and evaluation of the 
success or failure of the release and the effect of the release on the 
conservation and recovery of the species.
    Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service must consult with appropriate 
State fish and wildlife agencies, local governmental entities, affected 
Federal agencies, and affected private landowners in developing and 
implementing experimental population rules. To the maximum extent 
practicable, section 10(j) rules represent an agreement between the 
Service, affected State and Federal agencies, and persons holding any 
interest in land which may be affected by the establishment of an 
experimental population.
    Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we must 
determine whether the experimental population is essential or 
nonessential to the continued existence of the species. The regulations 
(50 CFR 17.80(b)) state that an experimental population is considered 
essential if its loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the 
likelihood of survival of that species in the wild. All other 
populations are considered nonessential. We have determined that this 
proposed experimental population would not be essential to the 
continued existence of the species in the wild. This determination has 
been made because the potential future loss of North American 
wolverines from the Southern Rocky Mountains would not reduce the 
likelihood of the species' survival throughout its current range in the 
DPS--specifically, occupied habitat in the States of Idaho, Montana, 
Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming.

[[Page 7893]]

Additionally, donor animals for reintroduction into Colorado would 
likely be obtained from Alaska or western Canada. Wolverine populations 
in both of these areas are outside of the DPS, and their distribution, 
abundance, and trends have remained stable. No donor animals would be 
obtained from within the DPS. Therefore, the Service is proposing to 
designate an NEP area for this species in Colorado and adjoining 
portions of Wyoming and New Mexico. The state of Utah also borders 
Colorado and contains suitable wolverine habitat. Because wolverine 
habitat in Utah is not contiguous with habitat in Colorado, we believe 
that if a population were established in Colorado, it would not be 
expected to include habitat in Utah in its range. Therefore, we did not 
propose to include Utah in the NEP area. However, we would like public 
comment on whether it is appropriate to include this or any other area 
within the NEP area.
    For the purposes of section 7 of the Act, we treat an NEP as a 
threatened species when the NEP is located within a National Wildlife 
Refuge or a unit of the National Park Service, and Federal agency 
conservation requirements under section 7(a)(1) and the Federal agency 
consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act apply. Section 
7(a)(1) requires all Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry 
out programs for the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a)(2) 
requires that Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, 
ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely 
modify its critical habitat.
    When an NEP is located outside a National Wildlife Refuge or 
National Park Service unit, then, for the purposes of section 7, we 
treat the population as proposed for listing as a threatened species 
and only section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4) apply. In these instances, 
an NEP provides additional flexibility because Federal agencies are not 
required to consult with us under section 7(a)(2). Section 7(a)(4) 
requires Federal agencies to confer (rather than consult) with the 
Service on actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species proposed to be listed. The results of a 
conference are in the form of conservation recommendations that are 
optional as the agencies carry out, fund, or authorize activities. 
Because the proposed NEP is found to not be essential to the continued 
existence of the species, the effects of proposed actions affecting the 
NEP will not generally jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species. As a result, a formal conference will likely never be required 
for activities affecting North American wolverines established within 
the proposed NEP area. Nonetheless, some agencies voluntarily confer 
with the Service on actions that may affect a proposed species. 
Activities that are not carried out, funded, or authorized by Federal 
agencies are not subject to provisions or requirements in section 7.
    Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states that critical habitat 
shall not be designated for any experimental population that is 
determined to be nonessential. Accordingly, we cannot designate 
critical habitat in areas where we establish an NEP.

Biological Information

    Wolverines are the largest terrestrial member of the family 
Mustelidae, with adult males weighing 12 to 18 kilograms (kg) (26 to 40 
pounds (lb)) and adult females weighing 8 to 12 kg (17 to 26 lb). The 
wolverine resembles a small bear with a bushy tail. The coat is 
typically dark brown, with two buff stripes extending from the neck, 
along the flanks, to the base of the tail. White patches are common on 
the chest or throat (Banci 1994, p. 99).
    The wolverine is a circumpolar species occurring from Scandinavia 
eastward across Eurasia and into North America (Copeland and Whitman 
2003, p. 672). There are two subspecies of wolverine: Gulo gulo gulo in 
Eurasia and G. g. luscus in North America. In North America, historical 
records indicate the presence of wolverines broadly across Canada and 
the northernmost tier of the United States, with southern extensions 
into the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California and the Southern Rocky 
Mountains of Colorado (Copeland and Whitman 2003, p. 672). The North 
American wolverine is currently found in Alaska, Canada (Yukon, 
Northwest Territories, British Columbia, and Alberta), and in a reduced 
area of the contiguous United States (Idaho, western Montana, 
Washington, northwestern Wyoming, and eastern Oregon) (Copeland and 
Whitman 2003, p. 673; Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2150).
    There are several areas within the historical distribution of 
wolverines that may be appropriate candidates for reintroductions. The 
largest of these areas in terms of wolverine suitable habitat is the 
southern Rocky Mountains and is included as the NEP in this proposed 
rule. The next largest area of habitat that may be appropriate for 
reintroductions is the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. 
Subsequent to a Colorado reintroduction, should it occur, we may 
consider proposing other experimental populations such as the Sierra 
Nevada Mountains, the Bighorn Mountains in Wyoming, the southern 
Cascades Mountains in Oregon, or the Uinta Mountains in Utah. The 
results of feasibility discussions with and coordination with 
appropriate state agencies and the public would determine whether any 
of these possibilities are pursued. Currently, the California 
Department of Fish and Wildlife has indicated that they are supportive 
of investigating the possibility of a future experimental population, 
and likely would be supportive of reintroductions if potential 
management issues could be resolved.
    Within the proposed NEP, there are numerous historical records of 
North American wolverines from the Colorado Rocky Mountains; however, 
the species is believed to have been extirpated from the southern Rocky 
Mountains in Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming by the early 1900s 
(Aubry et al. 2007, pp. 2150 and 2155). The most notable factors 
leading to their disappearance were likely trapping and poisoning 
(Krebs et al. 2004, p. 493; Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2156). There are 
historical, recent, and current records from Wyoming (Aubry et al. 
2007, pp. 2150 and 2155). Wolverines are currently present in 
northwestern Wyoming, primarily in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 
(Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2155). We are not aware of any wolverine 
populations in the southern or eastern portions of Wyoming within the 
proposed NEP area. There is one historical record from New Mexico near 
Taos in 1860; however, the exact location for this record is unknown 
(Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2150). There are several historical records from 
Utah, but no recent or current records (Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2151). 
Wolverine populations in the Southern Rocky Mountains appear to have 
been extirpated by human-caused mortality factors that no longer pose a 
threat such as intensive predator control using broadcast poison baits 
and widespread, unregulated trapping; therefore, reintroduction may be 
an appropriate management strategy (Aubry et al. 2007, pp. 2156).
    Wolverines are opportunistic feeders that consume a variety of 
foods, depending on availability. They primarily scavenge carrion, but 
also prey on small or vulnerable animals and are omnivorous in summer 
(Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1290; Banci 1994, p. 111; Copeland and 
Whitman 2003, p. 678). Food availability is believed to be a limiting 
factor in reproduction, with most adult females breeding every year,

[[Page 7894]]

but only a small portion producing kits (Banci 1994, p. 105; Persson 
2005, p. 1454). However, in one study, four females were supplementally 
fed, and all produced kits in 3 consecutive years (Persson 2005, p. 
1456) indicating that wolverines are capable of higher reproductive 
output with sufficient nutrition. Mountainous areas of Colorado contain 
abundant food for wolverines; in particular, yellow-bellied marmots 
(Marmota flaviventris), a staple food source for females rearing kits, 
are widely distributed throughout potential wolverine habitat (Hall 
1981, p. 373). Large numbers of big game animals present in Colorado 
would provide ample opportunity for scavenging as well. This may 
increase food availability, and consequently improve kit production.
    North American wolverines do not appear to select their habitat 
based upon specific vegetation or topography, but preferentially select 
areas that are cold and have persistent snow cover into mid-May 
(Copeland et al. 2010, p. 233). Deep, persistent snow cover during the 
denning season provides a thermal buffer for the kits and a refuge from 
predators (Copeland et al. 2010, p. 234). Wolverines exploit a 
relatively unproductive habitat where food is scarce but where 
predation and interspecific competition are reduced; as a result, they 
require a large home range and occur at low densities (Inman et al. 
2011, p. 8). Home ranges of 100 to 1,582 square kilometers (km\2\) (39 
to 611 square miles (mi\2\)) per adult wolverine have been reported in 
the contiguous United States (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1291; Banci 
1994, p. 117; Copeland 1996, p. iii). Adult male home ranges typically 
overlap that of two or three adult females (Banci 1994, p. 118). 
Reported densities in the contiguous United States range from one 
wolverine per 65 km\2\ (25 mi\2\) to one wolverine per 286 km\2\ (110 
mi\2\) (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1296; Copeland 1996, p. 32; Inman 
et al. 2011, p. 1). Approximately 18,500 km\2\ (11,500 mi\2\) and 
40,000 km\2\ (15,000 mi\2\) of mountainous, high-elevation terrain that 
could provide suitable wolverine habitat are estimated to occur in 
Colorado (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2010, p. 16; Inman et al. 
draft, p. 7; our calculations based on our composite habitat model). 
This amount of habitat could support more than 100 wolverines in 
Colorado under current conditions.

Relationship of the Experimental Population to Recovery Efforts

    Should the state of Colorado pursue reintroduction of North 
American wolverines, the effort would occur in the Colorado portion of 
the Southern Rocky Mountains. Any reintroduction program by Colorado 
Parks and Wildlife (CPW) would first require approval of the Colorado 
Parks and Wildlife Commission, as well as the State Legislature of 
Colorado. The designation of an NEP area centered in Colorado is 
designed to facilitate approvals for a reintroduction within the State 
of Colorado, as well as create public support for such a reintroduction 
effort by ensuring that compatible activities will not be subject to 
the regulation of the Act, which some perceive as an undesirable side-
effect of reintroductions of listed species. This would be the first 
effort to reintroduce the species in the contiguous United States. 
Colorado is an appropriate choice for several reasons:
     Historical records document the species' presence in the 
Colorado Rocky Mountains;
     The primary factors leading to the wolverine's extirpation 
from Colorado (trapping and poisoning) are now managed, and the species 
is protected by its designation as a State endangered species;
     Abundant suitable habitat remains in Colorado in the form 
of high-elevation areas with deep persistent spring snow;
     The high elevation of potential habitat in Colorado may 
provide some protection from warming trends caused by climate change 
(Regonda et al. 2005, p. 376; Ray et al. 2008, p. 2; McKelvey et al. 
2011, pp. 2882 and 2894);
     In 2010, the Colorado Wildlife Commission went on record 
in support of evaluating a reintroduction and initiating a discussion 
about reintroduction with interested stakeholders. The Service and 
other potential partners are supportive of exploring a State-led 
reintroduction effort.
    The primary goal of this recovery effort is to reestablish viable 
populations of North American wolverines in Colorado that would 
contribute to conservation of the species in the contiguous United 
States and also contribute to eventual delisting of the DPS, should 
listing be finalized. A secondary goal is to establish high-elevation 
refugia in the event climate change begins to impact wolverine 
populations using lower elevation habitat.
    Two recent instances of long-distance movements by male North 
American wolverines have been documented (Inman et al. 2009, entire; 
Moriarty et al. 2009, entire). In 2008, a male wolverine was 
photographed in the Sierra Nevada Mountains near Truckee, California 
(Moriarty et al. 2009, entire). Genetic testing of the individual's 
hair and scat most closely matched animals from the western Rocky 
Mountains, which would indicate a distance traveled of at least 600 km 
(370 mi). The testing also definitively ruled out the possibility that 
this individual was descended from the historical Sierra Nevada 
population (Moriarty et al. 2009, p. 160), now thought to be extinct. 
In 2009, a young male traveled over 900 km (560 mi) from northwestern 
Wyoming to Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado (Inman et al. 2009, 
entire). These two animals continue to reside in those habitats into 
which they moved. Both of these instances support the premise that the 
northern Rocky Mountain wolverine population is continuing to expand, 
to the point that some animals are making extraordinary exploratory 
movements. They also suggest that suitable habitat remains outside of 
the wolverine's currently occupied range. However, female dispersal is 
documented only for shorter distances (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 
1290; Copeland 1996, p. 91; Kyle and Strobeck 2001, p. 338; Tomasik and 
Cook 2005, p. 390; Cegelski et al. 2006, p. 206; Aubry et al. 2011, pp. 
21-22; Inman et al. 2011, p. 7). Consequently, the likelihood of 
multiple females and males moving to the southern Rocky Mountains at 
the same time so that a genetically healthy population could be founded 
is very low. Therefore, the probability of a population naturally 
reestablishing in this disjunct habitat is extremely low.

Location of the Nonessential Experimental Population

    The proposed NEP will include Alamosa, Archuleta, Boulder, Chaffee, 
Clear Creek, Conejos, Costilla, Custer, Delta, Dolores, Douglas, Eagle, 
El Paso, Fremont, Garfield, Gilpin, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, 
Huerfano, Jackson, Jefferson, La Plata, Lake, Larimer, Las Animas, 
Mesa, Mineral, Moffat, Montezuma, Montrose, Ouray, Park, Pitkin, 
Pueblo, Rio Blanco, Rio Grande, Routt, Saguache, San Juan, San Miguel, 
Summit, and Teller Counties, in Colorado. We also propose to include 
adjacent counties in New Mexico (Colfax, Los Alamos, Mora, Rio Arriba, 
Sandoval, San Juan, San Miguel, Santa Fe, and Taos Counties), and 
Wyoming (Albany and Carbon Counties) that have suitable habitat 
contiguous or closely adjacent to wolverine habitat in Colorado. If a 
wolverine were located in one of these adjacent areas after 
translocations took place, it most likely would have originated from 
the reintroduced population because habitat

[[Page 7895]]

in these areas is contiguous or closely associated with habitat in 
Colorado where reintroductions would take place, and far removed from 
habitat with established wolverine populations, the closest being the 
Greater Yellowstone area of northwestern Wyoming. It is possible that 
one or more wolverines could move from the Greater Yellowstone area to 
the NEP. Wolverines that make such a move will be considered part of 
the NEP. Based on evidence of only a single wolverine moving into the 
southern Rockies since the early 20th century, movements such as this 
appear to be very rare. The Southern Rocky Mountain NEP is 
approximately bounded on the east by Interstate 25, on the south by 
Interstate 25 and Highway 550, on the west by the Green River, 
Interstate 70, and the Colorado-Utah State line, and on the north by 
Interstate 80. The map at the conclusion of this proposed rule 
illustrates the location of the NEP and its relationship with the rest 
of the North American wolverine DPS.
    Any North American wolverines found within the aforementioned 
counties after the first wolverine releases will be considered part of 
the NEP. Wolverines occurring outside of the NEP will be treated 
differently, depending on their origin, if known, and their probable 
origin, if undetermined. Wolverines occurring outside of the NEP that 
are known to have originated from the reintroduced population (through 
affixed tags, radio collars, genetic testing, or other definitive 
means) may be captured and returned to the NEP at the discretion of CPW 
and the Service and after consulting with the State wildlife agency 
where the animal was found if outside of Colorado. Wolverines of 
unknown origin occurring outside of the NEP in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 
Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming will be considered part of the 
threatened DPS of North American wolverine due to the likelihood that 
wolverines from the threatened population may naturally disperse 
anywhere in these states. Wolverines of unknown origin occurring 
outside of the NEP in Colorado, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, 
or Oklahoma will be considered to have originated from the experimental 
population due to the lack of other plausible source populations in 
these states, and may be captured and returned to the reintroduction 
area, if needed for the reintroduction effort, at the discretion of CPW 
or the Service and after consulting with the State wildlife agency 
where the animal was found.
    Section 10(j) of the Act requires that an experimental population 
be geographically separate from other nonexperimental populations of 
the same species. The nearest suitable habitat outside of the proposed 
NEP that supports a North American wolverine population is in the Wind 
River Mountain Range of Wyoming (Inman et al. 2011, p. 7). At its 
closest point, the southern Wind River Mountains are approximately 220 
km (137 mi) from the proposed NEP. This distance is within the 
dispersal capabilities of male wolverines as demonstrated by the 
movement of wolverine M56 from the Wind River Range to the Southern 
Rocky Mountains in 2009 (Inman et al. 2009, Fig. 1), but is apparently 
further than females are able to travel through unsuitable habitat. The 
largest documented female movement occurred in 2010 in the North 
Cascades of Washington (Aubry et al. 2011, pp. 21-22). In that 
instance, a radio-collared female wolverine moved an air-line distance 
of approximately 233 km (145 mi) over a 44-day period. During this 
movement, her course generally stayed within suitable wolverine habitat 
(as defined by Copeland et al. (2010, p. 242)) and was never more than 
about 19 km (12 mi) from suitable wolverine habitat (as defined by the 
Copeland et al. (2010) model). In general, female wolverines tend to 
establish home ranges adjacent to their natal home range, and dispersal 
is documented only for lesser distances than males routinely travel 
(Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1290; Copeland 1996, p. 91; Kyle and 
Strobeck 2001, p. 338; Tomasik and Cook 2005, p. 390; Cegelski et al. 
2006, p. 206, Inman et al. 2011, p. 7). It would require multiple 
females and males moving into an area at the same time for a wolverine 
population to establish naturally in the Southern Rocky Mountains. 
Based on the best information currently available to us regarding 
wolverine movements, we find this scenario unlikely to happen. 
Consequently, the likelihood of a population naturally reestablishing 
in the proposed NEP is minimal, and we consider the proposed NEP to be 
geographically separate from other nonexperimental populations of 
wolverines.
    Colorado is within the historical range of the North American 
wolverine (Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2150). The species is believed to have 
been extirpated from the State and surrounding habitat in southern 
Wyoming and northern New Mexico by the early 1900s (Aubry et al. 2007, 
pp. 2150 and 2155). From 1979 through 1996, researchers conducted 12 
studies in Colorado attempting to document the presence of wolverine or 
Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2010, p. 
5). These studies used snow tracking, remote cameras, and snares. As a 
result of these and subsequent surveys, the Colorado Division of 
Wildlife concluded that if any wolverines remained in Colorado, they 
did not represent a viable population. The 2010 12-month finding 
concluded that Colorado was within the current range of the species 
(due to the documented presence of one male wolverine in the state), 
but reestablishment of a population has not occurred (75 FR 78035, 
December 14, 2010). Thus, we consider the NEP area to be unoccupied by 
a wolverine population, despite the documented presence of a lone adult 
male wolverine.
    In Wyoming, North American wolverine populations currently occur in 
the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in the northwestern corner of the 
State (WGF 2010, p. IV-2-96). We are not aware of any wolverine 
populations in the southeastern portion of the State, which includes 
Albany and Carbon Counties within the proposed NEP reintroduction area. 
The only verifiable record of wolverines in New Mexico that we are 
aware of was a single individual reported near Taos in 1860 (Aubry et 
al. 2007, p. 2150). Although other unverified reports have occurred 
(e.g., Frey 2006, p. 21), we find that the lack of physical evidence 
associated with these records makes them unreliable evidence of 
wolverine distribution patterns (McKelvey et al. 2008, entire). The 
southern limit for the species in the Rocky Mountains may have been 
northern New Mexico (Frey 2006, p. 21; Aubry et al. 2007, p. 2150). 
However, it is not certain whether the southernmost historical records 
represented reproducing populations or dispersers (Banci 1994, p. 102).
    North American wolverines require large blocks of suitable habitat 
due to their sizeable home range requirements and territoriality. 
Average home ranges of resident adult females in central Idaho were 384 
km\2\ (148 mi\2\), and average home ranges of resident adult males were 
1,522 km\2\ (588 mi\2\) (Copeland 1996, p. 50). Wolverines in Glacier 
National Park had average adult male home ranges of 496 km\2\ (193 
mi\2\) and adult female home ranges of 141 km\2\ (55 mi\2\) (Copeland 
and Yates 2006, p. 25). Wolverines in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 
had average adult male home ranges of 797 km\2\ (311 mi\2\), and 
average adult female home ranges of 329 km\2\ (128 mi\2\) (Inman et al. 
2007a, p. 4). There are numerous areas with the Colorado Rocky

[[Page 7896]]

Mountains that could serve as suitable release sites (Copeland et al 
2010, Fig. 2). These areas have persistent spring snow cover due to 
high elevation and have large blocks of contiguous habitat in public 
ownership (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2010, pp. 11-12 and 20). 
Persistent spring snow cover is considered an essential habitat 
requirement for successful reproduction (Copeland et al. 2010, p. 234). 
Large blocks of habitat under public ownership (primarily the U.S. 
Forest Service (USFS) and National Park Service (NPS)) promote uniform 
management of the species and improve the likelihood of broad public 
support. In addition, areas within the Southern Rockies are likely to 
persist as wolverine habitat in the face of climate change (McKelvey et 
al. 2011, Table 2).
    Both of the Federal agencies that manage most of the potential 
habitat within the proposed NEP have experience managing North American 
wolverines and their habitat. The wolverine is found in several 
National Forests managed by the USFS. The USFS has designated the 
wolverine a ``sensitive species,'' which means that the species and its 
habitat are given special consideration during management and planning 
(USFS 2006, p. 10). The NPS promotes the conservation of all federally 
listed and candidate species according to their National Park Service 
Management Policies of 2006 4. 4. 2. 3 which states ``The Service will 
survey for, protect and strive to recover all species native to the 
national park system units that are listed under the ESA. The Service 
will fully meet its obligations under the NPS Organic Act and the ESA 
to both proactively conserve listed species and prevent detrimental 
effects on these species.'' The wolverine is found in several National 
Parks in Alaska, as well as Glacier, Grand Teton, North Cascades, and 
Yellowstone National Parks in the contiguous United States. 
Consequently, the NPS is also familiar with management of the species. 
As previously noted, an area encompassing Rocky Mountain National Park, 
within the proposed NEP in Colorado, has supported a single male 
wolverine for approximately 3 years (Inman et al. 2009, entire).

Causes of Extirpation and Likelihood of Population Reestablishment and 
Survival

    Wolverine habitat in Colorado represents a sizeable area of 
formerly occupied North American wolverine habitat. The factors that 
likely led to the species' extirpation from this State nearly 100 years 
ago, specifically unregulated trapping and poisoning, are no longer a 
threat. Since that time, management and legal protections for the 
wolverine have improved for the following reasons (Colorado Division of 
Wildlife 2010, p. 15):
     Trapping and hunting of wolverines is no longer allowed in 
the State (Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS 33-2-105);
     The wolverine is designated an Endangered species under 
the State's Endangered Species statute (State of Colorado 2012, p. 16);
     Colorado restricts the use of poisons, leg-hold traps, 
kill-type trapping devices, and snare trapping (State of Colorado 1996, 
p. 1);
     The Service has proposed listing the distinct population 
segment of the North American wolverine as threatened in the contiguous 
United States, if the listing and this NEP rule are finalized, 
intentional take of wolverines would be prohibited in the NEP area;
    Wyoming classifies the wolverine as a Species of Greatest 
Conservation Need (WGFD 2010, p. IV-i-9). The wolverine does not 
receive protection under New Mexico State law; the species is 
informally listed as ``apparently extirpated'' (Frey 2006, p. 21). 
There are no legal trapping seasons for wolverines in Wyoming and New 
Mexico, which means that trapping of wolverines is not permitted in 
these states.

Release Procedures

    North American wolverines would be released only after necessary 
approvals from the Parks and Wildlife Commission and State Legislature 
were received after which a suitable management framework would be 
developed by the State of Colorado, in cooperation with the Service and 
other partners. Adaptive management principles would be used during 
reintroduction efforts to assist in the collection, release, and 
management of wolverines, and are particularly important as this would 
be the first attempt to reintroduce wolverines in the contiguous United 
States. Lessons learned early would be applied to efforts in subsequent 
years and at future sites. Several partners from State and Federal 
agencies and private organizations have held two workshops discussing 
restoration of the species in the contiguous United States. A working 
draft methodology is being developed by these partners that presents 
guidelines for translocation of the species and post-release monitoring 
(Inman et al. draft, entire). The details presented in this section 
come from that working draft, which represents the best available 
information on the subject.
Donor Site(s)
    Donor Site(s) may include any North American population of 
wolverines in Alaska or Canada. Factors that will be considered when 
choosing the location(s) from which wolverines would be captured for 
release in Colorado would include:
     Sustainability of removals;
     Familiarity of potential donor animals with food sources 
and mortality risks in the release area;
     Genetic composition of potential donor animals;
     Translocation logistics; and
     Support of provincial or state government.
    Sustainability of removals--Any North American wolverines released 
in Colorado would be captured from a wild population because there are 
no captive breeding facilities that provide animals for release. 
Removal of wolverines from a donor site must be sustainable; that is, 
removals must do no long-term harm to the donor population. This issue 
is discussed in detail in the following section.
    Familiarity of potential donor animals with food sources and 
mortality risks in the release area--North American wolverines released 
in Colorado should have a familiarity with food sources and mortality 
risks in the release area. Successful reestablishment of a population 
depends on the survival, site fidelity, and reproduction of 
translocated individuals. It is presumed that the more familiarity a 
released animal has with available foods and potential mortality 
sources, the more likely it will survive, remain in the release area, 
and successfully reproduce. Potential causes of mortality in Colorado 
could include starvation, avalanche, and predation by black bears 
(Ursus americanas) or mountain lions (Puma concolor). For example, a 
wolverine captured from a donor site containing mountainous habitat 
would likely have more familiarity with risks posed by avalanches than 
an individual captured from flat tundra habitat. Similarly, if 
predation contributes a substantial portion to the donor wolverines' 
diet, a familiarity with prey common in Colorado, such as marmots, will 
likely improve survival, site fidelity, and reproductive success.
    There is a possibility that not enough donor animals from 
mountainous habitat similar to habitat in the NEP areas would be found. 
In that circumstance, some donor animals might be collected from 
flatter, more open habitats of the Arctic tundra of

[[Page 7897]]

Canada or Alaska. Wolverines are more numerous in these areas and more 
easily captured, and, due to their availability, may be used in 
addition to mountain animals to augment total numbers of donor animals. 
In addition to augmenting the numbers of donor animals available, this 
would also serve to spread the impact of removals across more 
populations as well as provide an opportunity to experimentally test 
the appropriateness of conducting reintroductions with these 
individuals.
    Genetic composition of potential donor animals--North American 
wolverine restoration in Colorado should consider whether to 
reintroduce animals from the closest available geographic population, 
the closest genetic population, or a mixture of both. The draft 
protocol developed for the southern Rocky Mountains eliminates the 
possibility of using donor sites within the proposed DPS area due to 
the small size and already-reduced genetic endowment in this area. 
Therefore, the nearest potential donor site is in the Canadian Rocky 
Mountains of British Columbia and Alberta. Using the closest (Canadian) 
geographic population assumes that some local adaption to conditions in 
the Rocky Mountains has occurred. However, little is known about genes 
that may influence local adaptations of wolverines, and there is no 
scientific information showing that wolverines have adapted genetically 
to local conditions in any way. Based upon what is currently known 
regarding wolverine genetics, choosing animals with a genetic profile 
that is most similar to historical populations in the Southern Rocky 
Mountains could potentially create a genetic bottleneck. We believe 
that the best strategy may be a combination of both considerations. 
This approach would mix individuals from multiple populations, thereby 
maximizing genetic diversity, which would in turn provide a broad range 
of characteristics from which local adaptations could eventually occur.
    Translocation logistics--Translocation logistics are an important 
consideration in conducting a reintroduction program that makes 
efficient use of limited resources and minimizes stress to translocated 
animals. Logistics planning would be completed prior to collecting 
animals for translocation. Details would vary depending on origin of 
donor population(s), but will include:
     Protecting the health and safety of both wolverines and 
associated human personnel;
     Securing all necessary permits for animal transport;
     Developing a protocol and schedule for veterinary 
inspections;
     Determining necessary air and/or ground transportation of 
animals;
     Meeting requirements for shipping containers; and
     Readying a holding facility for animals prior to their 
release.
    Support of provincial or state government--Local, state, and 
provincial governments should support goals of the reintroduction 
effort. Specific provincial or state regulations would be followed. If 
a provincial or state government opposed removal of wolverines from 
their jurisdiction for translocation to Colorado, that donor population 
would no longer be considered. Active participation by all affected 
agencies would be encouraged.
Number of Release Animals
    We would consider the likely home range size, ideal sex ratio, and 
desired population density in determining the number of North American 
wolverines to be released (see Biological Information section). A 
typical adult sex ratio is approximately two males for every five 
females (2M:5F). These seven animals would likely require a maximum of 
2,000 km\2\ (770 mi\2\) of suitable habitat. The actual number of 
animals released and the time required to reach 20 percent occupation 
would depend on rates of survival and reproduction.
    An initial release of a small number of North American wolverines 
would maximize opportunities to implement adaptive management with a 
minimum potential loss of animals. However it would also diminish the 
opportunity for early success and minimize genetic diversity. Although 
the exact reintroduction protocol that may be used will not be known 
until and unless a program is approved by the State of Colorado, 
principles of adaptive management would be employed when determining 
composition of released animals.
Season of Capture and Method of Release
    There are two potential timeframes for capture of North American 
wolverines: (1) A spring capture (April-May) of males and non-lactating 
females, which would eliminate the need to deal with pregnant females 
and potential loss of litters; or (2) an early-winter capture 
(November-December) of males and pregnant females, which would require 
addressing pregnant females and potential litter loss, but could also 
improve the chances of reintroduction success. No firm decision has 
been made between the use of a spring or early winter capture protocol. 
This and other protocol questions will be addressed if CPW decides to 
pursue a reintroduction program.
    There are also different release strategies: (1) A soft release, 
which would require holding animals in a pen at the release site for a 
period of time prior to release to habituate animals and increase site 
fidelity; (2) a semi-hard release, which would release animals directly 
into the wild at a location that has previously been provisioned with 
carcasses to increase survival; or (3) a hard release, which would 
release animals directly into the wild with no provisioning. The 
ultimate choice of release option will depend on the sites selected for 
releases and available infrastructure to support captive maintenance.
    An early-winter capture with a semi-hard release has several 
advantages. It may improve both survival (through provisioning) and 
site fidelity (if females have newborn young present). Reduced 
movements due to the presence of a litter could result in females 
remaining in high-elevation habitat on public lands and spending less 
time at lower elevations where contact with roads and humans is more 
likely. Early reproduction reduces the time needed to achieve desired 
reoccupation of potential habitat and could also increase genetic 
diversity at the reintroduction site, particularly if paternity 
includes males that were not translocated. Provisioning would improve 
food availability during a time of limited resource availability. Food 
availability is believed to be a limiting factor in reproduction; 
therefore, provisioning may improve litter survival.
    If post-release survival is satisfactory under an early-winter 
capture/semi-hard release scenario, this strategy would continue for 
subsequent releases. If not, partners would reassess both the season of 
capture and method of release to determine what changes are 
appropriate.
Capture Techniques
    In most instances, the cooperating agency at the donor site would 
lead the capture effort. Specific state or provincial regulations would 
be followed. The method of capture may vary depending on the donor 
site. Darting from a helicopter works well in more open habitat; 
however, trapping is preferred in forested habitat. Box traps have been 
used successfully. Trap transmitters may be used to determine if trap 
doors are shut. Use of prebaiting and remote cameras at the trap site 
would also be considered. Standard

[[Page 7898]]

biomedical protocols would be followed for any immobilization with 
anesthesia (Fahlman et al. 2008; Arnemo et al. 2011). A field 
assessment following darting or trapping would be conducted to 
determine the animal's suitability for translocation. The assessment 
would determine weight, sex, general health, reproductive status, and 
estimated age of the individual. Only animals that meet the necessary 
criteria would be retained for translocation. Retained animals would: 
(1) Be treated for parasites, (2) have blood and hair samples taken for 
genetic analysis, and (3) be vaccinated for rabies, canine distemper, 
and plague. They would then be placed in a suitable transport crate and 
taken to a transport site by responsible personnel. All efforts would 
be made to minimize the time an animal spends in a crate. As soon as 
possible, animals would be transported to a holding facility near the 
release site.
Holding Facility
    Immediately prior to departure and again upon arrival at the 
holding facility, North American wolverines would be inspected by 
personnel trained to evaluate the animals' condition. Wolverines would 
then be transferred to larger holding pens. A veterinarian would be on 
call while animals are at the holding facility. While at this facility, 
wolverines should be fed a variety of foods similar to what they likely 
would encounter in the release area. Each animal would be fitted with a 
satellite collar and surgically implanted with a radio-transmitter 
prior to release. At this time, ultrasounds also would be conducted on 
all females to determine pregnancy status (assuming early-winter 
capture). Time at the holding facility should be minimized.
Release Into the Wild
    For a semi-hard release, a site with large boulders would be 
provisioned with ample frozen ungulate carcasses and covered with snow, 
except for a tunnel entrance leading under the boulders. The crate 
would be placed at the tunnel entrance and a female released into the 
tunnel. This would provide the animal with a secure environment and a 
known food source. Remote cameras placed in the vicinity of the release 
could document use at the site. If the area were frequented by the 
wolverine, the site could be provisioned with additional carcasses. 
Location and timing of provisioning would be modified as needed 
depending on site use and weather.
Post-Release Monitoring
    Throughout the reintroduction project, there would be an ongoing 
assessment of release procedures. Modifications to the protocol would 
be made if necessary, to ensure the highest probability of survival for 
each North American wolverine released in Colorado. Additionally, post-
release monitoring would assess the long-term success of this 
reintroduction project through determining survival, reproduction, 
recruitment, and habitat occupancy. Noninvasive techniques such as 
telemetry, remote camera surveillance, snow tracking, hair snares, and 
scat sampling would be used. Noninvasive techniques are preferred 
because they are less disruptive to the animal and are less expensive 
than trapping.
    It is anticipated that this reintroduction project would require a 
minimum of 4 years of releases. Monitoring data would be evaluated 
annually to assess the current status of the reintroduced population 
and the need to augment with additional animals. If we determine that 
some factor precludes successful establishment of a viable population, 
reintroduction efforts would be discontinued for the site. Any 
wolverines remaining within the NEP after reintroductions took place 
would remain under the NEP regulatory regime, even if further 
introductions were abandoned.
    Any reintroduced North American wolverines that have dispersed into 
poor habitat, are injured, or are malnourished, may be captured and 
rehabilitated or euthanized. Rehabilitated animals could be re-released 
or sent to an accredited zoo. Decisions to capture, rehabilitate, and/
or euthanize would be made on a case-by-case basis by permitting 
authorities and personnel trained to accurately determine the prognosis 
for the animal.

Donor Stock Assessment and Effects on Donor Populations

    North American wolverines used to establish an experimental 
population would come from wild populations in western Canada or 
Alaska. Wolverines in western Canada and Alaska are not listed under 
the Act or under Canada's functional equivalent, the Species At Risk 
Act. Wolverine populations at donor sites would be monitored to ensure 
that no harm is done to the source population due to the removal of too 
many animals. Most North American wolverines are currently found in 
western Canada and Alaska, where they persist everywhere that suitable 
habitat is available (75 FR 78033). Range reductions have not been 
documented in Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories, or British Columbia 
(Copeland and Whitman 2003, p. 673). The wolverine population is 
estimated at more than 13,000 adult animals in western Canada (COSEWIC 
2003, p. 22). No population estimates are available for Alaska, but 
based upon the amount of available habitat, it is reasonable to assume 
that several thousand wolverines are present. Trapping occurs 
throughout western Canada and Alaska, with more than 1,000 animals 
harvested annually (Copeland and Whitman 2003, p. 680). An estimated 10 
to 20 individuals would be taken annually for at least 4 years for 
translocation into Colorado. We do not anticipate that this level of 
removal of wolverines for translocation will impact donor populations.

Status of Proposed Population

    In our proposed rule to list the wolverine DPS in the contiguous 
United States published concurrently with this proposed NEP, we also 
published a proposed special rule under section 4(d) of the Act to 
refine which protections of the Act apply to the proposed DPS. The 
proposed special rule concludes that effects to wolverine habitat from 
climate change is the primary threat to the DPS and that trapping, both 
legal targeted trapping of wolverines and incidental trapping of 
wolverines while pursuing other species, are threats to the DPS in 
concert with climate change. Other human activities occurring in 
wolverine habitat either do not negatively affect the species, or they 
occur at such a small scale, as not to be threats.
    We believe that a similar approach to prohibitions on take 
identified in the proposed section 4(d) rule is also appropriate in the 
proposed section 10(j) area, with one exception. In the larger DPS area 
covered by the proposed special rule (section 4(d)), incidental 
trapping of wolverine during trapping for other species is prohibited. 
In the proposed section 10(j) area, we do not think that it is 
necessary for the conservation of wolverine to prohibit incidental 
trapping of wolverine during lawful trapping for other species. This 
difference in approach is due to (1) Regulations in Colorado that 
prohibit the use of various manners of take (i.e., leg hold or body 
gripping traps, instant kill traps, and snares with small stops) in 
recreational trapping of furbearers and (2) trapping of predators in 
response to livestock conflicts is tightly regulated in Colorado to 
prevent widespread use of traps that may injure non-target species 
(Odell 2012, pers.

[[Page 7899]]

comm.) These regulations reduce the chances that incidental trapping 
would occur to the point that this risk factor is not a threat to 
wolverines in most of the NEP area, and would not threaten a 
reestablished population.
    In the small portions of the NEP in New Mexico and Wyoming, 
incidental trapping is more likely to occur. These areas represent 
small portions of the overall wolverine habitat in the NEP 
(approximately 10 percent of the NEP), so although incidental take is 
possible in these states, it is not likely to occur frequently, and is 
not likely to threaten the overall NEP if one is established. In the 
interest of minimizing regulation to what is necessary to achieve 
conservation, it is in the best interest of wolverine conservation not 
to prohibit incidental take from trapping in the NEP. Therefore, take 
of wolverines during otherwise lawful activities in the NEP is not 
expected, except for the low probability of incidental take occurring 
due to trapping of other species in the small portion of the NEP in 
Wyoming and New Mexico.
    The proposed special section 10(j) rule is designed to broadly 
exempt from the section 9 take prohibitions any take of North American 
wolverines that is accidental and incidental to otherwise lawful 
activities. As is fully described in the proposed special section 10(j) 
rule, we provide this exemption in this section 10(j) rule because we 
believe that such incidental take of members of the NEP associated with 
otherwise lawful activities, though not likely to occur, is necessary 
and advisable for the conservation of the species because it provides 
assurances to the public that their activities would not be adversely 
affected by a wolverine reintroduction.
    This section 10(j) designation is justified because no adverse 
effects to extant wild or captive North American wolverine populations 
would result from release of animals into Colorado. As previously 
discussed, all donor animals would be taken from stable populations 
that are outside of the proposed threatened DPS. We expect that the 
reintroduction effort into Colorado would result in the successful 
establishment of a self-sustaining population that would contribute to 
conservation of the species. Due to the current management and legal 
standing for the species in Colorado, we anticipate minimal incidental 
take from the NEP. Additionally, wolverines would be released on remote 
tracts of public land that are removed from most potential public 
conflict.

Management

    If this proposed rule is adopted and necessary approvals are gained 
from both the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission and State 
legislature, CPW in Colorado would serve as the lead agency in the 
reintroduction and subsequent management of North American wolverines 
in the state. However, the Service would continue to coordinate with 
CPW on these restoration efforts. If this proposed rule is adopted, the 
Service would partner with CPW, with CPW taking the lead role in the 
reintroduction and management of wolverines in the Colorado portion of 
the NEP. Management of populations in the NEP area would be guided by 
provisions in: (1) The associated special rule; (2) the environmental 
assessment for this action conducted under NEPA; and (3) the management 
plan developed by CPW, with involvement of the other partners (Service, 
WGFD, NMDGF, USFS, and NPS).
    We conclude based on the proposed section 4(d) rule that 
accompanied the proposed wolverine DPS listing, and based on the lack 
of identified threats in the NEP beyond the overarching threat of 
climate change and incidental trapping, that the effects of Federal, 
State, or private actions and activities would not pose a substantial 
threat to North American wolverine establishment and persistence in 
Colorado, because most activities currently occurring in the NEP areas 
are compatible with wolverine conservation, and there is no information 
to suggest that future activities would be incompatible with 
conservation. Most of the area constituting wolverine habitat within 
the NEP with high potential for wolverine establishment is managed by 
the USFS or NPS and is protected from major development activities 
through the following mechanisms:
     The Wilderness Act--The USFS and NPS both manage lands 
designated as wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 
U.S.C. 1131-1136). There are several restrictions within these areas: 
(1) New or temporary roads cannot be built; (2) there can be no use of 
motor vehicles, motorized equipment, motorboats, or other forms of 
mechanical transport; (3) there can be no landing of aircraft; and (4) 
no structures or installations can be built. There are 41 wilderness 
areas in Colorado, totaling more than 13,000 km\2\ (5,000 mi\2\) 
(Colorado Wilderness 2012, entire). Most of this wilderness is within 
suitable wolverine habitat, including portions of Rocky Mountain 
National Park. Wolverine habitat within wilderness areas is protected 
from direct loss or degradation by the aforementioned restrictions.
     National Forest Management Act--Under the National Forest 
Management Act of 1976, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614), the USFS must 
strive to provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities on 
lands it manages. The USFS manages approximately 62,000 km\2\ (24,000 
mi\2\) of National Forest lands in Colorado (USFS 2011, table 4). 
Wolverines released in Colorado that use habitat outside of wilderness 
areas, but still on USFS lands, would likely occur mainly in alpine 
areas, which are sensitive to habitat alterations. Consequently, these 
areas are generally more protected from activities such as timber 
harvest and road building than lowland areas. The USFS permits land for 
ski areas in Colorado. Many of these ski areas occur in suitable 
wolverine habitat. However, ski areas constitute only a small 
percentage of all lands managed by the USFS in the state. We anticipate 
no disproportionate impacts from these ski areas. Because of the 
relatively insignificant impact of developed recreation areas (ski 
areas), we do not expect projects to be halted or substantially 
modified as a result of regulatory actions. The USFS designated the 
North American wolverine as a sensitive species in 1993, which means 
the animal and its habitat are given special consideration during 
management planning efforts.
     National Park Service Organic Act--The NPS Organic Act of 
1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), as amended, states that the NPS ``shall 
promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national 
parks, monuments, and reservations to conserve the scenery and the 
national and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide 
for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will 
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' Any 
wolverines released in Colorado that reside on NPS lands (such as Rocky 
Mountain National Park) would be protected by this mandate to conserve 
wildlife and leave resources unimpaired.
     Colorado State Law--The wolverine is listed as a State 
endangered species in Colorado, and there is a closed season on 
trapping of wolverines (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2010, p. 15). 
Recreational fur trapping with injuring or killing traps, is not 
authorized in Colorado and predator trapping to reduce conflicts with 
livestock is strictly controlled (Odell 2012, pers. comm). These 
regulations

[[Page 7900]]

largely protect the species from mortality due to trapping.
    Management issues related to the wolverine NEP that have been 
considered include:
     Incidental Take--The regulations implementing the Act 
define ``incidental take'' as take that is incidental to, and not the 
purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity (50 CFR 17.3), 
such as agricultural activities, rural development, skiing, camping, 
hiking, hunting, vehicle use of roads and highways, and other 
activities in the NEP areas that are in accordance with Federal, State, 
tribal, and local laws and regulations. The special rule accompanying 
the proposed wolverine listing identifies the prohibitions of the Act 
that apply to the DPS. Threats to the DPS include habitat loss due to 
climate change and trapping (both intentional and incidental). 
Prohibitions of the Act in the special rule are limited to intentional 
trapping, hunting, shooting, collecting, capturing, pursuing, wounding, 
killing, and trade of wolverines or wolverine parts, and unintentional 
trapping, hunting, shooting, capturing, pursuing, or collecting 
wolverines incidental to otherwise lawful activities. For this reason, 
incidental take due to otherwise lawful activities other than trapping 
is not likely to occur. In addition, this proposed experimental 
population special rule contains specific exceptions regarding the 
taking of individual animals. If this section10(j) rule is finalized, 
incidental take of wolverines within the NEP area would not be 
prohibited, provided that the take is unintentional and is in 
accordance with the special rule that is a part of this section 10(j) 
rule. The significant difference between areas inside and outside of 
the NEP would be that outside of the NEP, incidental trapping, hunting, 
shooting, capturing, pursuing, or collecting of wolverines would be 
prohibited unless covered by a permit issued under section 10 of the 
Act, whereas inside the NEP, no permit would be necessary. In addition, 
if in the future the best available information changes to suggest that 
the section 4(d) rule was not adequate to protect wolverines outside of 
the NEP, that rule could be changed through a public rulemaking process 
to provide additional prohibitions of the Act without changing the 
prohibitions inside the NEP area, where it is important to give 
stakeholders assurance that prohibitions would not change after 
reintroductions began. However, if there is evidence of intentional 
take of a North American wolverine within the NEP that is not 
authorized by the special rule, we would refer the matter to the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement for investigation.
     Special handling--In accordance with 50 CFR 17.31(b), any 
employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal land management 
agency, or State personnel, designated for such purposes, may in the 
course of their official duties, handle wolverines to aid sick or 
injured individuals, or to salvage dead wolverines. However, non-
Service personnel and their agents would need to acquire permits from 
the Service for these activities.
     Coordination with landowners and land managers--The 
Service and cooperators have identified issues and concerns associated 
with the potential wolverine population establishment in Colorado. 
Several affected parties have sought the highest degree of certainty 
possible that impacts to land use and recreation would not occur as a 
result of wolverine reintroduction. Establishment of the NEP would 
satisfy most reservations expressed by affected stakeholders. Nothing 
in this rule requires any additional changes, protections, mitigation, 
or enhancement measures for wolverine.
     Public awareness and cooperation--We will inform the 
general public of the importance of this reintroduction project in the 
overall recovery of the wolverine in the contiguous United States. The 
designation of the NEP for portions of Colorado, New Mexico, and 
Wyoming would provide greater flexibility in the management of the 
reintroduced wolverine. The NEP designation is necessary to secure 
needed cooperation of the States, landowners, agencies, and other 
interests in the affected area.
     Potential impacts to other federally listed species--
Within the proposed NEP for North American wolverine, there are two 
federally listed species with habitat requirements that likely overlap 
those of the wolverine: the gray wolf (Canis lupus) and Canada lynx 
(Lynx canadensis).
    The gray wolf's listing status in Colorado and New Mexico is as an 
endangered species. In Wyoming, the wolf is delisted (77 FR 55530, 
September 10, 2012). The wolverine has been documented to scavenge prey 
killed by wolves (Banci 1994, p. 100; Van Dijk et al. 2008, p. 1184). 
Additionally, wolves have been documented to prey on wolverines 
(Copeland and Whitman 2003, p. 679). Wolves may occasionally disperse 
into the NEP; however, we are not aware of any resident wolves 
currently in the NEP areas. Therefore, we expect little or no impacts 
to wolves from wolverines or to wolverines from wolves within the NEP. 
Any impacts to wolves will be fully analyzed in a Section 7 
consultation on this proposed rule.
    The Canada lynx is listed as a threatened DPS within portions of 
the contiguous United States, including Colorado and Wyoming. It is a 
candidate species in New Mexico. It was likely extirpated from Colorado 
and Utah and may not have occurred in New Mexico historically. In 1999, 
the Colorado Division of Wildlife (now CPW) reintroduced lynx into 
Colorado, and they are now a reproducing population (CPW 2011, p. 1). 
The natural ranges of wolverines and lynx naturally overlap across most 
of Alaska, Canada, and much of the occupied range in the contiguous 
United States. Within the area of range overlap, lynx and wolverines 
appear to coexist without significant conflict. It is possible that 
wolverines and lynx may occasionally kill each other. There may also be 
some limited amount of competition between wolverines and lynx for 
prey. However, as previously noted, wolverines are opportunistic 
feeders that consume a variety of foods, depending on availability. 
They primarily scavenge carrion, but also prey on small or vulnerable 
animals and are omnivorous in summer (Hornocker and Hash 1981, p. 1290; 
Banci 1994, p. 111; Copeland and Whitman 2003, p. 678). Lynx, on the 
other hand, largely prey on snowshoe hare (Lepus americanas) 
(Fitzgerald et al. 1994, p. 369). Although we know that wolverines do 
eat snowshoe hares, we do not have any information regarding the extent 
to which wolverines may utilize them. However, occasional feeding on 
hares by wolverines is not likely to affect Canada lynx food 
availability. Any potential effects to Canada lynx from wolverine 
reintroduction will be fully analyzed in a Section 7 consultation on 
this proposed rule.

 Monitoring and Evaluation

    Reintroduction Effectiveness Monitoring: Post-release monitoring 
would assess the long-term success of this experimental reintroduction 
project through determining survival, reproduction, recruitment, and 
habitat occupancy. Noninvasive techniques such as telemetry, remote 
camera surveillance, snow tracking, hair snares, and scat sampling 
would be used. Satellite collars would be the primary short-term method 
of measuring survival. Aerial monitoring for signals from radio-
collared animals would also occur periodically. Any mortality

[[Page 7901]]

signals would be investigated to confirm mortality and determine cause 
of death. Monitoring data would be evaluated annually, or as necessary, 
to assess the current status of the reintroduced population and the 
need to augment with additional animals or adjust translocation 
protocols. Long-term monitoring would be necessary to determine the 
viability of the NEP.
    Donor Population Monitoring: Donor sites may include any North 
American population of wolverines in Alaska or western Canada, but 
would not include any wolverine population within the contiguous United 
States. Wolverine population abundance and trends at donor sites would 
be monitored during and following translocation to ensure that no harm 
is done to the source population due to the removal of too many 
animals. Noninvasive monitoring techniques similar to those used for 
reintroduced wolverines would be used at donor sites.
    Monitoring Impacts to Other Listed Species: The federally 
threatened Canada lynx is the species most likely to experience some 
degree of competition with North American wolverines. Both species were 
found historically in Colorado, but were likely extirpated from the 
State in the 1900s. As noted previously, there may be limited 
competition for prey, including the potential for either species to 
prey on the other, but their coexistence across most of the species' 
ranges in North America suggests that intense competition or predation 
is not likely. Lynx reintroductions into Colorado were initiated in 
1999, and monitoring is ongoing (CPW 2011, pp. 1-2).

Findings

    Based on the above information, and using the best scientific and 
commercial data available (in accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), we find 
that releasing North American wolverines into Colorado will further the 
conservation of the species, but that this proposed population is not 
essential to the continued existence of the species in the wild.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is 
not significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while 
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent 
with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare, and make 
available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (small businesses, 
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
We are certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic 
effect on a substantial number of small entities. The following 
discussion explains our rationale.
    The areas that would be affected if this proposed rule is adopted 
include the potential release area in Colorado and adjacent areas into 
which North American wolverines may disperse, which over time could 
include significant portions of the NEP areas. Because of the 
regulatory flexibility for Federal agency actions provided by the NEP 
designation and the limited prohibitions of the Act provided for in the 
special rule; we do not expect this rule to have significant effects on 
any activities within Federal, State, or private lands within the NEP. 
In regard to section 7(a)(2), the population is treated as a threatened 
species within a National Wildlife Refuge or unit of the National Park 
Service and Federal agency consultation requirements apply. In areas 
outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or unit of the National Park 
Service, the population is treated as proposed for listing as a 
threatened species, and Federal action agencies are not required to 
consult on their activities. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies 
to confer (rather than consult) with the Service on actions that are 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species. 
However, because the NEP is, by definition, not essential to the 
survival of the species, conferring will likely never be required for 
wolverine populations within the NEP area. Furthermore, the results of 
a conference are advisory in nature and do not restrict agencies from 
carrying out, funding, or authorizing activities. In addition, section 
7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out 
programs to further the conservation of listed species, which would 
apply on any lands within the NEP area. As a result, and in accordance 
with these regulations, some modifications to proposed Federal actions 
within the NEP area may occur to benefit the wolverine, but we do not 
expect projects to be halted or substantially modified as a result of 
these regulations.
    If adopted, this proposal would not apply prohibitions on 
incidental take of the North American wolverines within the NEP area. 
The regulations implementing the Act define ``incidental take'' as take 
that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an 
otherwise lawful activity such as agricultural activities, rural 
development, skiing, camping, hiking, hunting, vehicle use of roads and 
highways, and other activities in the NEP area that are in accordance 
with Federal, State, tribal, and local laws and regulations. 
Intentional take for purposes other than authorized data collection or 
recovery purposes would not be permitted. Intentional take for research 
or recovery purposes would require a section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery 
permit under the Act.
    The principal activities on private property within the NEP area, 
in or near wolverine habitat, are grazing, timber harvest, and mining. 
However, private property within areas of suitable habitat for North 
American wolverine is very limited. We believe that the presence of the 
wolverine would not affect the use of lands for these purposes because 
there would be no new or additional economic or regulatory restrictions 
imposed upon States, non-Federal entities, or members of the public due 
to the presence of the wolverine; and Federal agencies would only have 
to

[[Page 7902]]

comply with sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(4) of the Act throughout much of 
the NEP. Therefore, this rulemaking is not expected to have any 
significant adverse impacts to activities on private lands within the 
NEP areas.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), if adopted, this proposal will not ``significantly or 
uniquely'' affect small governments. We have determined and certify 
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that 
this proposed rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more 
in any given year on local or State governments or private entities. A 
Small Government Agency Plan is not required. As explained above, small 
governments would not be affected because the proposed NEP designations 
will not place additional requirements on any city, county, or other 
local municipalities.
    This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or 
greater in any year (i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). This proposed NEP 
designation for the North American wolverine would not impose any 
additional management or protection requirements on the States or other 
entities.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the proposed rule does 
not have significant takings implications. This rule would allow for 
the take of reintroduced North American wolverines when such take is 
incidental to an otherwise legal activity, such as recreation, 
forestry, agriculture, hydroelectric power generation, and other 
activities that are in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws 
and regulations. Therefore, we do not believe that establishment of 
this NEP would conflict with existing or proposed human activities or 
hinder use of the public lands within the NEP.
    A takings implication assessment is not required because this rule: 
(1) will not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical 
invasion of property and (2) will not deny all economically beneficial 
or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This rule would 
substantially advance a legitimate government interest (conservation 
and recovery of a listed species) and would not present a barrier to 
all reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.

Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have considered 
whether this proposed rule has significant Federalism effects and have 
determined that a Federalism assessment is not required. This rule 
would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we 
requested information from and coordinated development of this proposed 
rule with the affected resource agencies in Colorado, New Mexico, and 
Wyoming. Achieving the recovery goals for this species would contribute 
to its eventual delisting and its return to State management. No 
intrusion on State policy or administration is expected; roles or 
responsibilities of Federal or State governments would not change; and 
fiscal capacity would not be substantially directly affected. The 
special rule operates to maintain the existing relationship between 
State and Federal Government and is being undertaken in coordination 
with the States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Therefore, this 
rule does not have significant Federalism effects or implications to 
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment under the provisions 
of Executive Order 13132.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that this rule would not unduly burden the 
judicial system and would meet the requirements of sections (3)(a) and 
(3)(b)(2) of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, 
which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.), require that Federal agencies obtain approval from OMB 
before collecting information from the public. This proposed rule does 
not contain any new information collections that require approval. OMB 
has approved our collection of information associated with reporting 
the taking of experimental populations (50 CFR 17.84) and assigned 
control number 1018-0095, which expires May 31, 2014. We may not 
collect or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    In compliance with all provisions of NEPA, we will analyze the 
impact of this proposed rule. We are preparing a Draft Environmental 
Assessment on this action and will fulfill our obligations under NEPA 
by the time of we publish our final rule.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the presidential memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 229511), Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249), and 
the Department of the Interior Manual Chapter 512 DM 2, we have 
considered possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and 
have determined that Tribes--Southern Ute in Colorado, Ute Mountain in 
Colorado and New Mexico, and Jicarilla Apache in New Mexico--have 
Reservation lands within the NEP areas, but these lands appear to 
include little or no suitable habitat for North American wolverines. 
The Service will fully consider information received during the public 
comment period by tribal entities on the proposed NEP designations and 
wolverine reintroduction.

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211)

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As described above, 
this rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, 
distribution, or use. Because this action is not a significant energy 
action, no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Clarity of This Regulation (E.O. 12866)

    We are required by E.O. 12866, E.O. 12988, and by the Presidential 
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This 
means that each rule we publish must:
     Be logically organized;
     Use the active voice to address readers directly;
     Use clear language rather than jargon;
     Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
     Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comment should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
and paragraphs that are

[[Page 7903]]

unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, or the 
sections where you feel lists and tables would be useful.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is 
available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-
0106, or upon request from the Montana Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the 
Service's Montana Field Office and Regional Office (see ADDRESSES and 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:



PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

     Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, 
unless otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h) add entries for ``Wolverine, North American'' to 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order 
under Mammals to read as set forth below:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Wolverine, North American........  Gulo gulo luscus....  U.S.A. (Alaska and   Where found within   T               ...........           NA     17.40(a)
                                                          northern             contiguous U.S.A.,
                                                          contiguous           except where
                                                          States); Canada.     listed as an
                                                                               experimental
                                                                               population.
Wolverine, North American........  Gulo gulo luscus....  U.S.A. (Alaska and   U.S.A. (specified    XN              ...........           NA     17.84(d)
                                                          northern             portions of CO,
                                                          contiguous           NM, and WY; see
                                                          States); Canada.     17.84(d)).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.84 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.84  Special rules--vertebrates.

* * * * *
    (d) North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus).
    (1) Where is the North American wolverine designated as a 
nonessential experimental population (NEP)?
    (i) The NEP area for the North American wolverine is within the 
species' historical range and is defined as follows: The Colorado 
counties of Alamosa, Archuleta, Boulder, Chaffee, Clear Creek, Conejos, 
Costilla, Custer, Delta, Dolores, Douglas, Eagle, El Paso, Fremont, 
Garfield, Gilpin, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Huerfano, Jackson, 
Jefferson, La Plata, Lake, Larimer, Las Animas, Mesa, Mineral, Moffat, 
Montezuma, Montrose, Ouray, Park, Pitkin, Pueblo, Rio Blanco, Rio 
Grande, Routt, Saguache, San Juan, San Miguel, Summit, and Teller; the 
New Mexico counties of Colfax, Los Alamos, Mora, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, 
San Juan, San Miguel, Santa Fe, and Taos; and the Wyoming counties of 
Albany and Carbon.
    (ii) A population of the North American wolverine is not known to 
reside in these counties. Based on habitat requirements, we do not 
expect this species to become established outside of this NEP area. 
However, if individuals of this population move outside the designated 
NEP area, they would be treated in the following way: Wolverines 
occurring in Wyoming outside of the NEP area will be considered part of 
the threatened Distinct Population Segment of North American wolverine 
unless they are known to have originated from the NEP. Wolverines 
occurring outside of the NEP areas in Colorado and New Mexico will be 
considered to have originated from the experimental populations, and 
may be captured and returned to the appropriate reintroduction area, if 
needed for the reintroduction effort, at the discretion of Colorado 
Parks and Wildlife (CPW), the affected State wildlife agency, or the 
Service. Wolverines that disperse to other states and are known to have 
originated from the reintroduced population in Colorado may also be 
returned to the reintroduction area, if needed for the reintroduction 
effort, at the discretion of CPW, the affected State wildlife agency, 
or the Service. Wolverines released within the NEP will be managed 
primarily by the State of Colorado, in cooperation with the Service, in 
accordance with this rule and the respective management plans.
    (iii) We will not change the NEP designations to ``essential 
experimental,'' ``threatened,'' or ``endangered'' within the NEP area 
without a public rulemaking. Additionally, we will not designate 
critical habitat for this NEP, as provided by 16 U.S.C. 
1539(j)(2)(C)(ii).
    (2) What activities are not allowed in the NEP area?
    (i) You may not possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship, 
import, or export by any means, North American wolverines, or parts 
thereof, that are taken or possessed in violation of paragraph (d)(3) 
of this section or in violation of the applicable State fish and 
wildlife laws or regulations or the Act. In addition wolverines may not 
be intentionally trapped, hunted, shot,

[[Page 7904]]

captured, killed, or collected in violation of paragraph (d)(3).
    (ii) You may not attempt to commit, solicit another to commit, or 
cause to be committed any offense defined in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of 
this section.
    (3) What take is allowed in the NEP area? Take of this species that 
is accidental and incidental to an otherwise legal activity, such as 
agriculture, forestry, wildlife management, recreation, land 
development, transportation, trapping, and other activities, is not 
prohibited. Additionally, take prohibitions do not apply to legally 
acquired wolverines held in captivity.
    (4) How will the effectiveness of these reintroductions be 
monitored? We and partners will prepare periodic progress reports and 
fully evaluate this reintroduction effort after 5 years beginning at 
the time of the first wolverine release to determine whether to 
continue or terminate the reintroduction effort.
    (5) Note: Map of the NEP area for the North American wolverine 
follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04FE13.000



[[Page 7905]]


    Dated: January 16, 2013.
Michael J. Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-01479 Filed 2-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C