[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64799-64800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31837]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding for 
a Petition To Delist the Red Wolf

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces a 90-day 
finding for a petition to delist the red wolf (Canis rufus) under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The Service finds that the 
petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that delisting this species may be warranted.

DATES: The finding announced in this notice was made on August 28, 
1997.

ADDRESSES: Information, comments, or questions regarding this petition 
may be submitted to the Red Wolf Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, North Carolina 28801. 
The petition finding, supporting data, and comments are available for 
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the 
above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: V. Gary Henry (704/258-3939, Ext. 226) 
at the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that the Service make 
a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a 
species presents substantial scientific or commercial information 
demonstrating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the 
maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days 
of receipt of the petition, and the finding is to be published promptly 
in the Federal Register. If the petition is found to present the 
required information, the Service is also required to promptly commence 
a review of the status of the species.
    The Service has made a finding on a petition to delist the red wolf 
(Canis rufus). The petition, dated August 5, 1995, was submitted by Mr. 
Rob Gordon, Executive Director, National Wilderness Institute, and was 
received by the Service on August 15, 1995.
    The processing of this petition conforms with the Service's final 
listing priority guidance published in the Federal Register on December 
5, 1996 (61 FR 64475). The guidance clarifies the order in which the 
Service will continue to process the backlog of rulemakings during 
fiscal year 1997 following two related events: (1) the lifting, on 
April 26, 1996, of the moratorium on final listings imposed on April 
10, 1995 (Public Law 104-6), and (2) the restoration of significant 
funding for listing through passage of the omnibus budget 
reconciliation law on April 26, 1996, following severe funding 
constraints imposed by a number of continuing resolutions between 
November 1995 and April 1996. The guidance calls for giving highest 
priority to handling emergency situations (tier 1), second highest 
priority (tier 2) to resolving the listing status of the outstanding 
proposed listings, and third priority (tier 3) to resolving the 
conservation status of candidate species and processing administrative 
findings on petitions. The processing of this petition falls under tier 
3. At this time, the Southeast Region has no pending tier 1 actions and 
pending tier 2 actions are near completion. Additionally, the guidance 
states that ``effective April 1, 1997, the Service will concurrently 
undertake all of the activities presently included in Tiers 1, 2, and 
3'' (61 FR 64480). The Service announced an extension on October 23, 
1997 (62 FR 55268), of the guidance for fiscal year 1997. The 1997 
guidance will remain in effect until final guidance for fiscal year 
1998 is published in the Federal Register.
    The petition presents the contention that the red wolf is a gray 
wolf (Canis lupus)/coyote (C. latrans) hybrid and references six 
literature citations to support the discussion of wolf/coyote 
hybridization. One of these citations includes four separate papers. 
The petition also cites two references regarding the reason for 
delisting other species. The petitioner concluded that those delistings 
were due to errors in the original data and contends that delisting the 
red wolf is also valid because of original data error. The petitioner 
also contends that since the red wolf is a cross between two species 
that are secure and plentiful, the red wolf is not the best available 
repository of genetic material of an endangered species that could be 
recovered through back-breeding.
    The Service has reviewed the petition, the literature cited in the 
petition, other available literature and data, and has consulted with 
experts on wolves and molecular genetics. On the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial information available, the Service finds that 
the petition does not present substantial information indicating that 
delisting this species may be warranted. The following three points 
summarize the reasons for this finding:
    1. Neither the submitted data nor other available data provides 
conclusive evidence for the contention that the red wolf is a wolf/
coyote hybrid.
    The petition included attached literature references. These 
references consisted of a July 1995 Scientific American article by 
Robert K. Wayne and John L. Gittleman and the list of further reading 
references in that same article. The petition states that substantial 
new evidence in the form of peer-reviewed scientific papers 
demonstrates the hybrid origin of the red wolf, and references the 
research of Wayne and Gittleman as the basis, thus indirectly focusing 
on the Wayne and Gittleman article. This article is not a peer-reviewed 
paper and only the senior author has published original research 
regarding the red wolf. The Service has reviewed the references, along 
with other data, to determine their content, significance, and 
relevance to the petitioned action. The Service views the data 
presented in the petition as (1) a selective misrepresentation of the 
information contained in the cited references and (2) a 
misrepresentation of the available scientific and commercial data.
    An earlier petition to delist the red wolf as a hybrid based on the 
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) results of Wayne and Jenks (1991) was found 
not to present substantial information to indicate that delisting was 
warranted (57 FR 1246; 1992). Much of the supporting evidence for that 
conclusion is repeated in the finding for this petition. However, the 
primary focus in this finding is the results and interpretations 
regarding the nuclear DNA results of Roy et al. (1996); Roy et al. 
(1994); and Roy et al. (1994).

[[Page 64800]]

    2. The petition misinterprets recent DNA data as constituting 
conclusive evidence of hybrid origin of the red wolf.
    The DNA studies referenced in the petition support the hypothesis 
of past hybridizations between the three Canis species and that the 
extent of hybridization between wolves and coyotes in the southeastern 
United States was extensive. However, the data do not provide evidence 
of any continuing coyote influence on nuclear DNA in red wolves, and 
selective captive breeding provides a likely scenario for the possible 
elimination of such coyote nuclear DNA from existing red wolves. The 
data do not provide conclusive evidence of the hybrid origin of red 
wolves or any evidence of phenotypic, morphological, or behavioral 
traits of coyotes persisting in red wolves.
    3. The best scientific and commercial data available support the 
continued listing of the red wolf.
    The Service is required to use the best scientific and commercial 
data available when making a decision regarding listing or delisting. 
As discussed above, the scientific data supporting hybridization in red 
wolves came from a few related studies. These studies suggest past 
hybridization, but provide no support for continuing hybridization in 
the existing red wolf populations. The remainder of the relevant 
scientific data shows that historic and current red wolves lack coyote, 
gray wolf, or hybrid phenotypic and morphological traits. Dowling et 
al. (1992) and Cronin (1993) specifically address the fact that all 
available data must be applied to the question and that molecular 
characters are only one piece of the puzzle and are no more valid than 
other types of scientific evidence, including morphology, behavior, 
ecology, ontogeny, and paleontology.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others, 
is available upon request from the Red Wolf Recovery Coordinator (see 
ADDRESSES section).
    Author. The primary author of this document is V. Gary Henry, Red 
Wolf Recovery Coordinator (see ADDRESSES section).

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act (16 
U.S.C 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: August 28, 1997.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-31837 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P