Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the Western Great Lakes Population of Gray Wolves as a Distinct Population Segment; Removing the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment of the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 15266-15305 [06-2802]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15266-15305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2802]



[[Page 15265]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants--Western Great Lakes 
Population of Gray Wolves; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 15266]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AU54


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the 
Western Great Lakes Population of Gray Wolves as a Distinct Population 
Segment; Removing the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment 
of the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) propose to 
establish the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (WGL DPS) 
of the gray wolf (Canis lupus). This DPS includes all of Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, and Michigan; the eastern half of North Dakota and South 
Dakota; the northern half of Iowa; the northern portions of Illinois 
and Iowa; and the northwestern portion of Ohio. We further propose to 
remove the WGL DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
established under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 
We propose these actions because available data indicate that this DPS 
no longer meets the definitions of threatened or endangered under the 
Act. The threats have been reduced or eliminated as evidenced by a 
population that is stable or increasing in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 
Michigan, and greatly exceeds the numerical recovery criteria 
established in its recovery plan. Completed State wolf management plans 
will provide adequate protection and management of the species if 
delisted in the WGL DPS. The proposed rule, if finalized, would remove 
this DPS from the protections of the Act. This proposed rule would also 
remove the currently designated critical habitat for the gray wolf in 
Minnesota and Michigan and remove the current special regulations for 
gray wolves in Minnesota.

DATES: We request that comments be received by June 26, 2006 in order 
to ensure their consideration in our final decision. We have scheduled 
four informational meetings followed by public hearings for May 8, 10, 
16, and 17, 2006. At each location the informational meeting will be 
held from 6 to 7:15 p.m., followed by a public hearing from 7:30 to 9 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and other information, identified by 
``RIN 1018-AU54,'' by any of the following methods:
     Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Web Site: https://
www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/ Follow the instructions found there.
     E-mail: WGLwolfdelist@fws.gov
     Fax: 612-713-5292. Put ``WGL Wolf Delisting; RIN 1018-
AU54'' in the subject line.
     Mail: WGL Wolf Delisting, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111-
4056.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: WGL Wolf Delisting, Ecological 
Services--Room 646, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Whipple Federal 
Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions found there for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and 
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the 
rulemaking process, see the ``Public Comments Solicited'' heading of 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Hearings: We have scheduled informational meetings followed by 
public hearings at the following four locations:
     May 8, 2006--Duluth, Minnesota. Meeting and hearing will 
be in the Northern Lights I Room at the Inn on Lake Superior, 350 Canal 
Park Drive.
     May 10, 2006--Wausau, Wisconsin. Meeting and hearing will 
be at the Westwood Conference Room of the Westwood Center, 1800 West 
Bridge Street.
     May 16, 2006--Marquette, Michigan. Meeting and hearing 
will be in the Michigan Room of the Don H. Bottum University Center, 
Northern Michigan University, 540 West Kaye Avenue. (Use parking lot 
8.)
     May 17, 2006--Grayling, Michigan. Meeting and hearing will 
be held in the Evergreen Room of the Holiday Inn, 2650 Business Loop 
South I-75.
    Additional details on the hearings, including maps, will be 
provided on our Web site (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours at our Midwest Regional 
Office: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, 1 Federal 
Drive, Ft. Snelling, MN 55111-4056. Call 612-713-5350 to make 
arrangements. The comments and materials we receive during the comment 
period also will be made available for public inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours following the close of the 
comment period. See the ``Public Comments Solicited'' section of 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for location information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Ressnider, 612-713-5350. Direct 
all questions or requests for additional information to the Service 
using the Gray Wolf Phone Line--612-713-7337, facsimile--612-713-5292, 
the general gray wolf electronic mail address--GRAYWOLFMAIL@FWS.GOV, or 
write to: GRAY WOLF QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal 
Building, 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, MN 55111-4056. Additional 
information is also available on our World Wide Web site at https://
www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf. In the event that our internet connection is 
not functional, please contact the Service by the alternative methods 
mentioned above. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-
impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY 
assistance. Do not submit comments or other information by the methods 
described in this paragraph.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves

    Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the Canidae, or dog 
family, with adults ranging from 18 to 80 kilograms (kg) (40 to 175 
pounds (lb)) depending upon sex and subspecies (Mech 1974). The average 
weight of male wolves in Wisconsin is 35 kg (77 lb) and ranges from 26 
to 46 kg (57 to 102 lb), while females average 28 kg (62 lb) and range 
from 21 to 34 kg (46 to 75 lb) (Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources (WI DNR) 1999). Wolves' fur color is frequently a grizzled 
gray, but it can vary from pure white to coal black. Wolves may appear 
similar to coyotes (Canis latrans) and some domestic dog breeds (such 
as the German shepherd or Siberian husky) (C. lupus familiaris). 
Wolves' longer legs, larger feet, wider head and snout, and straight 
tail distinguish them from both coyotes and dogs.
    Wolves primarily are predators of medium and large mammals. Wild 
prey species in North America include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 
virginianus) and mule deer (O. hemionus), moose (Alces alces), elk 
(Cervus elaphus), woodland caribou (Rangifer caribou) and barren ground 
caribou (R. arcticus), bison (Bison bison), muskox (Ovibos

[[Page 15267]]

moschatus), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) and Dall sheep (O. dalli), 
mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), beaver (Castor canadensis), 
snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), 
with small mammals, birds, and large invertebrates sometimes being 
taken (Chavez and Gese 2005, Mech 1974, Stebler 1944, WI DNR 1999, 
Huntzinger et al. 2005). In the WGLDPS, during the last 25 years, 
wolves have also killed domestic animals including horses (Equus 
caballus), cattle (Bos taurus), sheep (Ovis aries), goats (Capra 
hircus), llamas (Lama glama), pigs (Sus scrofa), geese (Anser sp.), 
ducks (Anas sp.), turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo), chickens (Gallus sp.), 
guinea fowl (Numida meleagris), pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), dogs, 
cats (Felis catus), and captive white-tailed deer (Paul 2004, 2005; 
Wydeven 1998; Wydeven et al. 2001; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 1999, 2000, 
2001, 2005).
    Wolves are social animals, normally living in packs of 2 to 12 
wolves. Winter pack size in Michigan's Upper Peninsula (UP) averaged 
from 2.7 to 4.6 wolves during the 1995 through 2005 period and ranged 
from 2 to 14 wolves per pack (Huntzinger et al. 2005). Pack size in 
Wisconsin is similar, averaging 3.8 to 4.1 wolves per pack, and ranging 
from 2 to 11 wolves in winter 2004-2005 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005). 
In Minnesota the average pack size found in the 1988-89, 1997-98, and 
2003-2004 winter surveys was higher--5.55, 5.4, and 5.3 wolves per 
pack, respectively (Erb and Benson 2004).
    Packs are primarily family groups consisting of a breeding pair, 
their pups from the current year, offspring from one or two previous 
years, and occasionally an unrelated wolf. Packs typically occupy, and 
defend from other packs and individual wolves, a territory of 50 to 550 
square kilometers (km\2\) (20 to 214 square miles (mi\2\)). Midwest 
wolf packs tend to occupy territories on the lower end of this size 
range. Michigan Upper Peninsula territories averaged 267 km\2\ in 2000-
2001 (Drummer et al. 2002), Wisconsin territories 37 mi\2\ in 2004-2005 
(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005), and Minnesota territory size averaged 
102 km\2\ in 2003-2004 (Erb and Benson 2004). Normally, only the top-
ranking (``alpha'') male and female in each pack breed and produce 
pups. Litters are born from early April into May; they range from 1 to 
11 pups, but generally include 4 to 6 pups (Michigan Department of 
Natural Resources (MI DNR) 1997; USFWS 1992; USFWS et al. 2001). 
Normally a pack has a single litter annually, but the production of 2 
or 3 litters in one year has been routinely documented in Yellowstone 
National Park (USFWS et al. 2002; Smith et al. 2005).
    Yearling wolves frequently disperse from their natal packs, 
although some remain with their natal pack. Adult wolves and pups older 
than 5 months also may disperse but at much lower frequencies (Fuller 
1989). Dispersers may range over large areas as lone animals after 
leaving their natal pack or they may locate suitable unoccupied habitat 
and a member of the opposite sex and begin their own pack. These 
dispersal movements allow a wolf population to quickly expand and 
colonize areas of suitable habitat that are nearby or even those that 
are isolated by a broad area of unsuitable habitat. Additional details 
on extraterritorial movements are found in Delineating the Midwestern 
Gray Wolf Population DPS, below.

Recovery

    Background--The gray wolf historically occurred across most of 
North America, Europe, and Asia. In North America, gray wolves formerly 
occurred from the northern reaches of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland to 
the central mountains and the high interior plateau of southern Mexico. 
The only areas of the conterminous United States that apparently lacked 
gray wolf populations since the last ice age are parts of California 
(but some authorities question the reported historical absence of gray 
wolves from parts of California (Carbyn in litt. 2000; Mech, U.S. 
Geological Survey, in litt. 2000)) and portions of the eastern and 
southeastern United States (areas occupied by the red wolf or a 
recently suggested eastern wolf, C. lycaon (Wilson et al. 2000; Grewal 
et al. 2004; White et al. 2001)). In addition, wolves were generally 
absent from the deserts and mountaintop areas of the western United 
States (Young and Goldman 1944; Hall 1981; Mech 1974; Nowak 2000).
    European settlers in North America and their cultures often had 
superstitions and fears of wolves and a unified desire to eliminate 
them (Boitani 1995). Their attitudes, coupled with perceived and real 
conflicts between wolves and human activities along the western 
frontier, led to widespread persecution of wolves. Poison, trapping, 
snaring, and shooting spurred by Federal, State, and local government 
bounties extirpated this once widespread species from nearly all of its 
historical range in the 48 conterminous States.
    Recovery Planning--Gray wolf populations in the United States are 
currently protected under the Act as a threatened species in Minnesota 
and endangered in the remaining 47 conterminous states and Mexico (50 
CFR 17.11(h)), by separate regulations establishing three non-essential 
experimental populations (50 CFR 17.84(i), (k), and (n)), and by 
special regulations for Minnesota wolves (50 CFR 17.40(d)). The current 
status of wolves is discussed below under Previous Federal Action. At 
the time the Act was passed, only several hundred wolves occurred in 
northeastern Minnesota and on Isle Royale, Michigan, and a few 
scattered wolves may have occurred in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 
Montana, the American Southwest, and Mexico.
    We approved the 1978 Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf 
(Recovery Plan) on May 2, 1978 (USFWS 1978). We subsequently approved 
an updated and revised version on January 31, 1992 (USFWS 1992), which 
replaced the 1978 Recovery Plan. The 1978 Recovery Plan and its 1992 
revision were intended to apply to the eastern timber wolf, Canis lupus 
lycaon, thought at that time to be the wolf subspecies that 
historically inhabited the United States east of the Great Plains 
(Young and Goldman 1944; Hall 1981; Mech 1974). Thus, these Recovery 
Plans cover a geographic triangle extending from Minnesota to Maine and 
into northeastern Florida. The Recovery Plan was based on the best 
available information on wolf taxonomy at the time of its original 
publication and subsequent revision. Since the publication of those 
Recovery Plans, several studies have produced conflicting results 
regarding the taxonomic identity of the wolf that historically occupied 
the eastern States. While this issue remains unresolved, this recovery 
program has continued to focus on recovering the wolf population that 
survived in, and has expanded outward from, northeastern Minnesota, 
regardless of its taxonomic identity.
    The 1978 Recovery Plan and the 1992 revised plan contain the same 
two delisting criteria. The first delisting criterion states that the 
survival of the wolf in Minnesota must be assured. We, and the Eastern 
Timber Wolf Recovery Team (Rolf Peterson, Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery 
Team, in litt. 1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b), have concluded that this 
first delisting criterion remains valid. It addresses a need for 
reasonable assurances that future State, Tribal, and Federal wolf 
management and protection will maintain a viable recovered population 
of gray wolves

[[Page 15268]]

within the borders of Minnesota for the foreseeable future.
    Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf population is vital because the 
remaining genetic diversity of gray wolves in the eastern United States 
was carried by the several hundred wolves that survived in the State 
into the early 1970s. The Recovery Team insisted that the remnant 
Minnesota wolf population be maintained and protected to achieve wolf 
recovery in the eastern United States. The successful growth of that 
remnant population has maintained and maximized the representation of 
that genetic diversity among gray wolves in the WGL DPS. Furthermore, 
the Recovery Team established a planning goal of 1,250-1,400 animals 
for the Minnesota wolf population (USFWS 1992), which would increase 
the likelihood of maintaining its genetic diversity over the long term. 
This large Minnesota wolf population also provides the resiliency to 
reduce the adverse impacts of unpredictable demographic and 
environmental events. Furthermore, the Recovery Plan promotes a wolf 
population across 4 of 5 wolf management zones, encompassing about 40 
percent of the State, further adding to the resiliency of the Minnesota 
wolf population. The State's wolf population currently is estimated to 
be more than double that numerical goal, and occupies all 4 management 
zones.
    The second delisting criterion in the Recovery Plan states that at 
least one viable wolf population should be reestablished within the 
historical range of the eastern timber wolf outside of Minnesota and 
Isle Royale, Michigan. The Recovery Plan provides two options for 
reestablishing this second viable wolf population. If it is an isolated 
population, that is, located more than 100 miles from the Minnesota 
wolf population, the second population should consist of at least 200 
wolves for at least 5 years (based upon late-winter population 
estimates) to be considered viable. Alternatively, if the second 
population is not isolated, that is, located within 100 miles of a 
self-sustaining wolf population (for example, the Minnesota wolf 
population), a reestablished second population having a minimum of 100 
wolves for at least 5 years would be considered viable.
    The Recovery Plan does not specify where in the eastern United 
States the second population should be reestablished. Therefore, the 
second population could be located anywhere within the triangular 
Minnesota-Maine-Florida area covered by the Recovery Plan, except on 
Isle Royale (Michigan) or within Minnesota. The 1978 Recovery Plan 
identified potential gray wolf restoration areas throughout the eastern 
United States, including northern Wisconsin and Michigan and areas as 
far south as the Great Smoky Mountains and adjacent areas in Tennessee, 
North Carolina, and Georgia. The revised 1992 Recovery Plan dropped 
from consideration the more southern potential restoration areas, 
because recovery efforts for the red wolf were being initiated in those 
areas. The 1992 revision retained potential gray wolf re-establishment 
areas in northern Wisconsin, the UP of Michigan, the Adirondack Forest 
Preserve of New York, a small area in eastern Maine, and a larger area 
of northwestern Maine and adjacent northern New Hampshire (USFWS 1992). 
Neither the 1978 nor the 1992 recovery criteria suggest that the 
restoration of the gray wolf throughout all or most of its historical 
range in the eastern United States, or to all of these potential re-
establishment areas, is necessary to achieve recovery under the Act.
    In 1998, the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team clarified the 
delisting criterion for the second population (i.e., the wolf 
population that had developed in northern Wisconsin and the adjacent 
Upper Peninsula of Michigan). It stated that the numerical delisting 
criterion for the Wisconsin-Michigan population will be achieved when 6 
consecutive late-winter wolf surveys documented that the population 
equaled or exceeded 100 wolves (excluding Isle Royale wolves) for the 5 
consecutive years between the 6 surveys (Rolf Peterson, Eastern Timber 
Wolf Recovery Team, in litt. 1998). This second population is less than 
200 miles from the Minnesota wolf population, and it has had a late-
winter population exceeding 100 animals since 1994, and exceeding 200 
animals since 1996, thus the recovery goals have been met.
    The Recovery Plan has no goals or criteria for the gray wolf 
population on 546 sq km (210 sq mi) of Isle Royale, Michigan. The wolf 
population of Isle Royale is not considered to be an important factor 
in the recovery or long-term survival of wolves in the WGL DPS. This 
wolf population is small, varying from 12 to 30 animals in 2 or 3 packs 
over the last 20 years (Peterson and Vucetich 2005). Due to its small 
insular nature, it is almost completely isolated from other wolf 
populations and has never exceeded 50 animals. For these reasons, the 
Recovery Plan does not include these wolves in its recovery criteria, 
but recommends the continuation of research and complete protection for 
these wolves that is assured by National Park Service management (USFWS 
1992). Unless stated otherwise in this proposal, subsequent discussions 
of Michigan wolves do not refer to wolves on Isle Royale.
    The Recovery Plan recognizes the potential for wolves to come into 
conflict with human activities, and that such conflicts are likely to 
impede wolf recovery unless they can be reduced to socially tolerated 
levels. Among major recovery actions identified in the 1992 Recovery 
Plan is the need to ``minimize losses of domestic animals due to wolf 
predation.'' [p.6] The Recovery Plan recommends measures to avoid such 
conflicts and to reduce conflicts when they develop. These measures 
include promoting the re-establishment of wolf populations only in 
areas where such conflicts are likely to be relatively infrequent, a 
recommendation that wolf density in peripheral wolf range in Minnesota 
(Zone 4, 26 percent of the State) be limited to an average of one wolf 
per 50 square miles (128 sq km) [p.15], and a recommendation that 
wolves that move into Minnesota Zone 5 (about 61 percent of the State) 
``should be eliminated by any legal means'' because livestock 
production and other human activities make that area ``not suitable for 
wolves.'' [p.20]
    When wolves kill domestic animals, the Recovery Plan recommends 
that government agents remove those wolves. In Minnesota Zone 1 (4,462 
sq mi in northeastern Minnesota), wolf removal should be by 
livetrapping and translocation, whereas in Zones 2 and 3 (1,864 and 
3,501 sq mi in northeastern and north central Minnesota, respectively), 
those wolves may be removed by any means including lethal take. In 
Zones 4 and 5, the Recovery Plan recommends preventive depredation 
control be conducted by trapping wolves in the vicinity of previous 
depredation sites. Similarly, the Recovery Plan recommends management 
practices ``including the potential taking of problem animals'' for 
wolf populations that develop in Wisconsin and Michigan. [p.34] 
(Service 1992). Neither the trapping and translocations (Minnesota Zone 
1) nor the preventive depredation control (Zones 4 and 5) have been 
implemented. Lethal taking of depredating wolves in Wisconsin and 
Michigan has occurred only on a very limited basis. More detailed 
discussion of wolf depredation control activities in the Midwest is 
found in Factor D.

[[Page 15269]]

Recovery of the Gray Wolf in the Western Great Lakes

Minnesota

    During the pre-1965 period of wolf bounties and legal public 
trapping, wolves persisted in the remote northeastern portion of 
Minnesota, but were eliminated from the rest of the State. Estimated 
numbers of Minnesota wolves before their listing under the Act in 1974 
include 450 to 700 in 1950-53 (Fuller et al. 1992, Stenlund 1955), 350 
to 700 in 1963 (Cahalane 1964), 750 in 1970 (Leirfallom 1970), 736 to 
950 in 1971-72 (Fuller et al. 1992), and 500 to 1,000 in 1973 (Mech and 
Rausch 1975). Although these estimates were based upon different 
methodologies and are not directly comparable, each puts the pre-
listing abundance of wolves in Minnesota at 1,000 or less. This was the 
only significant wolf population in the United States outside Alaska 
during those time-periods.
    After the wolf was listed as endangered under the Act, Minnesota 
population estimates increased (see Table 1 below). Mech estimated the 
population to be 1,000 to 1,200 in 1976 (USFWS 1978), and Berg and 
Kuehn (1982) estimated that there were 1,235 wolves in 138 packs in the 
winter of 1978-79. In 1988-89, the Minnesota Department of Natural 
Resources (MN DNR) repeated the 1978-79 survey and also used a second 
method to estimate wolf numbers in the State. The resulting independent 
estimates were 1,500 and 1,750 wolves in at least 233 packs (Fuller et 
al. 1992).
    During the winter of 1997-98, a statewide wolf population and 
distribution survey was repeated by MN DNR, using methods similar to 
those of the two previous surveys. Field staff of Federal, State, 
Tribal, and county land management agencies and wood products companies 
were queried to identify occupied wolf range in Minnesota. Data from 
five concurrent radio telemetry studies tracking 36 packs, 
representative of the entire Minnesota wolf range, were used to 
determine average pack size and territory area. Those figures were then 
used to calculate a statewide estimate of wolf and pack numbers in the 
occupied range, with single (non-pack) wolves factored into the 
estimate (Berg and Benson 1999).

 Table 1.--Gray wolf winter populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (excluding Isle Royale) from 1976
                through 2005. Note that there are several years between the first four estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                           Minnesota       Wisconsin       Michigan      WI & MI Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1976............................................     1,000-1,200
1978-79.........................................           1,235
1988-89.........................................     1,500-1,750              31               3              34
1993-94.........................................                              57              57             114
1994-95.........................................                              83              80             163
1995-96.........................................                              99             116             215
1996-97.........................................                             148             112             260
1997-98.........................................           2,445             180             140             320
1998-99.........................................                             205             174             379
1999-2000.......................................                             248             216             464
2000-01.........................................                             257             249             506
2001-02.........................................                             327             278             604
2002-03.........................................                             335             321             656
2003-04.........................................           3,020             373             360             733
2004-05.........................................                             425             405             830
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1997-98 survey concluded that approximately 2,445 wolves 
existed in about 385 packs in Minnesota during that winter period (90 
percent confidence interval from 1,995 to 2,905 wolves) (Berg and 
Benson 1999). This figure indicated the continued growth of the 
Minnesota wolf population at an average rate of about 3.7 percent 
annually from 1970 through 1997-98. Between 1979 and 1989 the annual 
growth rate was about 3 percent, and it increased to between 4 and 5 
percent in the next decade (Berg and Benson 1999; Fuller et al. 1992). 
As of the 1998 survey, the number of Minnesota wolves was approximately 
twice the planning goal for Minnesota, as specified in the Eastern 
Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992).
    Minnesota DNR conducted another survey of the State's wolf 
population and range during the winter of 2003-04, again using similar 
methodology. That survey concluded that an estimated 3,020 wolves in 
485 packs occurred in Minnesota at that time (90 percent confidence 
interval for this estimate is 2,301 to 3,708 wolves). Due to the wide 
overlap in the confidence intervals for the 1997-98 and 2003-04 
surveys, the authors conclude that, although the population point 
estimate increased by about 24 percent over the 6 years between the 
surveys (about 3.5 percent annually), there was no statistically 
significant increase in the State's wolf population during that period 
(Erb and Benson 2004).
    As wolves increased in abundance in Minnesota, they also expanded 
their distribution. During 1948-53, the major wolf range was estimated 
to be about 11,954 sq mi (31,080 sq km) (Stenlund 1955). A 1970 
questionnaire survey resulted in an estimated wolf range of 14,769 sq 
mi (38,400 sq km) (calculated by Fuller et al. 1992 from Leirfallom 
1970). Fuller et al. (1992), using data from Berg and Kuehn (1982), 
estimated that Minnesota primary wolf range included 14,038 sq mi 
(36,500 sq km) during winter 1978-79. By 1982-83, pairs or breeding 
packs of wolves were estimated to occupy an area of 22,000 sq mi 
(57,050 sq km) in northern Minnesota (Mech et al. 1988). That study 
also identified an additional 15,577 sq mi (40,500 sq km of peripheral 
range, where habitat appeared suitable but no wolves or only lone 
wolves existed. The 1988-89 study produced an estimate of 23,165 sq mi 
(60,200 sq km) as the contiguous wolf range at that time in Minnesota 
(Fuller et al. 1992), an increase of 65 percent over the primary range 
calculated for 1978-79. The 1997-98 study concluded that the contiguous 
wolf range had expanded to 33,971 sq mi (88,325 sq km), a 47 percent 
increase in 9 years (Berg and Benson 1999). By that time the Minnesota 
wolf population was using most of the occupied and peripheral range 
identified by Mech et al. (1988). The wolf population in Minnesota had 
recovered to the point that its contiguous range covered approximately 
40 percent of the State

[[Page 15270]]

during 1997-98. In contrast, the 2003-04 survey failed to show a 
continuing expansion of wolf range in Minnesota, and any actual 
increase in wolf numbers since 1997-98 was attributed to increased wolf 
density within a stabilized range (Erb and Benson 2004).
    Although Minnesota DNR does not conduct a formal wolf population 
survey annually, it includes the species in its annual carnivore track 
survey. This survey, standardized and operational since 1994, provides 
an annual index of abundance for several species of large carnivores by 
counting their tracks along 51 standardized survey routes in the 
northern portion of Minnesota. Based on these surveys, the wolf track 
indices for winter 2004-05 showed little change from the previous 
winter, and no statistically significant trends are apparent since 
1994. However, the data show some indication of an increase in wolf 
density (Erb 2005). Thus, the winter track survey results are 
consistent with a stable or slowly increasing wolf population in 
northern Minnesota over this 11-year period.

Wisconsin

    Wolves were considered to have been extirpated from Wisconsin by 
1960. No formal attempts were made to monitor the State's wolf 
population from 1960 until 1979. From 1960 through 1975, individual 
wolves and an occasional wolf pair were reported. There is no 
documentation, however, of any wolf reproduction occurring in 
Wisconsin, and the wolves that were reported may have been dispersing 
animals from Minnesota.
    Wolves are believed to have returned to Wisconsin in more 
substantial numbers in about 1975, and the WI DNR began wolf population 
monitoring in 1979-80 and estimated a statewide population of 25 wolves 
at that time (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2001). This population remained 
relatively stable for several years then declined slightly to 
approximately 15 to 19 wolves in the mid-1980s. In the late 1980s, the 
Wisconsin wolf population began an increase that has continued into 
2005 (Wydeven et al. 2005).
    Wisconsin DNR intensively surveys its wolf population annually 
using a combination of aerial, ground, and satellite radio telemetry, 
complemented by snow tracking and wolf sign surveys (Wydeven et al. 
1995, 2005). Wolves are trapped from May through September and fitted 
with radio collars, with a goal of having at least one radio-collared 
wolf in about half of the wolf packs in Wisconsin. Aerial locations are 
obtained from each functioning radio-collar about once per week, and 
pack territories are estimated and mapped from the movements of the 
individuals who exhibit localized patterns. From December through 
March, the pilots make special efforts to visually locate and count the 
individual wolves in each radio-tracked pack. Snow tracking is used to 
supplement the information gained from aerial sightings and to provide 
pack size estimates for packs lacking a radio-collared wolf. Tracking 
is done by assigning survey blocks to trained trackers who then drive 
snow-covered roads in their blocks and follow all wolf tracks they 
encounter. Snowmobiles are used to locate wolf tracks in more remote 
areas with few roads. The results of the aerial and ground surveys are 
carefully compared to properly separate packs and to avoid over-
counting (Wydeven et al. 2003). The number of wolves in each pack is 
estimated based on the aerial and ground observations made of the 
individual wolves in each pack over the winter.
    Because the monitoring methods focus on wolf packs, lone wolves are 
likely undercounted in Wisconsin. As a result, the annual population 
estimates are probably slight underestimates of the actual wolf 
population within the State during the late-winter period. Fuller 
(1989) noted that lone wolves are estimated to compose from 2 to 29 
percent. Also, these estimates are made at the low point of the annual 
wolf population cycle; the late-winter surveys produce an estimate of 
the wolf population at a time when most winter mortality has already 
occurred and before the birth of pups. Thus, Wisconsin wolf population 
estimates are conservative in two respects: they undercount lone wolves 
and the count is made at the annual low point of the population. This 
methodology is consistent with the recovery criteria established in the 
1992 Recovery Plan, which established numerical criteria to be measured 
with data obtained by late-winter surveys.
    During the July 2004 through June 2005 period, 63 radio collars 
were active on Wisconsin wolves, including 7 dispersers. At the 
beginning of the winter of 2004-05 radio collars were functioning in at 
least 39 packs. An estimated 425 to 455 wolves in 108 packs, including 
11 to 13 wolves on Native American reservations, were in the State in 
early 2005, representing a 14 percent increase from 2004 (Wydeven et 
al. 2005a).
    Wisconsin population estimates for 1985 through 2005 increased from 
15 to 425-455 wolves (see Table 1 above) and from 4 to 108 packs 
(Wydeven et al. 2005a). This represents an annual increase of 21 
percent through 2000, and an average annual increase of 11 percent for 
the most recent five years. This declining rate of increase may 
indicate that the Wisconsin wolf population is nearing the carrying 
capacity in the State.
    In 1995, wolves were first documented in Jackson County, Wisconsin, 
well to the south of the northern Wisconsin area occupied by other 
Wisconsin wolf packs. The number of wolves in this central Wisconsin 
area has dramatically increased since that time. During the winter of 
2004-05, there were 42-44 wolves in 11 packs in the central forest wolf 
range (Zone 2 in the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan) and an additional 
19 wolves in 6 packs in the marginal habitat in Zone 3, located between 
Zone 1 (northern forest wolf range) and Zone 2 (Wisconsin DNR 1999, 
Wydeven et al. 2005a) (see Figure 3).
    During the winter of 2002-03, 7 wolves were believed to be 
primarily occupying Native American reservation lands in Wisconsin 
(Wydeven et al. 2003); this increased to 11 to 13 wolves in the winter 
of 2004-05 (Wydeven in litt. 2005). The 2004-05 animals consisted of 2 
packs totaling 7 to 9 wolves on the Bad River Chippewa Reservation and 
a pack of 4 wolves on the Lac Courtes Oreilles Chippewa Reservation, 
both in northern Wisconsin. There were an additional 24 to 26 wolves 
that spent some time on reservation lands in the winter of 2004-05, 
including the Lac du Flambeau Chippewa Reservation, the Red Cliff 
Chippewa Reservation, the St. Croix Chippewa Reservation, the Menominee 
Reservation, and the Ho Chunk Reservation. It is likely that the 
Potowatomi Reservation lands will also host wolves in the near future 
(Wydeven in litt. 2005). Of these reservations the Ho-Chunk, St. Croix 
Chippewa, and Potowatomi are composed mostly of scattered parcels of 
land, and are not likely to provide significant amounts of wolf 
habitat.
    In 2002, wolf numbers in Wisconsin alone surpassed the Federal 
criterion for a second population, as identified in the 1992 Recovery 
Plan (i.e., 100 wolves for a minimum of 5 consecutive years, as 
measured by 6 consecutive late-winter counts). Furthermore, in 2004 
Wisconsin wolf numbers exceeded the Recovery Plan criterion of 200 
animals for 6 successive late-winter surveys for an isolated wolf 
population. The Wisconsin wolf population continues to increase, 
although the slower rates of increase seen since 2000 may be the first

[[Page 15271]]

indications that the State's wolf population growth and geographic 
expansion are beginning to level off. Mladenoff et al. (1997) and 
Wydeven et al. (1997) estimated that occupancy of primary wolf habitat 
in Wisconsin would produce a wolf population of about 380 animals in 
the northern forest area of the State plus an additional 20-40 wolves 
in the central forest area. If wolves occupy secondary habitat (areas 
with a 10-50 percent probability of supporting a wolf pack) in the 
State, their estimated population could be 50 percent higher or more 
(Wydeven et al. 1997) resulting in a statewide population of 600 or 
more wolves.

Michigan

    Wolves were extirpated from Michigan as a reproducing species long 
before they were listed as endangered in 1974. Prior to 1991, and 
excluding Isle Royale, the last known breeding population of wild 
Michigan wolves occurred in the mid-1950s. However, as wolves began to 
reoccupy northern Wisconsin, the MI DNR began noting single wolves at 
various locations in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. In 1989, a wolf 
pair was verified in the central Upper Peninsula, and it produced pups 
in 1991. Since that time, wolf packs have spread throughout the Upper 
Peninsula, with immigration occurring from Wisconsin on the west and 
possibly from Ontario on the east. They now are found in every county 
of the Upper Peninsula, with the possible exception of Keweenaw County 
(Huntzinger et al. 2005).
    The MI DNR annually monitors the wolf population in the Upper 
Peninsula by intensive late-winter tracking surveys that focus on each 
pack. The Upper Peninsula is divided into seven monitoring zones, and 
specific surveyors are assigned to each zone. Pack locations are 
derived from previous surveys, citizen reports, and extensive ground 
and aerial tracking of radio-collared wolves. During the winter of 
2004-05 at least 87 wolf packs were resident in the Upper Peninsula 
(Huntzinger et al. 2005). A minimum of 40 percent of these packs had 
members with active radio-tracking collars during the winter of 2004-05 
(Huntzinger et al. 2005). Care is taken to avoid double-counting packs 
and individual wolves, and a variety of evidence is used to distinguish 
adjacent packs and accurately count their members. Surveys along the 
border of adjacent monitoring zones are coordinated to avoid double-
counting of wolves and packs occupying those border areas. In areas 
with a high density of wolves, ground surveys by 4 to 6 surveyors with 
concurrent aerial tracking are used to accurately delineate territories 
of adjacent packs and count their members (Beyer et al. 2004, 
Huntzinger et al. 2005, Potvin et al. in press). As with Wisconsin, the 
Michigan surveys likely miss many lone wolves, thus underestimating the 
actual population.
    Annual surveys have documented minimum late-winter estimates of 
wolves occurring in the Upper Peninsula as increasing from 57 wolves in 
1994 to 405 in 87 packs in 2005 (see Table 1 above). Over the last 10 
years the annualized rate of increase has been about 18 percent (MI DNR 
1997, 1999, 2001, 2003; Beyer et al. 2003, 2004; Huntzinger et al. 
2005). The rate of annual increase has varied from year to year during 
this period, but there appears to be two distinct phases of population 
growth, with relatively rapid growth (about 25 percent per year from 
1997 through 2000) and slower growth (about 14 percent from 2000 to the 
present time). Similar to Wisconsin, this may indicate a slowing growth 
rate as the population increases. The 2005 late-winter population was 
up 13 percent from the previous year's estimated population (Huntzinger 
et al. 2005). As with the Wisconsin wolves, the number of wolves in the 
Michigan Upper Peninsula wolf population by itself has surpassed the 
recovery criterion for a second population in the eastern United States 
(i.e., 100 wolves for a minimum of 5 consecutive years, based on 6 
late-winter estimates), as specified in the Federal Recovery Plan, 
since 2001. In addition, the Upper Peninsula numbers have now surpassed 
the Federal criterion for an isolated wolf population of 200 animals 
for 6 successive late-winter surveys (FWS 1992).
    In 2004-05, no wolf packs were known to be primarily using tribal-
owned lands in Michigan (Beyer pers comm. 2005). Native American tribes 
in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan own small, scattered parcels of 
land. As such, no one tribal property would likely support a wolf pack. 
However, as wolves occur in all counties in the Upper Peninsula and 
range widely, tribal land is likely utilized periodically by wolves.
    As mentioned previously, the wolf population of Isle Royale 
National Park, Michigan, is not considered to be an important factor in 
the recovery or long-term survival of wolves in the WGL DPS. This small 
and isolated wolf population cannot make a significant numerical 
contribution to gray wolf recovery, although long-term research on this 
wolf population has added a great deal to our knowledge of the species. 
The wolf population on Isle Royale has ranged from 12 to 50 wolves 
since 1959, and was 30 wolves in the winter of 2004-05 (Peterson and 
Vucetich 2005).
    Although there have been verified reports of wolf sightings in the 
Lower Peninsula of Michigan, resident breeding packs have not been 
confirmed there. In October 2004 the first gray wolf since 1910 was 
documented in the Lower Peninsula (LP). This wolf had been trapped and 
radio-collared by the MI DNR while it was a member of a central UP pack 
in late 2003. At some point it had moved to the LP and ultimately was 
killed by a trapper who believed it was a coyote (MI DNR 2004a). 
Shortly after that, MI DNR biologists and conservation officers 
confirmed that two additional wolves were traveling together in Presque 
Isle County in the northern Lower Peninsula (NLP). A subsequent two-
week survey was conducted in that area, but no additional evidence of 
wolf presence was found (Huntzinger et al. 2005). Recognizing the 
likelihood that small numbers of gray wolves will eventually move into 
the Lower Peninsula and form persistent packs (Potvin 2003, Gehring and 
Potter 2005 in press), MI DNR has begun a revision of its Wolf 
Management Plan in part to incorporate provisions for wolf management 
there.

Summary for Wisconsin and Michigan

    The two-State wolf population, excluding Isle Royale wolves, has 
exceeded 100 wolves since late-winter 1993-94 and has exceeded 200 
wolves since late-winter 1995-96. Therefore, the combined wolf 
population for Wisconsin and Michigan has exceeded the second 
population recovery goal of the 1992 Recovery Plan for a non-isolated 
wolf population since 1999. Furthermore, the two-state population has 
exceeded the recovery goal for an isolated second population since 
2001.

Other Areas in the Western Great Lakes DPS

    As described earlier, the increasing wolf population in Minnesota 
and the accompanying expansion of wolf range westward and southwestward 
in the State have led to an increase in dispersing wolves that have 
been documented in North and South Dakota in recent years. No surveys 
have been conducted to document the number of wolves present in North 
Dakota or South Dakota. However, biologists who are familiar with 
wolves there generally agree that there are only occasional lone 
dispersers that appear primarily in the eastern portion of these 
States. There were reports of pups being seen in the Turtle Mountains 
of North Dakota in

[[Page 15272]]

1994, but there have been no reports in the last few years (Roger 
Collins, USFWS, in litt. 1998; Phil Mastrangelo, USDA-APHIS-Wildlife 
Services, Bismarck, ND, pers. comm. 2005).
    An examination of eight skulls from North and South Dakota wolves 
indicates that seven likely had dispersed from Minnesota; the eighth 
probably came from Manitoba, Canada (Licht and Fritts 1994). Genetic 
analyses of an additional gray wolf killed in 2001 in extreme 
northwestern South Dakota and another killed in central Nebraska in 
2002 (both outside of this proposed WGL DPS) indicate that they, too, 
originated from the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population 
(Straughan and Fain 2002, Steve Anschutz, USFWS, Lincoln, NE, in litt. 
2003).
    Additionally, some wolves from the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan 
population have traveled to other portions of the WGL DPS. In October 
2001, a wolf was killed in north-central Missouri by a farmer who 
stated that he thought it was a coyote. The wolf's ear tag identified 
it as having originated from the western portion of Michigan's Upper 
Peninsula, where it had been captured as a juvenile in July 1999. A 
wolf, presumably from the Wisconsin or possibly Minnesota wolf 
population, was shot and killed in Marshall County, in north-central 
Illinois, in December 2002. A second wolf was killed by a vehicle 
strike in northeastern Illinois in February 2005, and a third (verified 
as originating from the Western Great Lakes wolf population) was killed 
in Pike County, Illinois, (near Quincy) in December 2005. Another Great 
Lakes wolf was found dead in Randolph County in east-central Indiana 
(about 12 miles from the Ohio border) in June 2003. That wolf 
originated in Jackson County, Wisconsin, based on a Wisconsin DNR ear 
tag that it carried (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003b).
    Wolf dispersal is expected to continue as wolves travel away from 
the more saturated habitats in the core recovery areas into areas where 
wolves are extremely sparse or absent. Unless they return to a core 
recovery population and join or start a pack there, they are unlikely 
to contribute to long-term maintenance of recovered wolf populations. 
Although it is possible for them to encounter a mature wolf of the 
opposite sex, to mate, and to reproduce outside the core wolf areas, 
the lack of large expanses of unfragmented public land make it unlikely 
that any wolf packs will persist in these areas. The only exception is 
the NLP of Michigan, where several studies indicate a persistent wolf 
population may develop (Gehring and Potter in press, Potvin 2003), 
perhaps dependent on occasional to frequent immigration of UP wolves. 
However, currently existing wolf populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, 
and the UP of Michigan have already greatly exceeded the Federal 
recovery criteria, and maintaining viable recovered wolf populations in 
these areas will not be dependent in any way on wolves or wolf 
populations in other areas of the WGL DPS.

Previous Federal Action

    On April 1, 2003, we published a final rule (68 FR 15804) that 
reclassified and delisted gray wolves, as appropriate, across their 
range in the 48 conterminous United States and Mexico. Within that 
rule, we established three DPSs for the gray wolf. Gray wolves in the 
Western DPS and the Eastern DPS were reclassified from endangered to 
threatened, except where already classified as threatened or as an 
experimental population. Gray wolves in the Southwestern DPS retained 
their previous endangered or experimental population status. Three 
existing gray wolf experimental population designations were not 
affected by the April 1, 2003, final rule. We removed gray wolves from 
the protections of the Act in all or parts of 16 southern and eastern 
States where the species historically did not occur. We also 
established a new special rule under section 4(d) of the Act for the 
threatened Western DPS to increase our ability to effectively manage 
wolf-human conflicts outside the two experimental population areas in 
the Western DPS. In addition, we established a second section 4(d) rule 
that applied provisions similar to those previously in effect in 
Minnesota to most of the Eastern DPS. These two special rules were 
codified in 50 CFR 17.40(n) and (o), respectively. In that final rule 
(on page 15806), we included a detailed summary of the previous Federal 
actions completed prior to publication of that final rule. The final 
rule is available at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/esa-status/
Reclass-final-fr.PDF. Therefore, we will not repeat the details of that 
history in this proposal.
    On January 31, 2005, and August 19, 2005, the U.S. District Courts 
in Oregon and Vermont, respectively, concluded that the 2003 final rule 
was ``arbitrary and capricious'' and violated the ESA (Defenders of 
Wildlife v. Norton, 03-1348-JO, D. OR 2005; National Wildlife 
Federation v. Norton, 1:03-CV-340, D. VT. 2005). The courts' rulings 
invalidated the April 2003 changes to the ESA listing for the gray 
wolf. These rulings had the effect of eliminating the three DPS 
listings and reverting all gray wolves south of Canada to endangered 
status, except those wolves in Minnesota retained their threatened 
status and the experimental population wolves in the northern U.S. 
Rockies and the Southwest retained their ``nonessential experimental'' 
status. These rulings also vacated the 2003 special rules under section 
4(d) that authorized lethal control of problem wolves in the Eastern 
and Western DPSs. Because we had subsequently used the Eastern DPS as 
the basis for a July 21, 2004, gray wolf delisting proposal (69 FR 
43664), that proposal could not be finalized.
    On March 1, 2000, we received a petition from Mr. Lawrence Krak of 
Gilman, Wisconsin, and on June 28, 2000, we received a petition from 
the Minnesota Conservation Federation. Mr. Krak's petition requested 
the delisting of gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The 
Minnesota Conservation Federation requested the delisting of gray 
wolves in a Western Great Lakes DPS. Because the data reviews resulting 
from the processing of these petitions would be a subset of the review 
begun by our July 13, 2000, proposal (65 FR 43450) to revise the 
current listing of the gray wolf across most of the conterminous United 
States, we did not initiate separate reviews in response to those two 
petitions. While we addressed these petitions in our July 21, 2004, 
proposed rule (69 FR 43664), this rule was mooted by the Court rulings. 
Therefore, this delisting proposal restates our 90-day findings that 
the action requested by each of the petitions may be warranted, as well 
as our 12-month finding that the action requested by each petition is 
warranted.

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview

    Pursuant to the ESA, we consider for listing any species, 
subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa if there is 
sufficient information to indicate that such action may be warranted. 
To interpret and implement the DPS provision of the ESA and 
Congressional guidance, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS) published, on December 21, 1994, a draft Policy 
Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments 
under the ESA and invited public comments on it (59 FR 65884). After 
review of comments and further consideration, the Service and NMFS 
adopted the interagency policy as issued in draft form, and published 
it in the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). This 
policy addresses the recognition of a

[[Page 15273]]

DPS for potential listing, reclassification, and delisting actions.
    Under our DPS policy, three factors are considered in a decision 
regarding the establishment and classification of a possible DPS. These 
are applied similarly for additions to the list of endangered and 
threatened species, reclassification of already listed species, and 
removals from the list. The first two factors--discreteness of the 
population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon (i.e., 
Canis lupus) and the significance of the population segment to the 
taxon to which it belongs (i.e., Canis lupus)--bear on whether the 
population segment is a valid DPS. If a population meets both tests, it 
is a DPS and then the third factor is applied--the population segment's 
conservation status in relation to the ESA's standards for listing, 
delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is the population segment 
endangered or threatened).

Analysis for Discreteness

    Under our Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 
Population Segments, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be 
considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following 
conditions--(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the 
same taxon (i.e., Canis lupus) as a consequence of physical, 
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors (quantitative measures 
of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this 
separation); or (2) it is delimited by international governmental 
boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, 
management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms 
exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA.
    Markedly Separated From Other Populations of the Taxon--The western 
edge of the proposed Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment is 
approximately 400 mi (644 km) from the nearest known wolf packs in 
Wyoming and Montana. The distance between those western packs and the 
nearest packs within the proposed WGL DPS is nearly 600 miles (966 km). 
The area between Minnesota packs and Northern Rocky Mountain packs 
largely consists of unsuitable habitat, with only scattered islands of 
possibly suitable habitat, such as the Black Hills of eastern Wyoming 
and western South Dakota. There are no known gray wolf populations to 
the south or east of this proposed WGL DPS.
    As discussed in the previous section, gray wolves are known to 
disperse over vast distances, but straight line documented dispersals 
of 400 mi (644 km) or more are very rare. Wolf dispersal is expected to 
continue but unless they return to a core recovery population and join 
or start a pack there, they are unlikely to contribute to long-term 
maintenance of recovered wolf populations. Dispersing wolves may 
encounter a mature wolf of the opposite sex outside the core wolf 
areas, but the lack of large expanses of unfragmented public land make 
it unlikely that any wolf packs will persist in these areas. While we 
cannot rule out the possibility of a Midwest wolf traveling 600 miles 
or more and joining or establishing a pack in the Northern Rockies, 
such a movement has not been documented and is expected to happen very 
infrequently, if at all. As the discreteness criterion requires that 
the DPS be ``markedly separated'' from other populations of the taxon 
rather than requiring complete isolation, this high degree of physical 
separation satisfies the discreteness criterion.
    Delimited by International Boundaries with Significant Management 
Differences Between the United States and Canada--This border has been 
used as the northern boundary of the listed entity since gray wolves 
were reclassified in the 48 states and Mexico in 1978. There remain 
significant cross-border differences in exploitation, management, 
conservation status, and regulatory mechanisms. More than 50,000 wolves 
exist in Canada, where suitable habitat is abundant, human harvest of 
wolves is common, Federal protection is absent, and provincial 
regulations provide widely varying levels of protection. In general, 
Canadian wolf populations are sufficiently large and healthy so that 
harvest and population regulation, rather than protection and close 
monitoring, is the management focus. There are an estimated 4,000 
wolves in Manitoba (Manitoba Conservation undated). Hunting is allowed 
nearly province-wide, including in those provincial hunting zones 
adjoining northwestern Minnesota, with a current season that runs from 
August 29, 2005, through March 31, 2006 (Manitoba Conservation 2005a). 
Trapping wolves is allowed province-wide except in and immediately 
around Riding Mountain Provincial Park (southwestern Manitoba), with a 
current season running from October 14, 2005, through February 28 or 
March 31, 2006 (varies with trapping zone) (Manitoba Conservation 
2005b). The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources estimates there are 
8,850 wolves in the province, based on prey composition and abundance, 
topography, and climate. Wolf numbers in most parts of the province are 
believed to be stable or increasing since about 1993 (Ontario Ministry 
of Natural Resources (MNR) 2005a). In 2005 Ontario limited hunting and 
trapping of wolves by closing the season from April 1 through September 
14 in central and northern Ontario (Ontario MNR 2005b). In southern 
Ontario (the portion of the province that is adjacent to the proposed 
WGL DPS), wolf hunting and trapping is permitted year around except 
within, and immediately around, Algonquin Provincial Park in 
southeastern Ontario (north of Lake Ontario) where seasons are closed 
all year (Ontario MNR 2005c).
    We, therefore, conclude that the above described proposed WGL DPS 
boundary would satisfy both conditions that can be used to demonstrate 
discreteness of a potential DPS.

Analysis for Significance

    If we determine a population segment is discrete, we next consider 
available scientific evidence of its significance to the taxon (i.e., 
Canis lupus) to which it belongs. Our DPS policy states that this 
consideration may include, but is not limited to, the following--(1) 
Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting 
unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete 
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of 
the taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents 
the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more 
abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic 
range; and/or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs 
markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic 
characteristics. Below we address Factors 1 and 2. Factors 3 and 4 do 
not apply to the proposed WGL wolf DPS and thus are not included in our 
analysis for significance.
    Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting--Wolves within the proposed 
WGL DPS occupy the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province, a biotic province 
that is transitional between the boreal forest and the broadleaf 
deciduous forest. Laurentian Mixed Forest consists of mixed conifer-
deciduous stands, pure deciduous forest on favorable sites, and pure 
coniferous forest on less favorable sites. Within the United States 
this biotic province occurs across northeastern Minnesota, northern 
Wisconsin, the UP, and the NLP, as well as the eastern half of Maine, 
and portions of New York and Pennsylvania (Bailey 1995). In the 
Midwest, current wolf distribution closely matches this

[[Page 15274]]

province, except for the NLP and the Door Peninsula of Wisconsin, where 
wolf packs currently are absent. To the best of our knowledge, wolf 
packs currently do not inhabit the New England portions of the 
Laurentian Mixed Forest Province. Therefore, WGL wolves represent the 
only wolves in the United States occupying this province. Furthermore, 
WGL wolves represent the only use by gray wolves of any form of eastern 
coniferous or eastern mixed coniferous-broadleaf forest in the United 
States.
    Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon--This factor may be 
primarily of value when considering the initial listing of a taxon 
under the Act to prevent the development of a major gap in a taxon's 
range (``* * * loss * * * would result in a significant gap in the 
range of the taxon'' (71 FR 6641)). However, this successful 
restoration of a viable wolf metapopulation to large parts of 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan has filled a significant gap in the 
historical range of the wolf in the United States, and it provides an 
important extension of the range of the North American gray wolf 
population. Without the recovered Western Great Lakes wolf 
metapopulation, there would not be a wolf population in the 
conterminous States east of the Rocky Mountains except for the red 
wolves being restored along the Atlantic Coast.

Conclusion

    We conclude, based on our review of the best available scientific 
information, that the proposed WGL DPS is discrete from other wolf 
populations as a result of physical separation and the international 
border with Canada. The proposed DPS is significant to the taxon to 
which it belongs because it is the only occurrence of the species in 
the Laurentian Mixed Forest Biotic Province in the United States, it 
contains a wolf metapopulation that fills a large gap in the historical 
range of the taxon, and it contains the majority of the wolves in the 
conterminous States. Therefore, we have determined that this population 
of wolves satisfies the discreteness and significance criteria required 
to designate it as a DPS. The evaluation of the appropriate 
conservation status for the WGL DPS is found below.
Delineating the WGL Gray Wolf Population DPS
    To delineate the boundary of the WGL DPS, we considered the current 
distribution of the wolves in those areas we consider significant in 
the population and the potential dispersal distance wolves may travel 
from those core population areas. The WGL DPS boundary includes all of 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; the part of North Dakota that is 
north and east of the Missouri River upstream as far as Lake Sakakawea 
and east of Highway 83 from Lake Sakakawea to the Canadian border; the 
part of South Dakota that is north and east of the Missouri River; the 
parts of Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana that are north of Interstate 
Highway 80; and the part of Ohio north of Interstate Highway 80 and 
west of the Maumee River (at Toledo). (See Figure 1.) As discussed 
below, this DPS has been delineated to include the core recovered wolf 
population plus a zone around the core wolf populations. This 
geographic delineation is not intended to include all areas where 
wolves have dispersed from. Rather, it includes the area currently 
occupied by wolf packs in MN, WI, and MI; the nearby areas in these 
States, including the Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan, in which 
wolf packs may become established in the foreseeable future; and a 
surrounding area into which MN, WI, and MI wolves disperse but where 
persistent packs are not expected to be established. The area 
surrounding the core wolf populations includes the locations of most 
known dispersers from the core populations, especially the shorter and 
medium-distance dispersers that are most likely to survive and 
potentially return to the core areas.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 15275]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR06.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    The WGL areas that are regularly occupied by wolf packs are well 
documented in Minnesota (Erb and Benson 2004), Wisconsin (Wydeven et 
al. 2006), and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (Huntzinger et al 2005). 
Wolves have successfully colonized most, perhaps all, suitable habitat 
in Minnesota. Minnesota data from the winter of 2003-2004 indicate that 
wolf numbers and density either have

[[Page 15276]]

continued to increase slowly or have stabilized since 1997-1998, and 
there was no expansion of occupied range in the State (Erb and Benson 
2004). Wisconsin wolves now occupy most habitat are