Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Identify the Western Great Lakes Populations of Gray Wolves as a Distinct Population Segment and To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 15070-15123 [E9-5981]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
15070
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS)
identify the Western Great Lakes (WGL)
Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of
the gray wolf (Canis lupus). The
geographic extent of 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 Indiana; and the
northwestern portion of Ohio. We also
revise the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife established under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) by removing gray wolves
within the WGL DPS. We are taking
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 WGL DPS after this revision of the
listing. This final rule removes this DPS
from the lists of Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife, removes the
currently designated critical habitat for
the gray wolf in Minnesota and
Michigan, and removes the current
special regulations for gray wolves in
Minnesota.
On April 16, 2007, three parties filed
a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of
the Interior (Department) and the
Service, challenging the Service’s
February 8, 2007 (72 FR 6052),
identification and delisting of the WGL
DPS. On September 29, 2008, the U.S.
District Court for the District of
Columbia ruled in favor of the plaintiffs
(Humane Society of the United States v.
Kempthorne, No. 1:07–CV–00677
(D.D.C.). In that ruling the court vacated
and remanded the Service’s application
of the February 8, 2007 (72 FR 6052),
final delisting rule for the WGL DPS of
the gray wolf. On remand, the Service
was directed to provide an explanation
as to how simultaneously identifying
and delisting a DPS is consistent with
the Act’s text, structure, policy
objectives, legislative history, and any
relevant judicial interpretations. This
final rule addresses the September 29,
2008, court ruling.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on
May 4, 2009.
ADDRESSES: 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,
Minnesota 55111–4056. Call 612–713–
5350 to make arrangements. The
comments and materials we received
during the comment period on the
proposed rule also are available for
public inspection and by appointment
during normal business hours at this
Regional Office and at our Ecological
Services Field Offices in Bloomington,
Minnesota (612–725–3548); New
Frankin, Wisconsin (920–866–1717);
and East Lansing, Michigan (517–351–
2555). Call those offices to make
arrangements.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura Ragan, 612–713–5350. Direct all
questions or requests for additional
information to: GRAY WOLF
QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Federal Building, 1 Federal
Drive, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 55111–
4056. Additional information is also
available on our World Wide Web site
at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf.
Individuals who are hearing-impaired or
speech-impaired may call the Federal
Relay Service at 1–800–877–8337 for
TTY assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R3–ES–2008–0120; 92220–1113–000;
ABC Code: C6]
RIN 1018–AW41
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Final Rule To Identify the
Western Great Lakes Populations of
Gray Wolves as a Distinct Population
Segment and To Revise the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
Background
Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves
For a discussion of the biology and
ecology of gray wolves and general
recovery planning efforts, see the
proposed WGL wolf rule published on
March 27, 2006, (71 FR 15266–15305)
and available on our World Wide Web
site.
Recovery Criteria
The 1978 Recovery Plan for the
Eastern Timber Wolf (Recovery Plan)
and the 1992 revised Recovery Plan
(Revised Plan) contain the same two
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 (Peterson 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
within the borders of Minnesota for the
foreseeable future.
Although the Recovery Plan’s
recovery criteria predate the scientific
field of conservation biology, the
conservation principles of
representation (conserving the genetic
diversity of a taxon), resilience (the
ability to withstand demographic and
environmental variation), and
redundancy (sufficient populations to
provide a margin of safety) were
incorporated into these criteria.
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 Plan established a planning
goal of 1,250–1,400 animals for the
Minnesota wolf population (USFWS
1992, p. 28), which would increase the
likelihood of maintaining its genetic
diversity over the long term. This large
Minnesota wolf population also
provides resiliency to reduce the
adverse impacts of unpredictable
demographic and environmental events.
Furthermore, the Recovery Plan
specifies a wolf population that is
spread across about 40 percent of the
State (Zones 1 through 4) (USFWS 1992,
p. 28), adding a geographic component
to the resiliency of the Minnesota wolf
population.
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 second population enhances both
the resiliency and redundancy of the
recovery program. The Recovery Plan
provides two options for reestablishing
this second population. If it is an
isolated population, that is, located
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
more than 100 miles (160 km) 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 located within 100
miles (160 km) of a self-sustaining wolf
population (for example, the Minnesota
wolf population), it would be
considered viable if it maintained a
minimum of 100 wolves for at least 5
years. Such a nearby second population
would be viable at a smaller size,
because it would exchange wolves with
the Minnesota population (that is, they
would function as a metapopulation),
thereby bolstering the smaller second
population genetically and numerically.
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 1978
Recovery Plan and the 1992 Revised
Recovery Plan, except on Isle Royale
(Michigan) or within Minnesota. The
1992 Revised Recovery Plan retained
potential gray wolf re-establishment
areas in northern Wisconsin, the upper
peninsula (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, pp. 56–58). 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 application
of the delisting criterion for the second
population to the wolf population that
had developed in northern Wisconsin
and the adjacent UP. The Recovery
Team recommended that the numerical
delisting criterion for the Wisconsin–
Michigan population will be achieved
when 6 consecutive late-winter wolf
surveys document that the population
equals or exceeds 100 wolves (excluding
Isle Royale wolves) for the 5 consecutive
years between the 6 surveys (Peterson in
litt. 1998). This second population is
less than 200 miles from the Minnesota
wolf population.
Recovery of the Gray Wolf in the
Western Great Lakes Area
Minnesota Recovery
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, p. 43, based on data
in Stenlund 1955, p. 19), 350 to 700 in
1963 (Cahalane 1964, p. 10), 750 in 1970
(Leirfallom 1970, p. 11), 736 to 950 in
1971–72 (Fuller et al. 1992, p. 44), and
500 to 1,000 in 1973 (Mech and Rausch
1975, p 85). 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
15071
significant wolf population in the
United States outside Alaska during
those time-periods.
After the wolf was listed as
endangered under the Act, the
Minnesota population estimates
increased (see Table 1 below). Mech
estimated the population to be 1,000 to
1,200 in 1976 (USFWS 1978, pp. 4, 50–
52), and Berg and Kuehn (1982, p. 11)
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; the
lower number was derived by a method
comparable to the 1978–79 survey
(Fuller et al. 1992, pp. 50–51).
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 5 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, pp. 1–2).
TABLE 1—GRAY WOLF WINTER POPULATIONS IN MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, AND MICHIGAN (EXCLUDING ISLE ROYALE)
FROM 1976 THROUGH 2006
[Note that there are several years between the first three estimates]
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Year
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Michigan
WI & MI
Total
1976 .............................................................................................................................
1978–79 .......................................................................................................................
1988–89 .......................................................................................................................
1989–90 .......................................................................................................................
1990–91 .......................................................................................................................
1991–92 .......................................................................................................................
1992–93 .......................................................................................................................
1993–94 .......................................................................................................................
1994–95 .......................................................................................................................
1995–96 .......................................................................................................................
1996–97 .......................................................................................................................
1997–98 .......................................................................................................................
1998–99 .......................................................................................................................
1999–2000 ...................................................................................................................
2000–01 .......................................................................................................................
2001–02 .......................................................................................................................
2002–03 .......................................................................................................................
2003–04 .......................................................................................................................
2004–05 .......................................................................................................................
1,000–1,200
1,235
1,500–1,750
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
2,445
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
3,020
........................
....................
....................
31
34
40
45
40
57
83
99
148
180
205
248
257
327
335
373
*435
....................
....................
3
10
17
21
30
57
80
116
113
139
169
216
249
278
321
360
405
....................
....................
34
44
57
66
70
114
163
215
261
319
374
464
506
604
656
733
840
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15072
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—GRAY WOLF WINTER POPULATIONS IN MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, AND MICHIGAN (EXCLUDING ISLE ROYALE)
FROM 1976 THROUGH 2006—Continued
[Note that there are several years between the first three estimates]
Year
Minnesota
Wisconsin
2005–06 .......................................................................................................................
........................
465
Michigan
434
WI & MI
Total
899
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
* Previous estimate of 425 has been corrected, based on subsequent location of 5 packs missed during survey period (Wydeven et al. 2006,
pp. 9–10).
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, p. 4).
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, 5, Fuller et al. 1992, p.
51). 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, p. 28).
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 change in the State’s wolf
population during that period (Erb and
Benson 2004, pp. 7 and 9).
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, p. 19). 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, p. 43,
from Leirfallom 1970). Fuller et al.
(1992, p. 44), 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,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
p. 86). 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, pp. 48–49; Berg and Benson
1999, p. 3, 5), 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, p. 5). By that
time the Minnesota wolf population was
using most of the occupied and
peripheral range identified by Mech et
al. (1988, p. 86). The wolf population in
Minnesota had recovered to the point
that its contiguous range covered
approximately 40 percent of the State
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,
p. 7).
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, p. 2, 5). 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 Recovery
Wolves were considered to have been
extirpated from Wisconsin by 1960. No
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 around 1975, and the
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WI DNR) began wolf
population monitoring in 1979–80 and
estimated a statewide population of 25
wolves at that time (Wydeven and
Wiedenhoeft 2000, pp. 151, 159). 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 2006
(Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 35).
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. 2006, pp. 4–5). Wolves
are trapped from May through
September and fitted with radio collars,
with a goal of having at least one radiocollared wolf in about half of the wolf
packs in Wisconsin. Aerial locations are
obtained from each functioning radiocollar 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 snowcovered 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
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
ground surveys are carefully compared
to properly separate packs and to avoid
over-counting (Wydeven et al. 2006a,
pp. 4–5). 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, p. 19) noted that lone
wolves are estimated to compose from 2
to 29 percent of the total population in
the area. 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 latewinter surveys.
From mid-September 2005 through
mid-April 2006, 43 radio collars were
active on Wisconsin wolves, including
38 packs. An estimated 465 to 502
wolves in 115 packs, including 16 to 17
wolves on Native American
reservations, were in the State in early
2006, representing a 7 percent increase
from 2005 (Wydeven et al. 2006, pp. 1,
6).
Wisconsin population estimates for
1985 through 2006 increased from 15 to
465–502 wolves (see Table 1 above) and
from 4 to 115 packs (Wydeven et al.
2006, pp. 1, 35). This represents an
annual increase of 21 percent through
2000, and an average annual increase of
11 percent for the most recent 6 years.
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 53–56
wolves in 14 packs in the central forest
wolf range (Zone 2 in the Wisconsin
Wolf Management Plan; WI DNR 1999,
p. 18) and an additional 17–19 wolves
in 7 packs in the marginal habitat in
Zone 3, located between Zone 1
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
(northern forest wolf range) and Zones
2 and 4 (Wydeven et al. 2006, pp. 6, 33).
During the winter of 2002–03, 7
wolves were believed to be primarily
occupying Native American reservation
lands in Wisconsin (Wydeven et al.
2003, p. 9); this increased to 11 to 13
wolves in the winter of 2004–05
(Wydeven in litt. 2005) and 16–17 in
2005–06. The 2005–06 animals
consisted of 2 packs totaling 7 to 8
wolves on the Bad River Chippewa
Reservation and a pack of 4 wolves on
the Lac Courtes Oreilles Chippewa
Reservation, both in northwestern
Wisconsin. There also was a single pack
of three wolves on the Lac du Flambeau
Reservation and a two-wolf pack on the
Menominee Reservation, in northcentral and northeastern Wisconsin,
respectively (Wydeven et al. 2006, pp.
27, 28, 33). Additional wolves have
spent some time on the Red Cliff
Chippewa Reservation, the St. Croix
Chippewa Reservation, and the Ho
Chunk Reservation in the last few years.
It is likely that the Potowatomi
Reservation lands will also host wolves
in the near future (Wydeven in litt.
2005). Of these reservations the HoChunk, 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
indications that the State’s wolf
population growth and geographic
expansion are beginning to level off.
Mladenoff et al. (1997, p. 47) and
Wydeven et al. (1999, p. 49) 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. 1999, p. 49) resulting in
a statewide population of 600 or more
wolves.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15073
Michigan Recovery
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 Michigan Department of
Natural Resources (MI DNR) began
noting single wolves at various locations
in the UP of Michigan. In 1989, a wolf
pair was verified in the central UP, and
it produced pups in 1991. Since that
time, wolf packs have spread
throughout the UP, with immigration
occurring from Wisconsin on the west
and possibly from Ontario on the east.
They now are found in every county of
the UP, with the possible exception of
Keweenaw County (Huntzinger et al.
2005, p. 6).
The MI DNR annually monitors the
wolf population in the UP by intensive
late-winter tracking surveys that focus
on each pack. The UP 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 UP (Huntzinger et al.
2005, p. 6). 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, p.
6–7). Care is taken to avoid doublecounting 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, pp. 2–3, Huntzinger
et al. 2005, pp. 3–6; Potvin et al. 2005,
p. 1661). 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 UP as
increasing from 57 wolves in 1994 to
434 in 91 packs in 2006 (see Table 1
above). Over the last 10 years the
annualized rate of increase has been
about 18 percent (Beyer et al. 2006, p.
35; Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6; MI DNR
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15074
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
2006a; Roell in litt. 2006a). 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 (24.3 to 25.9 percent per year)
from 1997 through 2000 and slower
growth (11.6 to 15.5 percent from 2000
through 2005 and 7.2 percent in 2006)
since then. As with the Wisconsin
wolves, the number of wolves in the
Michigan UP 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 UP numbers have
now surpassed the Federal criterion for
an isolated wolf population of 200
animals for 6 successive late-winter
surveys (USFWS 1992, pp. 24–26).
To date, no wolf packs are known to
be primarily using tribal-owned lands in
Michigan (Roell in litt. 2006b). Native
American tribes in the UP 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 UP
and range widely, tribal land is likely
utilized periodically by wolves.
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 is a small
and isolated wolf population that
probably has not had any contact with
mainland wolf populations since its
founding pair crossed the Lake Superior
ice in the late 1940s (Peterson et al.
1998, p. 828). This wolf population
lacks sufficient genetic uniqueness
(Wayne et al. 1991, pp. 47–49), and due
to the island’s small size, cannot satisfy
the discreteness criterion for a separate
DPS. For these same reasons it will not
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 2005–06
(Peterson and Vucetich 2006, p. 6).
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 nonisolated wolf population since 1999.
Furthermore, the two-State population
has exceeded the recovery goal for an
isolated second population since 2001.
2006). See the Delineating the WGL
Gray Wolf DPS for a detailed discussion
of movement of wolves.
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, and
this is a bottleneck that seriously
impedes further expansion. The only
exception is the NLP of Michigan,
where several studies indicate that a
persistent wolf population may develop
(Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1242;
Potvin 2003, 29–30), 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 are not
dependent on wolves or wolf
populations from other areas of the
WGL DPS to maintain these recovered
numbers.
Other Areas in and Near 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
1994 (Collins in litt. 1998), an adult
male wolf was shot near Devil’s Lake,
North Dakota in 2002, another adult
male shot in Richland County in
extreme southeastern North Dakota in
2003 (Fain in litt. 2006), and a vehiclekilled adult male found near Sturgis,
South Dakota, in 2006 (Larson in litt.
2006a). In contrast to the other South
Dakota wolves of the last twenty-five
years, this animal has been genetically
identified as having come from the
Greater Yellowstone area (Fain in litt.
Previous Federal Action
On April 1, 2003, we published a final
rule revising the listing status of the
gray wolf across most of the
conterminous United States (68 FR
15804). Within that rule, we identified
three distinct population segments
(DPS) 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 lists of threatened
and endangered wildlife 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 wolfhuman 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
ultimately was killed by a trapper who
believed it was a coyote (MI DNR 2004).
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, p.
35). Recognizing the likelihood that
small numbers of gray wolves will
eventually move into the Lower
Peninsula and form persistent packs
(Potvin 2003, pp. 29–30, Gehring and
Potter 2005, p. 1242; Beyer et at. 2006,
p. 35), MI DNR has begun a revision of
its Wolf Management Plan in part to
incorporate provisions for wolf
management there.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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.
On January 31, 2005, and August 19,
2005, U.S. District Courts in Oregon and
Vermont, respectively, ruled that the
April 1, 2003, final rule violated the Act
(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 revisions to the gray
wolf listing. Therefore, the status of gray
wolves outside of Minnesota and
outside of areas designated as
nonessential experimental populations
reverted back to endangered (as had
been the case prior to the 2003
reclassification). The courts also
invalidated the three DPSs identified in
the April 1, 2003, rule as well as the
associated special regulations.
On March 27, 2006, we published a
proposal (71 FR 15266–15305) to
identify a WGL DPS of the gray wolf, to
remove the WGL DPS from the
protections of the Act, to remove
designated critical habitat for the gray
wolf in Minnesota and Michigan, and to
remove special regulations for the gray
wolf in Minnesota. The proposal was
followed by a 90-day comment period,
during which we held four public
hearings on the proposal.
On February 8, 2007, we published a
final rule identifying a WGL DPS of the
gray wolf, removing the WGL DPS from
the protections of the Act, removing
designated critical habitat for the gray
wolf in Minnesota and Michigan, and
removing special regulations for the
gray wolf in Minnesota (72 FR 6052).
On April 16, 2007, three parties filed
a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of
the Interior (Department) and the
Service, challenging the Service’s
February 8, 2007 (72 FR 6052),
identification and delisting of the WGL
DPS. The plaintiffs argued that the
Service may not identify a DPS within
a broader pre-existing listed entity for
the purpose of delisting the DPS. Based
on this argument, the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia remanded
and vacated the February 7, 2008, WGL
DPS final rule (72 FR 6052). The court
found that the Service had made that
decision based on its interpretation that
the plain meaning of the ESA authorizes
the Service to identify and delist a DPS
within an already-listed entity. The
court disagreed, and concluded that the
Act is ambiguous as to whether the
Service has this authority. The court
accordingly remanded the final rule so
that the Service can provide a reasoned
explanation of how its interpretation is
consistent with the text, structure,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
legislative history, judicial
interpretations, and policy objectives of
the Act (Humane Society of the United
States v. Kempthorne, Civ. No. 07–0677,
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74495 (D.D.C.
Sept. 29, 2008) (J. Friedman).
On December 11, 2008, we published
a notice reinstating protections for the
gray wolf in the western Great Lakes
and northern Rocky Mountains
pursuant to court-orders (73 FR 75356).
Please refer to the March 27, 2006, (71
FR 15266–15305) proposed rule for
further information on previous Federal
actions.
Issues on Remand
In an Opinion dated September 29,
2008, the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia vacated the
final rule (72 FR 6052) (Feb. 8, 2007)
identifying the Western Great Lakes
Distinct Population Segment of gray
wolf and delisting that DPS. The
Humane Society of the United States v.
Kempthorne, Civ. No. 07–0677, 2008
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74495 (D.D.C. Sept. 29,
2008) (J. Friedman). Judge Friedman
remanded the matter to the Secretary to
allow the agency to ‘‘bring its expertise
and experience to bear on the question
of whether the Act permits it to use the
DPS tool in the fashion it has
proposed.’’ Id. at *40. Judge Friedman
instructed that the agency must explain
how the agency’s interpretation of the
statute conforms to the text, structure,
and legislative history of the ESA; how
the agency’s interpretation is consistent
with judicial interpretations of the Act,
if any; and how the agency’s
interpretation serves the Act’s policy
objectives. Id. In so doing, Judge
Friedman did not find that the Service
could not utilize the DPS tool to
simultaneously identify and delist a
DPS. Instead, Judge Friedman found
that the record lacked an explanation on
this point to which he could defer under
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467
U.S. 837 (1984), and afforded the agency
an opportunity to respond.
While the Service acknowledges that
the ESA is arguably ambiguous on the
‘‘precise question’’ posed by the court,
it notes that the court’s question does
not accurately describe what we did in
the Final Rule. What we actually did,
under the precise language of the Act,
was to determine, pursuant to section
4(a)(1), that gray wolves in the Western
Great Lakes area constituted a DPS and
that the DPS was neither endangered
nor threatened, and then revised the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,
pursuant to section 4(c)(1), to reflect
those determinations. Our conclusion is
that we had clear authority to make the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15075
determinations and the revisions. We
did not delist a previously unlisted
species; rather, we revised the existing
listing of a species (the gray wolf in the
lower 48 States) to reflect a
determination that a sub-part of that
species (the Western Great Lakes DPS)
was healthy enough that it no longer
needed the ESA’s protections. Our
authority to make these determinations
and to revise the list accordingly is
found in the precise language of the
ESA. Moreover, even if that authority
was not clear, our interpretation of this
authority to make determinations under
section 4(a)(1) and to revise the
endangered and threatened species list
to reflect those determinations under
section 4(c)(1) is reasonable and fully
consistent with the ESA’s text structure,
legislative history, relevant judicial
interpretations, and policy objectives.
By vacating the previous final rule
and remanding the rulemaking to the
Service, the court required the Service
to make a new final determination on
the March 27, 2006 proposed rule (71
FR 15266) on which the vacated final
rule was based. In that proposed rule,
the Service provided public notice of its
consideration of identifying the Western
Great Lakes Distinct Population
Segment of gray wolves and to remove
that DPS from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife. At that time,
the Service requested public comments
on the proposal and received 360
comments addressing a wide range of
issues, including but not limited to the
Service’s use of the DPS tool in the
manner proposed. Comments were
received from 40 identifiable states, 5
foreign countries, 19 preservation and
conservation organizations, 16
agricultural and livestock organizations,
249 private individuals, and 6 Native
American governments or organizations.
All of these comments were given
meaningful consideration in the course
of the Secretary promulgating this final
rule.
This final rule constitutes a new final
determination on the March 27, 2006
proposed rule. It is also substantially
similar to the vacated final rule in form
and substance, including the biological
and ecological basis for its conclusions.
This final rule differs in that it contains
a section entitled ‘‘Issues on Remand’’
that represents the Secretary’s response
to the issues raised by the Court, in
consultation with the Department of the
Interior’s Solicitor’s Office. This section
of the final rule merely addresses the
narrow legal issue within the agency’s
expertise and experience—namely,
whether the Secretary may
simultaneously identify and delist a
currently listed species. The section
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
15076
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
entitled Distinct Vertebrate Population
Segment Policy Overview responds to
the court’s question regarding the
agency’s past practice and use of DPSs.
Before issuing this final rule, we
verified that no new scientific data exist
that would alter our previous analysis of
the relevant facts that serve as the basis
for the Secretary’s decision to identify
the Western Great Lakes DPS and the
Secretary’s conclusion that the Western
Great Lakes DPS should be removed
from the list of threatened and
endangered species because it has
recovered and no longer meets the
criteria for remaining on the list. Note
that we did examine updated
monitoring data and the final Michigan
plan and determined that this new data
merely supplements our existing record.
The Service is simply responding to the
narrow legal issues raised by the Court.
Consequently, Section 553(b)(3)(B) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
does not require an additional period of
public notice and comment.
We consulted with the Solicitor of the
Department of the Interior to address the
issue in Judge Friedman’s opinion that
the agency must explain how our
interpretation of the statute conforms to
the text, structure, and legislative
history of the ESA; is consistent with
judicial interpretations of the Act, if
any; and serves the Act’s policy
objectives. On December 12, 2008, a
formal opinion was issued by the
Solicitor, ‘‘U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Authority Under Section 4(c)(1)
of the Endangered Species Act to Revise
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Species to ‘Reflect Recent
Determinations’ ’’ (U.S. DOI 2008),
which fully addresses these issues. The
Service fully agrees with the analysis
and conclusions set out in the
Solicitor’s opinion. This action is
consistent with the opinion. The
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
complete text of the Solicitor’s opinion
can be found at https://www.fws.gov/
midwest/wolf/.
Geographical Area of the Western
Great Lakes Distinct Population
Segment
The geographical area of the WGL
DPS is shown in Figure 1, below, and
is described as all of Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan; the portion of
North Dakota north and east of the
Missouri River upstream to Lake
Sakakawea and east of the centerline of
Highway 83 from Lake Sakakawea to the
Canadian border; the portion of South
Dakota north and east of the Missouri
River; the portions of Iowa, Illinois, and
Indiana north of the centerline of
Interstate Highway 80; and the portion
of Ohio north of the centerline of
Interstate Highway 80 and west of the
Maumee River at Toledo.
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
Policy Overview
Pursuant to the Act, we consider if
information is sufficient to indicate that
listing, reclassifying, or delisting any
species, subspecies, or, for vertebrates,
any DPS of these taxa may be warranted.
To interpret and implement the DPS
provision of the Act and congressional
guidance, the Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
published a policy regarding the
identification of distinct vertebrate
population segments under the Act (61
FR 4722, February 7, 1996). Under this
policy, two factors are considered in a
decision regarding the potential
identification of a DPS and then a final
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
factor is considered regarding the
listing, reclassification, or delisting of
the DPS. The first two factors determine
whether the population segment is a
valid DPS—(1) discreteness of the
population segment in relation to the
remainder of the taxon, and (2) the
significance of the population segment
to the taxon to which it belongs. If a
population meets both tests, it can be
identified as a DPS. Then the third
factor, the population segment’s
conservation status, is evaluated in
relation to the Act’s standards for
listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e.,
is the DPS endangered or threatened).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Agency’s Past Practice and History of
Using DPSs
Of the over 370 native vertebrate
‘‘species’’ listed under the Act, 77 are
listed as less than an entire taxonomic
species or subspecies (henceforth
referred to as populations) under one of
several authorities including the DPS
language in the definition of ‘‘species’’.
Of these 77 listed populations, 32
predate the 1996 DPS policy (61 FR
4722); therefore, the final listing
determinations for these populations
did not include formal DPS analyses per
the 1996 DPS policy. Specifically, the
77 populations encompass 51 different
species or subspecies. During the
history of the Act, the Service and
NMFS have taken actions with respect
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
ER02AP09.000</GPH>
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
15077
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15078
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
to populations in 98 listing,
reclassification, and delisting actions.
The majority of those actions identified
a classification other than a
taxonomically recognized species or
subspecies at the time of listing. In
several instances, however, the agencies
have identified a DPS and, as
appropriate, revised the list of
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife in
a single action. For example, we (1)
established a DPS of the grizzly bear
(Ursus arctos horribilis) for the Greater
Yellowstone Area and surrounding area,
within the existing listing of the grizzly
bear in the lower 48 States, and
removed this DPS from the List of
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife
(March 29, 2007; 72 FR 14865); (2)
established two DPSs of the Columbian
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus leucurus): the Douglas
County DPS and the Columbia River
DPS; and removed the Douglas County
DPS from the List of Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife (July 24, 2003; 68
FR 43647); (3) removed the brown
pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) in the
Southeastern United States from the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and continued to identify the brown
pelican as endangered throughout the
remainder of its range (February 4, 1985;
50 FR 4938); (4) identified the American
crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in Florida
as a DPS within the existing endangered
listing of the American crocodile in the
United States and reclassified the
Florida DPS from endangered to
threatened (March 20, 2007; 71 FR
13027); and (5) amended the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants by revising the entry for the
gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) to
remove the eastern North Pacific
population from the List while retaining
the western North Pacific population as
endangered (June 16, 1994; 59 FR
31094)). We also proposed in 2000 to
identify four DPSs within the existing
listing of the gray wolf in the lower 48
States and to reclassify three of the DPSs
from endangered to threatened (July 13,
2000; 65 FR 43450). As described above
under ‘‘Previous Federal Action,’’ the
final rule we issued in 2003 identified
three gray wolf DPSs and reclassified
two of the DPSs from endangered to
threatened (April 1, 2003; 68 FR 15804).
Although courts subsequently
invalidated these DPSs, they did not
question the Service’s authority to
identify and reclassify DPSs within a
larger pre-existing listing. Identifying
and delisting the Western Great Lakes
DPS of gray wolves is consistent with
the Service’s past practice and does not
represent a change in agency position.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
of the following conditions—(1) it is
markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon 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 Act.
Markedly Separated From Other
Populations of the Taxon—The western
boundary of the WGL DPS 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 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 the 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. 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. Similar
movements from the NRM wolf
population into the WGL DPS are
unknown and are expected to happen
infrequently. The 2006 Sturgis, South
Dakota, wolf is the closest that an NRM
wolf has come to entering the WGL DPS
(Fain in litt. 2006). However, the Sturgis
wolf still had over 300 mi (500 km) to
travel before it would encounter the
nearest WGL DPS wolf pack. 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
between the Western Great Lakes and
the Northern Rocky Mountains satisfies
the discreteness criterion. Similarly, we
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
feel it is unlikely for wolves to cross the
eastern boundary into the Laurentian
Mixed Habitat Province of New York,
Pennsylvania, and New England due to
inhospitable conditions.
Delimited by International Boundaries
with Significant Management
Differences Between the U.S. 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 crossborder 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 28, 2006,
through March 31, 2007 (Manitoba
Conservation 2006a). Trapping wolves
is allowed province-wide except in and
immediately around Riding Mountain
National Park (southwestern Manitoba),
with a current season running from
October 14, 2006, through February 28
or March 31, 2007 (varies with trapping
zone) (Manitoba Conservation 2006b).
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 MNR 2005a, pp. 7–
9). 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 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 WGL DPS boundary
satisfies both conditions that can be
used to demonstrate discreteness of a
potential DPS.
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Analysis for Significance
If we determine that a population
segment is discrete, we next consider
available scientific evidence of its
significance to the taxon 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 WGL
wolf DPS and thus are not included in
our analysis for significance.
Unusual or Unique Ecological
Setting—Wolves within the 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
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, nor do we
expect wolves from the WGL DPS to
move into them due to the vast distance
between these two areas and
inhospitable terrain they would need to
traverse. Therefore, WGL wolves
represent the only wolf packs in the
United States occupying this province.
Furthermore, WGL wolves represent the
only use by gray wolf packs 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
prevent the development of a major gap
in a taxon’s range (‘‘the loss of the
discrete population segment would
result in a significant gap in the range
of the taxon’’ (61 FR 4725)). 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.
The recovered Western Great Lakes wolf
metapopulation is the only wolf
population in the conterminous States
east of the Rocky Mountains except for
the red wolves being restored along the
Atlantic Coast and currently holds about
80 percent of North American gray
wolves that occur south of Canada.
Discrete Vertebrate Population Segment
Conclusion
We conclude, based on our review of
the best available scientific data, that
the WGL DPS is discrete from other wolf
populations as a result of physical
separation and the international border
with Canada. The DPS is significant to
the taxon to which it belongs because it
contains the only populations 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
gray wolves in the conterminous States.
Therefore, we have determined that this
population segment of wolves satisfies
the discreteness and significance criteria
required to identify it as a DPS. The
evaluation of the appropriate
conservation status for the WGL DPS is
found below.
Delineating the WGL Gray Wolf DPS
In contrast to a species or a
subspecies, a DPS is a biological
population that is delineated by a
boundary that is based on something
other than established taxonomic
distinctions. Therefore, the starting
point for delineating a DPS is the
biological population or
metapopulation, and a geographical
delineation of the DPS must reasonably
represent the population/
metapopulation and its biological
characteristics.
To delineate the boundary of the WGL
DPS, we considered the current
distribution of wolves in the Midwest
and the characteristic movements of
those wolves and of gray wolves
elsewhere. We examined the available
scientific data on long-distance
movements, including long-distance
movements followed by return
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15079
movements to the vicinity of the natal
pack. We concluded that wolf behavior
and the nature of wolf populations
require that we include within the area
of the DPS some subset of known longdistance movement locations. However,
as described below, wolf biology and
common sense argue against the
inclusion within the DPS boundary of
all known or potential long-distance
movements.
This analysis resulted in a WGL DPS
boundary that is shown in Figure 1. As
discussed below, this DPS has been
delineated to include the core recovered
wolf population plus a wolf movement
zone around the core wolf populations.
This geographic delineation is not
intended to include all areas to which
wolves have moved from the Great
Lakes population. Rather, it includes the
area currently occupied by wolf packs
in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan;
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 Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan wolves occasionally move but
where persistent packs are not expected
to be established because suitable
habitat is rare and exists only as small
patches. The area surrounding the core
wolf populations includes the locations
of most known dispersers from the core
populations, especially the shorter and
medium-distance movements from
which wolves are most likely to return
to the core areas and contribute to the
recovered wolf population.
The WGL areas that are regularly
occupied by wolf packs are well
documented in Minnesota (Erb and
Benson 2004, p. 12, fig. 3), Wisconsin
(Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 33, fig. 1), and
the UP of Michigan (Huntzinger et al.
2005, pp. 25–27, figs. 4–6). Wolves have
successfully colonized most, perhaps
all, suitable habitat in Minnesota.
Minnesota data from the winter of
2003–04 indicate that wolf numbers and
density either have continued to
increase slowly or have stabilized since
1997–98, and there was no expansion of
occupied range in the State (Erb and
Benson 2004, p. 7). Wisconsin wolves
now occupy most habitat areas believed
to have a high probability of wolf
occurrence except for some areas of
northeastern Wisconsin, and the State’s
wolf population continues to annually
increase in numbers and, to a lesser
degree, in area (Wydeven et al. 2006, p.
33). The UP of Michigan has wolf packs
throughout, although the current
population remains well below the
estimated biological carrying capacity
(Mladenoff et al. 1997, pp. 25–27, and
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15080
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
figs. 5 & 7) and will likely continue to
increase in numbers in the UP for at
least several more years.
When delineating the WGL DPS, we
had to consider the high degree of
mobility shown by wolves. The
dispersal of wolves from their natal
packs and territories is a normal and
important behavioral attribute of the
species that facilitates the formation of
new packs, the occupancy of vacant
territories, and the expansion of
occupied range by the ‘‘colonization’’ of
vacant habitat. Data on wolf dispersal
rates from numerous North American
studies (summarized in Fuller et al.
2003, p. 179, Table. 6.6; Boyd and
Pletscher 1999, p. 1102, Table 6) show
dispersal rates of 13 to 48 percent of the
individuals in a pack. Sometimes the
movements are temporary, and the wolf
returns to a location in or near its natal
territory. In some cases a wolf may
continue its movement for scores or
even hundreds of miles until it locates
suitable habitat, where it may establish
a territory or join an existing pack. In
other cases, a wolf is found dead at a
distance from its original territory,
leaving unanswered the questions of
how far it would have gone and whether
it eventually would have returned to its
natal area or population.
Minnesota—The current record for a
documented extra-territorial movement
by a gray wolf in North America is held
by a Minnesota wolf that moved a
minimum (that is, the straight line
distance from known starting point to
most distant point) of at least 550 mi
(886 km) northwest into Saskatchewan
(Fritts 1983, p. 166–167). Nineteen other
primarily Minnesota movements
summarized by Mech (in litt. 2005)
averaged 154 mi (248 km). Their
minimum distance of travel ranged from
32–532 mi (53–886 km) with the
minimum dispersal distance shown by
known returning wolves ranging from
54 mi (90 km) to 307 mi (494 km).
Wisconsin—In 2004, a wolf tagged in
Michigan was killed by a vehicle in
Rusk County in northwestern
Wisconsin, 295 miles (475 km) west of
his original capture location in the
eastern UP (Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 4).
A similar distance (298 mi, 480 km) was
traveled by a north-central Wisconsin
yearling female wolf that moved to the
Rainy Lake region of Ontario during
1988–89 (Wydeven et al. 1995, p. 149).
Michigan—Drummer et al. (2002, pp.
14–15) reported 10 long-distance
dispersal events involving UP wolves.
One of these wolves moved to northcentral Missouri and another to
southeastern Wisconsin, both beyond
the core wolf areas in the WGL. The
average straight-line distance traveled
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
by those two wolves was 377 mi (608
km), while the average straight-line
distance for all 10 of these wolves was
232 mi (373 km). Their straight-line
distances ranged from 41 to 468 mi (66
to 753 km).
Illinois and Indiana—The December
2002, Marshall County, Illinois, wolf
likely dispersed from the Wisconsin
wolf population, nearly 200 miles (322
km) to the north (Great Lakes Directory
2003). The Randolph County, Indiana
wolf had traveled a minimum distance
of at least 420 miles (676 km) to get
around Lake Michigan from its central
Wisconsin birthplace; it likely traveled
much farther than that unless it went
through the city or suburbs of Chicago
(Wydeven et al. 2004, pp. 10–11). The
Pike County, Illinois, wolf that was shot
in late 2005 was about 300 mi (180 km)
from the nearest wolf packs in central
Wisconsin.
North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Nebraska—Licht and Fritts (1994, p. 77)
tabulated seven gray wolves found dead
in North Dakota and South Dakota from
1981 through 1992 that are believed to
have originated from Minnesota, based
on skull morphometrics. Although none
of these wolves were marked or radiotracked, making it impossible to
determine the point of initiation of their
journey, a minimum travel distance for
the seven of Minnesota origin can be
determined from the nearest wolf
breeding range in Minnesota. For the
seven, the average distance to the
nearest wolf breeding range was 160 mi
(257 km) and ranged from 29 to 329 mi
(46 to 530 km). One of these seven
wolves moved west of the Missouri
River before it died.
Genetic analysis of a wolf killed in
Harding County, in extreme
northwestern South Dakota, in 2001
indicated that it originated from the
Minnesota—Wisconsin—Michigan wolf
populations (Fain in litt. 2006). The
straight-line travel distance to the
nearest Minnesota wolf pack is nearly
400 miles (644 km).
The wolf from the Greater
Yellowstone area that was killed by a
vehicle on Interstate 90 near Sturgis, SD,
in March of 2006 traveled a minimum
straight-line distance of about 270 mi
(435 km) from the nearest known
Greater Yellowstone pack before it died
(USFWS et al. 2006, in USFWS Program
Report, Figure 1).
A large canid was shot by a Boyd
County, Nebraska, rancher in late 1994
or early 1995, likely after crossing the
frozen Missouri River from South
Dakota (Anschutz in litt. 2006, Jobman
in litt. 1995). It was determined to be a
wolf that originated from the Great
Lakes wolf populations (Fain in litt.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2006), whose nearest pack would have
been about 300 mi (480 km) away. A
wolf illegally killed near Spalding,
Nebraska, in December of 2002 also
originated from the Minnesota—
Wisconsin—Michigan wolf population,
as determined by genetic analysis
(Anschutz in litt. 2003, Fain in litt.
2006). The nearest Minnesota wolf pack
is nearly 350 miles (563 km) from this
location.
Other notable extra-territorial
movements—Notable are several wolves
whose extra-territorial movements were
radio-tracked in sufficient detail to
provide insight into their actual travel
routes and total travel distances for each
trek, rather than only documenting
straight-line distance from beginning to
end-point. Merrill and Mech (2000, pp.
429–431) reported on four such
Minnesota wolves with documented
travel distances ranging from 305 to
2,641 mi (490 to 4,251 km) and an
average travel route length of 988 mi
(1590 km). Wydeven (1994, pp. 20–22)
described a Wisconsin wolf that moved
from northwestern Wisconsin to the
northern suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota,
for 2 weeks (apparently not seen or
reported to authorities by the local
residents), then moved back to northcentral Wisconsin. The total travel
distance was 278 mi (447km) from her
natal pack into Minnesota and on to the
north-central Wisconsin location where
she settled down.
While investigating the origins of
Scandinavian wolf populations, Linnell
et al. (2005, p. 387) compiled gray wolf
dispersal data from 21 published
studies, including many cited separately
here. Twenty-two of 298 compiled
dispersals (7.4 percent) were over 300
km (186 mi). Eleven dispersals (3.7
percent) were over 500 km (311 mi).
Because of the likelihood that many
long-distance dispersers are never
reported, they conclude that the
proportion of long-distance dispersers is
probably severely underestimated.
From these extra-territorial movement
records we conclude that gray wolf
movements of over 200 miles (320 km)
straight-line distance have been
documented on numerous occasions,
while shorter distance movements are
more frequent. Movements of 300 miles
(480 km) straight-line distance or more
are less common, but include one
Minnesota wolf that journeyed a
straight-line distance of 300 mi (480 km)
and a known minimum travel distance
of 2,550 mi (4,251 km) before it reversed
direction, as determined by its satellitetracked collar. This wolf returned to a
spot only 24 mi (40 km) from its natal
territory (Merrill and Mech 2000, p.
430). While much longer movements
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
have been documented, including some
by midwestern wolves, return
movements to the vicinity of natal
territories have not been documented
for extra-territorial movements beyond
300 mi (480 km).
Based on these extra-territorial
movement data, we conclude that
affiliation with the midwestern wolf
population has diminished and is
essentially lost when dispersal takes a
Midwest wolf a distance of 250 to 300
miles (400 to 480 km) beyond the outer
edge of the areas that are largely
continuously occupied by wolf packs.
Although some WGL wolves will move
beyond this distance, available data
indicate that longer distance dispersers
are unlikely to return to their natal
population. Therefore, they have lost
their functional connection with and
potential conservation value to, the
WGL wolf population.
Wolves moving substantial distances
outward from the core areas of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
will encounter landscape features that
are at least partial barriers to further
wolf movement, and that may—if
crossed—impede attempts of wolves to
return toward the WGL core areas. If
such partial barriers are in a location
that has separate utility in delineating
the biological extent of a wolf
population, they can and should be
used to delineate the DPS boundary.
Such landscape features are the
Missouri River in North Dakota and
downstream to Omaha, Nebraska, and
Interstate Highway 80 from Omaha
eastward through Illinois, Indiana, and
into Ohio, ending where this highway
crosses the Maumee River in Toledo,
Ohio. We do not believe these are
absolute barriers to wolf movement.
There is evidence that several
Minnesota-origin wolves have crossed
the Missouri River (Licht and Fritts
1994, pp. 75 & 77, Fig. 1 and Table 1;
Anschutz in litt. 2003, 2006) and some
Midwest wolves have crossed interstate
highways (Merrill and Mech 2000, p.
430). There is also evidence that some
wolves are hesitant to cross highways,
(Whittington et al. 2004, pp. 7, 9;
Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 5; but see
Blanco et al. 2005, pp. 315–316, 319–
320 and Kohn et al. 2000, p. 22).
Interstate highways and smaller roads
are a known mortality factor for wolves
and, therefore, are a partial barrier to
wolf movements (Blanco et al. 2005, p.
320).
The recent death of a NRM wolf near
Sturgis in western South Dakota (Fain in
litt. 2006) suggests that the area of the
Dakotas west of the Missouri River may
be traversed by a small number of
wolves coming from both the NRM and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
Great Lakes wolf populations, as well as
wolves from Canada (Licht and Fritts
1994, pp. 75–77). Wolves in this area
cannot be assumed to belong to the
Great Lakes wolf population, supporting
our belief that the DPS boundary should
not be designed to include the locations
of all known dispersers. As this record
shows, an additional weakness of basing
a DPS boundary on the location of the
most distant dispersal is that it results
in a boundary that is valid only until a
more distant dispersal event is
documented.
Peer Review
In accordance with the December 16,
2004, Office of Management and
Budget’s ‘‘Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review’’, we have
obtained comments from at least three
independent scientific reviewers
regarding the scientific data and
interpretations contained in the March
27, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 15266).
The purpose of such review is to ensure
that our delisting proposal provided to
the public and our delisting decision is
based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. Peer
reviewer comments were received
during the public comment period from
ten individuals and were considered as
we made our final decision on the
proposal. Substantive peer reviewer
comments are summarized in the
remaining paragraphs of this section as
well as discussed in greater detail in the
appropriate Issue/Response sections
which follow.
All ten peer reviewers have extensive
biological experience with gray wolves.
Most are currently involved in wolf
research for the Federal Government
(three individuals in two agencies),
Canadian Government (one reviewer), or
universities (two individuals). One
reviewer is a biologist for a tribe with
extensive involvement in wolf recovery
and management, one leads a long-term
Federal wolf depredation control
program, another directs an endangered
species conservation organization, and
the tenth is a retired State wolf biologist.
None of the peer reviewers are
employed by the Service or by State
agencies within the WGL DPS.
All eight peer reviewers who
expressed a clear opinion supported the
biological approach we used to identify
the DPS and its boundaries, and they
agreed that the delisting criteria have
been achieved by the DPS. Three of
these eight had previously opposed the
proposed 2003 identification and 2004
delisting of the much larger Eastern
DPS. None of the peer reviewers stated
that the currently proposed DPS
boundary or delisting was
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15081
inappropriate. One peer reviewer’s
expertise is limited to wolf diseases and
causes of wolf mortality. This reviewer
limited her comments to those areas.
The remaining peer reviewer was
unclear regarding support for, or
opposition to, our biological basis for
the proposed boundary of the DPS, but
agreed that wolves in the Great Lakes
have met the federally established
delisting criteria.
In general, the peer reviewers judged
the delisting proposal to be well
researched, thorough, and adequate to
support delisting of the WGL DPS.
Except for one reviewer who stated that
the State plans need greater emphasis
on educating and informing the public,
all comments related to State plans and
our analysis of the plans indicated that
the reviewers believed the State
population goals were adequate and the
protection and management actions
contained in the plans would ensure
viable wolf populations following
delisting.
None of the peer reviewers expressed
concerns with the expanded use of wolf
control measures by the States following
delisting. Several specifically stated that
they were confident that the States
would not allow human-caused
mortality to threaten the security of
viable populations within the three
States. One reviewer, who has several
decades of experience with wolf
depredation control measures,
expressed a belief that wolf control or
harvest by the public will not result in
excessive take of wolves.
There were no criticisms of, or
recommendations to improve, the
current population monitoring done by
the three States. One reviewer, while
noting that the Minnesota population
estimate ‘‘is probably much less
accurate than [those developed by] MI
or WI’’ and likely overestimates the
State’s wolf population, went on to state
that this is not a critical point and may
not matter, because the Minnesota wolf
population is well over the minimum
number needed to delist. He also stated
that ‘‘managers have as good a dataset
on wolves as just about any other
species they manage, even white-tailed
deer * * *.’’ Another reviewer stated
that the three States are using ‘‘adequate
and consistent techniques’’ to develop
their wolf population estimates.
There were no suggestions that other
States within the DPS should be
developing wolf management plans or
wolf monitoring programs. However,
one reviewer recommended that all
States in the DPS cooperate in the
documenting and reporting of wolves
dispersing from the northern Minnesota,
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15082
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Wisconsin, and Michigan recovery
areas.
Several reviewers pointed out that,
while there currently is sufficient
habitat that is likely to remain secure for
the foreseeable future, this should be
monitored by the States after delisting.
The fragmentation of private industrial
forests for second homes and other
developments was identified as a
potential future threat to occupied wolf
habitat. Most reviewers pointed to the
need for effective and timely monitoring
of wolf numbers and wolf health
following delisting.
None of the peer reviewers expressed
concern that the Wisconsin and
Michigan Plans—being updated and
revised, respectively, at the time the
delisting proposal was published—
would be weakened and substantially
reduce protections for the wolves in the
State. However, one of the reviewers
urged that the two plans be finalized
prior to delisting. Two peer reviewers
specifically recommended that the
Service complete the post-delisting
monitoring plan prior to delisting.
One reviewer supported the
identification of the DPS and its
delisting and said its boundaries ‘‘do
not extend delisting beyond an area that
is reasonably affected by the DPS.’’
However, this reviewer cautioned that
in delineating a DPS the Service should
avoid over-emphasizing ‘‘the
importance of the biological (or
population viability) aspect of
‘significant portion of the range’ ’’
within the Act’s definitions of
endangered and threatened. He
provided a recent co-authored scientific
publication that seems to argue for a
primarily quantitative approach to
determining what part of a species’
range is significant. This same reviewer
objected to the Service’s interpretation
of ‘‘range’’ to mean current range, when
used in the context of ‘‘significant
portion of the range.’’
Regarding the Northern Lower
Peninsula of Michigan, one peer
reviewer indicated his belief that wolves
are likely to move into habitat there and
the State should allow that to happen.
Another reviewer agreed with the
Service that the currently unoccupied
habitat in the NLP is not a significant
portion of their range in the WGL DPS.
One peer reviewer supported the
delisting but criticized the ‘‘bizarre
aspect’’ of it that would result in wolves
in areas beyond the DPS retaining the
Act’s protection as endangered, when
‘‘[t]he area outside the proposed DPS is
precisely the area that the Eastern
Timber Wolf recovery Team believed
should not harbor wolves * * *.’’ The
reviewer recommends delisting gray
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
wolves in the unsuitable habitat areas
beyond the WGL DPS, as well.
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
We received 360 total comments,
including 310 original letters and 50
form responses based on 2 form letters.
These comments included 10 that we
solicited from peer reviewers, as well as
verbal and written comments received
at public hearings. We received
comments from 40 identifiable states
and the District of Columbia, as well as
5 foreign countries. Private individuals
submitted 249 of the comments.
Nineteen came from preservation,
conservation, or animal welfare
organizations, and 16 were submitted by
agriculture or livestock organizations.
State agency representatives or elected
officials provided 12 comments, and 6
were received from Native American
government agencies or organizations.
Issue 1—One commenter requested
the Service double the length of the
public comment period and hold
additional public hearings in all
‘‘recipient states.’’
Response—The Act and
implementing regulations for adding or
removing species from the list of
threatened and endangered species
require a public comment period of at
least 60 days and holding one public
hearing if requested within 45 days of
the publication of the proposal (50 CFR
424.16). We opened a 90-day public
comment period and held four public
hearings in the States that would be
most affected by the proposed changes.
Additionally, we facilitated public
involvement in this process by
providing a great deal of information on
our web site regarding wolf biology and
behavior; wolf identification and wolfdog hybrids; threats to human safety;
depredation control programs; and our
summaries of State wolf management
plans and copies of those plans. We
mailed summaries of the proposal to
approximately 1,600 individuals and
organizations that had previously
expressed interest in wolf recovery and
delisting issues, and we provided ways
to submit comments via the web, e-mail,
fax, and mail, as well as at the four
hearings. We provided ample
opportunities for interested individuals
and organizations to learn about the
proposal and to provide comments
within the 90-day comment period and
at the four hearings; therefore, we did
not extend the comment period nor
schedule additional hearings.
Issue 2—A number of comments
expressed opposition to delisting,
making statements such as ‘‘wolves
should always be protected’’ by the Act,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the Service ‘‘should abandon its goal of
delisting wolves in the US,’’ and wolves
should not be delisted until ‘‘their
numbers reach exorbitant levels,’’ they
have reached biological carrying
capacity, or wolves have overpopulated
and are damaging the natural ecosystem.
Other commenters wanted the critical
habitat designations to remain in place
after delisting to keep the Service
involved in preserving habitat for a
delisted species.
Response—The Act provides the
Federal Government with authority to
protect and recover threatened and
endangered species. When a species has
been recovered to the extent that it no
longer meets the definition of
‘‘threatened’’ or ‘‘endangered’’ the Act
provides that it be removed from the
Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants and its
management be returned to the
appropriate States and tribes (in cases
where treaties identify such authorities
for tribes). The goal of the Act is to
recover and delist species that have
been listed as threatened or endangered.
The gray wolf WGL DPS no longer
meets the definition of threatened or
endangered, because it has achieved
long-standing recovery criteria by
greatly expanding in numbers and
geographic range and threats to its longterm viability have been reduced or
eliminated. Therefore, the Act
authorizes delisting the taxon, but it
also requires that we continue to
monitor the status of the species for a
minimum of five years after delisting,
and we can list it again if the monitoring
results show that to be necessary.
‘‘Critical habitat’’ is a legal
designation under the Act that is given
to geographical areas that are essential
to the conservation of a listed species.
Critical habitat is designated only for
endangered or threatened species, and
any critical habitat designations must be
removed if the taxon is removed from
the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Issue 3—Numerous commenters
indicated that our delisting proposal
was based on unspecified political
considerations, pressure from the
livestock industry, exaggerated fears for
human safety, pressure from deer
hunters and furbearer trappers, and
pressure from States. We were asked by
other commenters to consider the value
of wolves as an umbrella or keystone
species, for keeping deer numbers in
check, to maintaining healthy ungulate
populations, in balancing nature, and
providing a legal mechanism to protect
habitat needed by other species. Others
thought we should consider the
economic benefits provided by a large
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
wolf population and recognize that
protecting ‘‘the entire ecology of
Minnesota’’ requires that we keep
wolves listed under the Act.
Response—The Act requires that
listing and delisting decisions be based
entirely on whether a species is
endangered or threatened due to one or
more categories of threats (section
4(a)(1)) and that we make this
determination ‘‘solely on the basis of the
best scientific and commercial data
available.’’ In compliance with the Act,
the other considerations and factors
described above have not been used in
making this decision.
Issue 4—Several commenters stated
that wolf recovery should include
repopulating suitable habitat in the
Lower Peninsula of Michigan, or that a
larger geographical area needs to be
reoccupied before recovery is achieved.
One comment stated that population
numbers alone cannot be used ‘‘as the
sole proof of long-term recovery.’’ Other
commenters pointed to scientific
publications that advocate larger
populations with more individuals to
ensure long-term viability of species, in
general.
Response—The Act states that the
Service will develop recovery plans
and, within these recovery plans, to the
maximum extent practicable, establish
‘‘objective, measurable criteria which,
when met, would result in a
determination * * * that the species be
removed from the list * * *.’’ (section
4(f)(1)(B)(ii)). Therefore, while a
delisting decision must include an
evaluation of the threats to a species, we
must also establish and utilize
measurable criteria to assess progress
towards recovery. Our delisting decision
is not based on population numbers
alone, but also on population
distribution and threats to that
population and its habitat, as required
by the Act.
Issue 5—We received several
comments that stated that the recovery
criteria have not been achieved because
either the wolf population data are
wrong, and/or because the WisconsinUpper Peninsula wolf population is not
a second population as is required by
the recovery criteria found in the 1992
Recovery Plan.
Response—We, and the peer
reviewers of the delisting proposal, are
fully satisfied that the wolf population
estimates provided by the DNRs of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
demonstrate that the numerical recovery
criteria have been achieved for far
longer than the five years recommended
in the Federal Recovery Plan. The
methods used by WI and MI DNRs
result in a conservative count of the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
wolves that are alive at the late-winter
annual low point of the wolf
population. The method used by the
Minnesota DNR for its much larger wolf
population is less precise, but even the
lower bound of its 90 percent
confidence interval (CI) exceeded the
Federal Recovery Plan’s Minnesota goal
of 1,250–1,440 wolves back as far as the
1988–89 survey (Fuller et al. 1992, p.
50) and the CI lower bound has been
well above that goal since then (Erb and
Benson 2004, table 1). Therefore, we see
no problem with using these Minnesota
population estimates. The Recovery
Team has also expressed confidence in
the population estimates of all three
States (Peterson in litt. 1999a, in litt.
1999b).
The 1992 Federal Recovery Plan
describes two scenarios that would
satisfy its requirement for a second
viable wolf population. One scenario
deals with the development of an
isolated wolf population; such a
population must be composed of at least
200 wolves over five successive years.
The second scenario is a population that
is located within 100 miles of another
viable wolf population; such a
population must consist of only 100
wolves for five consecutive years
(USFWS 1992, pp 25–26). The Recovery
Plan discusses the conservation
tradeoffs of completely separate
populations versus adjacent
populations, and it specifically states
that a wolf population larger than 100
wolves ‘‘closely tied to the Minnesota
population’’ will be considered a viable
population despite its small size,
because of immigration of wolves from
Minnesota (USFWS 1992, pp. 24–25).
Although this Recovery Plan was
written prior to the common acceptance
and use of the conservation biology term
‘‘metapopulation,’’ this clearly was the
concept being discussed and advocated
in the Federal Recovery Plan. The
second scenario describes what has
occurred in the WGL DPS and therefore
the wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan
qualify as a second population.
Issue 6—Several comments stated that
a DPS cannot be used for delisting a
species; DPSs can only be identified for
listing species as threatened or
endangered.
Response—DPSs can be utilized for
both listing and delisting species.
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act directs the
Secretary of the Interior to determine
whether ‘‘any species’’ is endangered or
threatened. Numerous sections of the
Act refer to adding and removing
‘‘species’’ from the list of threatened or
endangered plants and animals. Section
3(15) defines ‘‘species’’ to include any
subspecies ‘‘and any distinct population
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15083
segment of any species of vertebrate fish
or wildlife * * *.’’ Therefore, the Act
authorizes us to list, reclassify, and
delist species, subspecies, and DPSs of
vertebrate species. Furthermore, our
‘‘Policy Regarding the Recognition of
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
under the Endangered Species Act’’
states that the policy is intended for
‘‘the purposes of listing, delisting, and
reclassifying species under the
Endangered Species Act * * *.’’ (61 FR
4722, Feb. 7, 1996), and that it ‘‘guides
the evaluation of distinct vertebrate
population segments for the purposes of
listing, delisting, and reclassifying
under the Act.’’ (61 FR 4725).
Most recently, on December 12, 2008,
the Solicitor of the Department of the
Interior issued a formal opinion, ‘‘U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Authority
Under Section 4(c)(1) of the Endangered
Species Act to Revise Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Species to
‘Reflect Recent Determinations’ ’’ (U.S.
DOI 2008). This opinion represents the
views of the Service and fully supports
the Service’s position that it is
authorized in a single action to identify
a DPS within a larger listed entity,
determine that the DPS is neither
endangered nor threatened, and then
revise the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife to reflect those
determinations. The opinion also notes
that, although the term ‘‘delist’’ is not
used in the Act, it is used extensively
in the regulations implementing the
section 4 listing provisions of the Act,
such as 50 CFR 424.11(d). As explained
in footnote 8 to the Solicitor’s opinion,
‘‘As used by FWS, delisting applies
broadly to any action that revises the
lists either to remove an already-listed
entity from the appropriate list in its
entirety, or to reduce the geographic or
taxonomic scope of a listing to exclude
a group of organisms previously
included as part of an already-listed
entity (as was the case with the Western
Great Lakes DPS of gray wolves).’’ The
complete text of the Solicitor’s formal
opinion can be found at https://
www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/.
Issue 7—Several commenters,
including State natural resource
agencies, stated that the proposed DPS
is too small and should be expanded to
include all of their State (North Dakota,
South Dakota, Iowa), and for Missouri,
should include the northern two-thirds
of the State. They expressed concerns
that some gray wolves will disperse
beyond the boundaries of the proposed
WGL DPS, where they would have
endangered status under the Act. If
those wolves subsequently cause
conflicts with livestock or other human
activities, the States would be limited in
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15084
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the management or control actions that
they could undertake to address the
conflict.
Response—We have delineated this
DPS boundary to be based solely on the
wolf population in the Western Great
Lakes. Suggestions to enlarge the DPS to
include the locations of all known
dispersers from this recovered
population are not practical for several
reasons. It is not possible to predict
where additional long-distance
dispersers will turn up. Attempting to
lay out the DPS boundary so that it
circumscribes all future Midwest
dispersers would require either an
unacceptably large DPS, or making a
series of future outward boundary
adjustments to reflect new dispersal
locations as they occur.
Upon request we will work with the
States where the gray wolf retains
endangered status to identify and
pursue options to deal with wolf-human
conflicts that may arise there. We also
point out that the Act’s implementing
regulations for endangered wildlife
specifically allow a person to take an
endangered wolf ‘‘in defense of his own
life or the lives of others’’ (50 CFR
17.21(c)(3)) and provide that employees
or agents of the Service, other Federal
land management agencies, and State
conservation agencies may take an
endangered wolf that is ‘‘a demonstrable
but nonimmediate threat to human
safety.’’ (50 CFR 17.21(c)(3)(iv)).
Issue 8—One comment stated that the
DPS should not include small areas of
northern Indiana and Ohio and instead
the DPS should end at the southern
border of Michigan.
Response—We believe the use of I–80
is preferable to the State line for several
reasons. First, the interstate highway
more clearly identifies the terminus of
the DPS on the ground, making it easier
for an individual or for law enforcement
agents to determine the legal status of a
wolf in the field. Second, this major
interstate highway will serve as a partial
barrier to wolf dispersal out of the DPS.
Therefore, this boundary makes it less
likely that these two States will have to
deal with dispersing gray wolves that
are protected as endangered within their
state. Neither State has requested the
proposed boundary be modified.
Issue 9—The DPS should not include
areas of suitable habitat that lack wolf
packs. The DPS should not include any
areas that lack wolf packs.
Response—We have identified the
DPS to be closely tied to the biological
wolf population that has been
recovered, and to be consistent with the
two relevant court rulings (Defenders of
Wildlife v. Norton, 03–1348–JO, D. OR.
2005; National Wildlife Federation v.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
Norton, 1:03–CV–340, D. VT. 2005).
Wolf biology makes it unreasonable to
define a wolf population, and hence a
wolf DPS, solely as the area where wolf
packs are present at viable levels. Any
area that hosts wolf packs also is
producing a substantial number of
dispersing wolves, some of which return
after short absences, while others travel
farther and some never return.
Delineation of a wolf population must
recognize and account for this dispersal
behavior to some degree. We believe our
DPS delineation is appropriately based
on the biological features of the species
and the nature of a wolf population by
being centered around the focal areas of
the recovery program, but also including
a reasonable portion of those wolves
making longer distance movements from
their natal areas.
We have included nearby areas that
are likely to be visited by wolves that
have dispersed from the core recovery
areas because we believe these wolves
should be considered part of that
biological population while they are
within a reasonable distance from the
core areas. The areas of potentially
suitable habitat that are currently
unoccupied are relatively small, and
even if occupied in the future, will not
make a significant contribution to the
long-term viability of the gray wolf
population in the DPS or in the United
States. Additionally, wolves that
ultimately occupy the NLP will have
dispersed from the UP, so we believe
the NLP should be included within the
WGL DPS.
Issue 10—One comment stated that
other gray wolf DPSs should be
proposed and identified simultaneously.
Piecemeal identification of DPSs and
de-listing thwarts the intent of both the
vertebrate population policy and the
Act.
Response—While in some situations
it may be appropriate to identify
multiple DPSs simultaneously, there is
no requirement in the Act or the DPS
Policy to do so. The Service lists or
delists species when data are available
that supports a decision that best serves
the conservation of the taxon. As
mentioned above, on December 12,
2008, a formal opinion was issued by
the Solicitor for the Department of the
Interior, ‘‘U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Authority Under Section 4(c)(1) of the
ESA to Revise Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Species to ‘Reflect Recent
Determinations’ ’’ (U.S. DOI 2008) and
fully supports the Secretary’s actions in
this final rule. The complete text of the
Solicitor’s formal opinion can be found
at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/.
Issue 11—Several commenters
expressed the concern that delisting the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
WGL DPS will eliminate the possibility
of wolf recovery in the northeastern
United States.
Response—Following this delisting,
gray wolves in the northeastern states
will retain their classification as
endangered under the Act, thereby
preserving the possibility of efforts to
restore the gray wolf to that region. It
also preserves the Federal protections of
the Act that would aid gray wolf
restoration actions in the northeastern
United States if undertaken by State or
tribal agencies, and it protects gray
wolves immigrating from Canada.
Issue 12—The Service must consider
gray wolf subspecies when constructing
DPS boundaries, and a DPS cannot
include portions of the historical range
of two subspecies (C. lupus lycaon and
C. l. nubilus) within its boundary.
Response—The gray wolf entity that
has been protected by the Act since
1978 is the species C. lupus in the
United States and Mexico, rather than a
subspecies of the gray wolf. This DPS
creates a subunit of the species listing,
thereby indicating that the population of
the species within this geographical
boundary has been recovered. It makes
no reference to any gray wolf
subspecies. Because the listed entity is
the gray wolf, creating a DPS from a
portion of the listed entity does not
create or require a nexus with
subspecies taxonomy.
Issue 13—Several comments
suggested that a separate species of wolf
may be present in the Upper Peninsula
and should be recognized and protected
by the Service.
Response—There are several scientific
hypotheses regarding the identity of
large canids in the eastern United States
and adjacent Canada. One of these
hypotheses suggests that the wolves in
southeastern Ontario are a separate wolf
species being referred to as the ‘‘eastern
wolf’’ and tentatively given the
scientific name Canis lycaon. If
southeastern Ontario wolves are this
separate species, those wolves may have
contributed their genetic material to the
wolf population in the UP via
movement westward across the St.
Mary’s River. However, we believe the
UP wolf population primarily
developed from Minnesota and
Wisconsin wolves that made overland
movements into the UP from the west,
and that wolf immigration across the St.
Mary’s River from the east was of much
smaller magnitude. At this point there
have been no published or peerreviewed studies of the genetic makeup
of UP wolves. Therefore, we will
continue to consider WGL wolves to be
C. lupus.
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Issue 14—One comment applied the
meaning of significance (using examples
of unique ecological setting and
differences in genetic characteristics) as
used in our 1996 DPS Policy (61 FR
4725, Feb. 7, 1996) to the usage of
‘‘significant’’ in ‘‘significant portion of
its range’’ as the phrase is used in the
definitions of endangered and
threatened in paragraphs 3(6) and 3(19),
respectively. As a result, the comment
concludes that we have not applied the
DPS Policy’s examples of significance
during our analysis of whether wolves
have been recovered to a sufficient area
of the DPS.
Response—These two uses of
significant/significance are contextspecific, do not have the same meaning,
and should not be used interchangeably.
When applying the DPS policy, we are
required to evaluate whether the
discrete group of animals under
consideration is sufficiently important
to the overall taxon so that it warrants
a separate listing under the Act—that is,
is the population significant to the
overall taxon. In contrast, when
applying the definitions of endangered
and threatened to a taxon, we are
considering whether a certain area is
important to that same taxon. Another
way of explaining the difference is that
in one case we are evaluating the
importance of a group of organisms; in
the other case we are assessing the value
of a portion of geographic range. The
evaluations are not comparable and are
dependent on different factors.
Therefore, we believe we are correct in
our usage of these terms in this rule.
Issue 15—Wolves remain extirpated
in approximately 60 percent of the DPS.
This is a significant portion of the range
(SPR) within the DPS; therefore, wolves
remain endangered in the DPS.
Response—The determination of
whether a portion of a species’ range is
‘‘significant’’ is based on the biological
needs of the species and the threats to
the species. In making this
determination we consider the quality,
quantity, and distribution of suitable
habitat, the use, uniqueness, and
importance of the habitat, and other
biological factors appropriate to the
species and area under consideration.
We do not focus solely, or even
primarily, on a quantitative assessment,
because quantity of range might have no
relationship to the biological needs of
the species. In the case of the gray wolf,
the portions of North Dakota, South
Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio
within the WGL DPS are not significant
portions of the range even though they
may be sizeable pieces of historical
range. These areas contain wolf habitat
that is severely degraded at best, and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
even if they remained listed as
endangered, they would not be likely to
develop viable wolf populations in the
foreseeable future. These areas thus are
not important to the gray wolf
metapopulation in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan. Similarly, the areas of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
that currently are unoccupied by wolves
contain only small areas of potentially
suitable habitat, mostly in the NLP of
Michigan, and eventual wolf pack
occupancy of these areas will have
minimal influence on the viability of the
current recovered wolf populations in
the three States. Consequently, these
areas have minimal biological
significance to the conservation status of
gray wolves in the DPS, and they are not
an SPR within the DPS.
Issue 16—The Service must consider
the historical range of the gray wolf,
rather than the currently occupied
range, when assessing what is a
‘‘significant part of the range’’ as that
phrase is used in the definitions of
endangered and threatened species.
Response—For the purposes of this
rule, and for determining the significant
portion of the range of the gray wolf in
the DPS, the Service considers the range
of the gray wolf to be the entire
geographical area delineated by the
WGL DPS. We have clarified this in the
final rule.
Issue 17—One comment stated that a
rangewide recovery plan is required by
the Act before any wolf delisting actions
can occur.
Response—The Service has
developed, implemented, and revised,
as needed, three geographically based
recovery plans for the gray wolf. The
Act requires that we develop and
implement recovery plans for listed
species unless they ‘‘will not promote
the conservation of the species * * *’’
(section 4(f)(1)). In its 2005 ruling, the
Vermont District Court specifically
commented on this issue, finding that
the Service’s use of ‘‘three recovery
plans for the gray wolf rather than one
comprehensive plan must be afforded
Chevron deference, and is therefore an
appropriate agency course of action’’
(National Wildlife Federation v. Norton,
1:03–CV–340, D. VT. 2005, p. 28).
Issue 18—A comment letter stated
that the Act does not permit the creation
of a WGL DPS (and Northern Rocky
Mountain DPS) while maintaining the
pre-existing species listing across the
remaining 48 States.
Response—We believe this approach
of creating a small DPS reflects the
recovered status of wolves in the DPS
and is consistent with the 2005 rulings
(Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 03–
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15085
1348–JO, D. OR 2005; National Wildlife
Federation v. Norton, 1:03–CV–340, D.
VT. 2005). The Vermont ruling stated
‘‘Nowhere in the ESA is the Secretary
prevented from creating a ‘non-DPS
remnant’, especially when the remnant
area was already listed as endangered’’
(National Wildlife Federation v. Norton,
1:03–CV–340, D. VT. 2005, p. 20). Our
current identification of a WGL DPS,
while retaining the remaining 48-state
and Mexico gray wolf listing intact as
endangered, is consistent with this
aspect of the District Court’s ruling.
Issue 19—The Service cannot delist
the DPS because the gray wolf remains
extirpated from 95 percent of its
historical range.
Response—We have clarified in this
final rule that we are only delisting the
gray wolf in the WGL DPS; we are not
delisting the gray wolf across its
historical range in the 48 coterminous
States and Mexico. We have considered
only whether the gray wolf is threatened
or endangered within this DPS.
Issue 20—The DPS can only delist
wolves in the core recovery areas, rather
than include and delist dispersing
animals from those areas.
Response—A critical component of
delineating the boundaries of a DPS is
gaining an understanding of the
population/metapopulation that is being
identified as a DPS. Wolf biology clearly
shows that temporary and permanent
movements beyond the pack’s territory
are a key element of wolf population
dynamics, and as such, these
movements must be considered when
delineating a boundary for a DPS.
Furthermore, a biologically based DPS
boundary cannot follow the edge of the
fully occupied core areas, as this
comment seems to advocate. Individual
wolves would be constantly moving
back and forth across such a boundary,
and pack territories may form on both
sides of the line in some years, and
might disappear from one or both sides
in subsequent years, depending on a
number of physical, biological, and
societal factors. We determined that the
DPS boundary should recognize and
accommodate the normal behavior of
the population/metapopulation
members.
Issue 21—The Service did not use
wolf dispersal data as claimed, because
wolves disperse outside of the proposed
DPS boundary.
Response—In the proposed rule we
did not attempt to include the locations
of all known dispersing MN/WI/MI
wolves within the proposed DPS, or to
use the maximum known gray wolf
dispersal distance to delineate the DPS
boundary. We have provided further
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15086
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
clarification in this final rule on the
biological method we have used.
Issue 22—The DPS must contain a
uniform biotype (the Laurentian Mixed
Forest Province), or the DPS boundaries
must be based on biotype or habitat
boundaries, because this is what makes
the WGL wolves ‘‘significant.’’
Response—A number of factors
contributed to our determination that
the WGL DPS was significant, only one
of which included occupancy of these
in the Laurentian Mixed Forest
Province. However, even if the only
factor contributing to ‘‘significance’’ was
the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province,
the DPS boundaries would not use (nor
is there a requirement to use) that
habitat or biotype as the boundary. As
discussed in the rule, many factors
concerning wolf biology were
considered in identifying the WGL DPS.
Limiting the DPS to one habitat type
would not make sense biologically for
this species.
Issue 23—Highways I–80 and the
Missouri River cannot be used for DPS
boundaries, because wolves cross them,
making them arbitrary choices.
Response—In our proposal we
described Interstate 80 and the Missouri
River as being ‘‘partial barriers,’’ and we
cited data showing they have been
crossed by a small number of wolves (p.
15277). We did not use these features to
identify the discreteness of the wolf
population within the WGL DPS.
Rather, we use them as readily
identifiable features on the landscape
that are in a biologically appropriate
location for use in delineating the DPS,
and they are also partial barriers to wolf
movements.
Issue 24—The 1992 Service Recovery
Plan is outdated, and its recovery
criteria cannot be used to justify
delisting.
Response—When wolf numbers in the
Midwest appeared to be approaching
the recovery criteria specified in the
1992 Plan, we reconvened the Recovery
Team in 1997 to query them regarding
the appropriateness of those criteria.
The Team expressed confidence that the
recovery criteria remained ‘‘necessary
and sufficient’’ (Peterson in litt. 1997, in
litt. 1998). Furthermore, the peer
reviewers overwhelmingly supported
our conclusion that the WGL DPS
wolves have recovered, and they
expressed no concern with the 1992
recovery criteria that were used as part
of our determination.
The population goals in the 1992
Recovery Plan are not the sole
determinants of whether delisting is
appropriate. While the Act states that
recovery plans shall contain ‘‘objective,
measurable criteria’’ (sec. 4(f)(1)(B)(ii))
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
when practicable, achieving these
criteria alone cannot result in a
delisting. Rather, recovery criteria are
important indicators that identify the
need for consideration of delisting. The
consideration of delisting is a broad
review of the past, current, and likely
future threats to the species, as required
by the Act. The delisting decision is
made based on the threats assessment,
and the resulting determination of
whether the species meets the Act’s
definition of threatened or endangered.
Issue 25—One commenter stated that
increasing use of off-highway vehicles
(OHV) in Minnesota and growing
human populations pose serious threats
to wolves, especially in the core of
Minnesota’s wolf range. The commenter
pointed out that most of primary wolf
range (e.g., Management Zone A) (MN
DNR 2001, Appendix III) is north of
Highway 2 and that trails in these
forests may be subject to few limitations
to motorized use.
Response—As discussed in ‘‘Suitable
Habitat in the Western Great Lakes Gray
Wolf DPS’’ road density has largely been
accepted as the best single predictor of
habitat suitability in the Midwest due to
the connection between roads and
human-related wolf mortality. Offhighway vehicle trails introduce only a
portion of the impacts and risk factors
associated with roads, such as increased
human access to areas occupied by
wolves and increased likelihood of
unauthorized shooting or trapping. Offhighway vehicle trails do not introduce
significant levels of the other risk
factors, such as more farms and
residences, more domestic animals, a
greater likelihood of mortality due to
livestock-depredation control or vehicle
collisions, and increased likelihood of
disease transmission from domestic
dogs. Therefore, we believe wolf
populations are more sensitive to
normal road infrastructure density than
to OHV trail density.
MN DNR is developing
recommendations for motorized use of
State forest lands. In preparation for this
analysis, it completed an inventory in
2004 of all State forest roads and access
routes on State, county, and Federal
lands within State forest boundaries—a
total of 5.7 million acres. (MN DNR
2005). This inventory found an overall
route density of 0.8 km per km2, but did
not differentiate between motorized and
non-motorized trails (routes). MN DNR
is now conducting a forest-by-forest
review and proposing which roads and
trails will be available for motor vehicle
use. As of September 2006, MN DNR
had completed reviews on 16 State
forests and had closed approximately 57
percent of routes to motorized use. If
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
this trend continues, the density of
routes open to motorized use in
Minnesota State forests (State forest
roads and OHV trails) may approximate
0.5 km per km2. Only 3 of the 16 forests
reviewed thus far, however, are north of
Highway 2 and all were either
completely closed to motorized use or
given a ‘‘Limited’’ use designation. As
the department begins to evaluate larger,
more remote northern forests, however,
this trend (i.e., about 50 percent closure)
may change and some forests may retain
the ‘‘managed’’ classification (i.e., open
unless posted closed, OHV trail
designation questions and answers, MN
DNR Division of Trails and Waterways,
St. Paul, MN; https://
www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/mgmtplans/
ohv/designation/.
According to the commenter,
registered ATVs in Minnesota increased
from 32,501 in 1990 to 266,283 in 2004.
Although this is a sharp increase, the
wolf population in Minnesota grew and,
more recently, may have stabilized at
about 3,020 wolves (Erb and Benson
2004, Table 1) during this time.
Therefore, there is no clear relationship
between OHV use and wolf abundance
statewide. Nevertheless, we agree that
the combination of growing human
populations and extensive use of OHV’s
warrants careful monitoring and
regulation to ensure that wolf
populations are not adversely affected.
Minnesota’s wolf management plan
states that ‘‘in areas of sufficient size to
sustain one or more wolf packs, land
managers should be cautious about
adding new road access that could
exceed a density of one mile of road per
square mile of land, without considering
the potential effect on wolves’’ (MN
DNR 2001, p. 29). We expect MN DNR
to continue to also consider human
densities when monitoring the extent
and distribution of suitable wolf habitat
in the State and to take necessary
actions (e.g., decreasing road density in
State forests) to maintain a population
of at least 1,600 gray wolves if increases
in human density erode the extent of
suitable habitat such that the population
falls below this level.
Issue 26—A commenter pointed out
that increasing volume of automobile
traffic in Minnesota’s wolf range will
fragment habitat, increase wolf
mortality, destroy habitat, displace
wolves, and contribute to urban sprawl.
Four examples were provided.
Response—It is clear that automobiles
kill wolves on roads and highways and
that wolves tend to avoid these features
relative to road-free areas (Whittington
et al. 2004, pp. 9-11; Whittington et al.
2005, pp. 549-551), but highways are far
from absolute barriers to dispersal. For
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
example, in a study of U.S. Highway 53
in northwest Wisconsin (4,700 vehicles
per day) in the late 1990’s, Kohn et al.
(2000, p. 2) found that 12 of 13 radiocollared wolves that encountered the
highway successfully crossed it, some of
them multiple times, and that each of
these dispersing wolves subsequently
became dominant members of packs in
newly established territories. In
addition, the successful reestablishment
of wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan
depended on a sufficient number of
Minnesota wolves crossing Interstate
Highway 35 where current average
traffic volumes are greater than 15,000
vehicles per day (https://
www.dot.state.mn.us/tda/maps/
trunkhighway/2004/state_and_metro/
stateflo.pdf. Wolf crossing of roads,
however, is dependent on adjacent
human development and habitat
fragmentation, and land managers can
likely influence the ability of wolves to
disperse across highways in Minnesota’s
wolf range by ensuring that sufficient
road reaches occur in areas with high
crossing potential (i.e., low
fragmentation of adjacent habitat due to
open or developed areas; Frair 1999, pp.
19–20).
Issue 27—Disease remains a serious
threat and post-delisting disease
monitoring is inadequate or unfunded.
One comment states that the Michigan
Plan only commits the DNR to monitor
wolf health until the State wolf
population reaches 200 wolves.
Response—The expectation in the
1997 Michigan Wolf Plan was that
Federal wolf delisting would occur
before the State reached its own
minimum goal of 200 wolves. As a
result, the plan states that wolf
monitoring, including health and
disease monitoring, would continue ‘‘at
least until the minimum population
sustainable population goal [of 200] is
met.’’ (MI DNR 1997, p. 21.) However,
the 1997 Michigan Plan also states that
wolf health and disease monitoring will
occur ‘‘for a minimum of five years after
Federal delisting’’ (MI DNR 1997 p. 21–
22, 45). In fact, wolf health and disease
monitoring has continued well beyond
the attainment of the 200-wolf
threshold, which occurred in early
1996. We believe the commenters’ fear
that wolf health and disease monitoring
will cease upon delisting is
unwarranted by the facts or by the State
Plan.
Issue 28 —The delisting should be
delayed, or should be done in a manner
to promote wolf expansion into the
NLP.
Response—We believe the gray wolf
has achieved recovery in the DPS and is
no longer threatened or endangered.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
Therefore, it should be delisted with
management returning to the States and
tribes. Those governments and their
constituents will determine if additional
wolf recovery will be promoted. We will
consider providing technical assistance
to further State or tribal wolf recovery
efforts if requested.
Issue 29 —Human predation poses too
high a risk to delist the wolf. The wolf
cannot be delisted ‘‘until this threat has
been adequately controlled.’’
Response—Our detailed review of the
past, current, and likely future threats to
wolves within the WGL DPS identified
human-caused mortality of all forms to
constitute the majority of documented
wolf deaths. However, the wolf
populations in Wisconsin and Michigan
have continued to expand in numbers
and the Minnesota wolf population is at
least maintaining itself at well over the
population goal recommended in the
1992 Recovery Plan and at about twice
the minimum level established in the
2001 Minnesota Wolf Plan. Healthy wolf
populations clearly can withstand a
high level of mortality, from human and
other causes, and remain viable.
Although the commenters do not
provide any clarification on what is
meant by ‘‘adequately controlled’’ we
believe that for purposes of this
delisting decision, the numerical growth
and range expansion shown by WGL
DPS wolves indicates that ‘‘adequate
control’’ already exists since the species
is being maintained at healthy levels.
Issue 30—WGL DPS wolves should be
reclassified to threatened instead of
delisted. Another comment stated that
only Minnesota wolves should be
delisted now.
Response—Minnesota wolves were
classified as threatened in 1978. The Act
does not require endangered species to
first be moved to threatened status
before delisting, but for some species
that intermediate step is appropriate.
The WGL DPS wolf metapopulation has
continued to increase to the extent that
it greatly exceeds our recovery criteria,
and it has exceeded our numerical
delisting criteria since 1999. Therefore,
we believe delisting is appropriate for
this DPS.
Issue 31—It will be difficult to relist
these wolves if it becomes necessary
following delisting.
Response—The Act requires that we
monitor the status of a delisted species
for at least five years after delisting.
Section 4(g) of the Act authorizes the
Service to make prompt use of our
emergency listing authority under
section 4(b)(7) to prevent a significant
risk to the well-being of any recovered
species. Therefore, we believe the Act
provides the authority and the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15087
requirement to relist midwestern gray
wolves if necessary.
Issue 32—A large number of
comments recommended that specific
changes be made to the three State wolf
management plans.
Response—We have reviewed the
2001 Minnesota Plan, the 1999 and 2006
Updated Wisconsin Plan, and the 1997
Michigan Plan. We reviewed these plans
to determine if they will provide
sufficient protection and reduce threats.
We are primarily concerned with the
outcome of the plan’s implementation.
Once a species is delisted, the details of
its management are a State or tribal
responsibility; the Federal responsibility
is to monitor the plan’s implementation
and the species’ response for at least
five years to ensure that the plan’s
outcome is as expected. We have
concluded that each plan provides
adequate protection for wolves, and will
keep threats at a sufficiently low level,
so that the WGL DPS wolves will not
become threatened or endangered in the
foreseeable future. Suggestions for
changes to the State wolf management
plans should be directed to the
respective State management agency for
consideration.
Issue 33 —Wisconsin and Michigan
DNR have not completed their wolf
management plans, so delisting should
be delayed until after those plans are
completed and they are shown to be
adequate.
Response—The Wisconsin DNR did
not revise its 1997 Wolf Management
Plan. Instead, the plan has had some
portions of the text updated, and several
appendices have been added to deal
with new public opinion data and a
2004 DNR questionnaire. The Plan’s
management goal of 350 wolves and the
vast majority of management practices
remain unchanged. We received the
updated Wisconsin Wolf Management
Plan Addendum 2006 in time to
evaluate it as part of our delisting
decision.
The 1997 Michigan Wolf Management
Plan is in the midst of revision. The
process for its revision includes
obtaining recommendations in the form
of ‘‘guiding principles’’ from a
roundtable group composed of diverse
stakeholders, and it will not be
completed until late in 2007. In the
meantime, the 1997 Michigan Plan will
remain in effect, as supplemented by
additional guidance developed since
1997 to deal with aspects of wolf
management and recovery not
adequately covered in the 1997 Plan,
such as ‘‘Guidelines for Management
and Lethal Control of Wolves Following
Confirmed Depredation Events’’ (MI
DNR 2005a).
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15088
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Issue 34—The delisting decision is
based on the assumption that the State
wolf management plans will be fully
implemented after Federal delisting.
Response—We are required to
evaluate the likely future threats that a
delisted wolf population will
experience. We rely heavily on the State
wolf management plans for our
assessment of the degree of protection
and monitoring that will occur after
Federal delisting. Because these plans
have received the necessary approvals
within the State governments, we
believe it is reasonable to assume the
plans will be funded and implemented
largely as written. Wisconsin and
Michigan DNRs have led the efforts to
restore wolves to their States for several
decades, including a 1974
reintroduction effort initiated by
Michigan DNR (Weise et al. 1975).
Based on their proven leadership in
Midwest wolf recovery, we see no
reason to doubt the continuing
commitment of these State agencies to
wolf conservation.
We recognize that State wolf plans
can be changed by the respective DNR
or State legislature, creating some
uncertainty regarding plan
implementation. However, given the
high public visibility of wolf
management, the extent of public
interest and involvement in the
development and updating of the States’
plans, the vast amount of scientific data
available regarding wolf management,
and the status monitoring that we will
be maintaining for the next five years,
we believe it is reasonable and proper
to assume that the three State wolf plans
will not be significantly changed, nor
will their implementation be critically
underfunded, in a manner that would
jeopardize the viability of any State’s
wolf population. If this assumption
turns out to be incorrect, we have the
ability to relist the species, including an
emergency relisting, if necessary.
Issue 35—Many comments expressed
distrust for State wolf protection, based
on past State programs aimed at wolf
eradication.
Response—We acknowledge the past
involvement of State and Federal
government agencies in intensive, and
largely successful, programs to eradicate
wolves. However, we believe that public
sentiment and agency mandates have
changed dramatically since the 1960s
and earlier. While wolf eradication
might still be the wish of a small
number of individuals, we believe there
is broad support among the public and
within governmental agencies to allow
wolves to occupy our landscape, with
some degree of management imposed to
maintain control of the level of wolf-
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
human conflicts. Based on existing State
laws and State management plans, we
will rely upon the States to provide
sufficient protection to wolves until and
unless it is shown they are unwilling or
unable to do so.
Issue 36—The Post-Delisting
Monitoring (PDM) Plan should be
completed before delisting occurs.
Response—The Act requires a
minimum of five years of PDM. There is
no requirement that a PDM plan be
completed before delisting. We are
working on a PDM plan, utilizing the
expertise of the Recovery Team, and we
expect to complete the plan shortly.
Because past wolf monitoring by the
States has been successful and adequate
to document progress toward recovery,
we expect that PDM will be similar to
recovery monitoring. The PDM plan will
organize data-gathering more than has
been done in the past, and it will
identify the Service office that will be
responsible for initiating the data
gathering and coordinating the data
review.
Issue 37—Several commenters stated
that the Service must ensure that State
wolf management strategies
accommodate tribal interests within
reservation boundaries as well as honor
the tribal role and authority in wolf
management in the ceded territories.
Furthermore, the Federal trust
responsibility, as it pertains to wolf
management, must be continued after
delisting. They asked how, and by
whom, that Federal trust responsibility
will be continued after the Act no longer
provides the authority for the Service to
protect wolves.
Response—The Service and the
Department of the Interior recognize the
unique status of the federally recognized
tribes, their right to self-governance, and
their inherent sovereign powers over
their members and territory. The
Department, the Service, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), and other Federal
agencies, as appropriate, will take the
needed steps to ensure that tribal
authority and sovereignty within
reservation boundaries are respected as
the States implement their wolf
management plans and revise those
plans in the future. Furthermore, there
may be tribal activities or interests
associated with the wolf encompassed
within the tribes’ retained rights to
hunt, fish, and gather in treaty-ceded
territories. The Department will assist in
the exercise of those rights. If biological
assistance is needed, the Service may
provide it via our field offices. The
Service will remain involved in the
post-delisting monitoring of the gray
wolf, but all Service management and
protection authority under the Act will
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
end with this delisting. Legal assistance
will be provided to the tribes by the
Department of the Interior, and the BIA
will be involved, when needed.
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Section 4 of the Act and regulations
(50 CFR part 424) promulgated to
implement the listing provisions of the
Act set forth the procedures for listing,
reclassifying, and delisting species. A
species may be listed as threatened or
endangered if one or more of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act threaten its continued existence. A
species may be delisted, according to 50
CFR 424.11(d), if the best scientific and
commercial data available substantiate
that the species is neither endangered
nor threatened because of (1) extinction,
(2) recovery, or (3) error in the original
data used for classification of the
species.
A recovered species is one that no
longer meets the Act’s definition of
threatened or endangered. Determining
whether a species is recovered requires
consideration of the same five categories
of threats specified in section 4(a)(1).
This analysis of threats is an evaluation
of both the threats currently facing the
species and the threats that are
reasonably likely to affect the species in
the foreseeable future after its delisting
and the consequent removal of the Act’s
protections.
Foreseeable future is defined by the
Services on a case-by-case basis, taking
into consideration a variety of speciesspecific factors such as lifespan,
genetics, breeding behavior,
demography, threat projection
timeframes, and environmental
variability. ‘‘Foreseeable’’ is commonly
viewed as ‘‘such as reasonably can or
should be anticipated: such that a
person of ordinary prudence would
expect it to occur or exist under the
circumstances’’ (Merriam-Webster’s
Dictionary of Law 1996: Western
Watershed Project v. Foss (D. Idaho
2005; CV 04–168–MHW). For the WGL
DPS, the foreseeable future differs for
each factor potentially affecting the
DPS. It took a considerable length of
time for public attitudes and regulations
to result in a social climate that
promoted and allowed for wolf recovery
in the WGL DPS and NRM DPS. The
length of time over which this shift
occurred, and the ensuing stability in
those attitudes, give us confidence that
this social climate will persist. Also, the
States have had a solid history of
cooperating and assisting in wolf
recovery and have made a commitment,
through legislative actions, to continue
these activities. We believe this
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
commitment will continue. When
evaluating the available information,
with respect to the foreseeable future,
we take into account reduced
confidence as we forecast further into
the future.
A species is ‘‘endangered’’ for
purposes of the Act if it is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a
‘‘significant portion of its range’’ and is
‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a ‘‘significant
portion of its range.’’ The following
describes how we interpret the terms
‘‘range’’ and ‘‘significant’’ as used in the
phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range,’’
and explains the bases for our use of
those terms in this rule. On March 16,
2007, a formal opinion was issued by
the Solicitor of the Department of the
Interior, ‘‘The Meaning of ‘In Danger of
Extinction Throughout All or a
Significant Portion of Its Range’ ’’ (U.S.
DOI 2007). Our explanation below is
consistent with that opinion.
‘‘Range’’
The word ‘‘range’’ in the phrase
‘‘significant portion of its range’’ refers
to the range in which a species currently
exists, not to the historical range of the
species where it once existed. The
context in which the phrase is used is
crucial. Under the Act’s definitions, a
species is ‘‘endangered’’ only if it ‘‘is in
danger of extinction’’ in the relevant
portion of its range. The phrase ‘‘is in
danger’’ denotes a present-tense
condition of being at risk of a future,
undesired event. To say that a species
‘‘is in danger’’ in an area that is
currently unoccupied, such as
unoccupied historical range, would be
inconsistent with common usage. Thus,
‘‘range’’ must mean ‘‘currently-occupied
range,’’ not ‘‘historical range.’’ This
interpretation of ‘‘range’’ is further
supported by the fact that section
4(a)(1)(A) of the Act requires us to
consider the ‘‘present’’ or ‘‘threatened’’
(i.e., future), rather than the past,
‘‘destruction, modification, or
curtailment’’ of a species’ habitat or
range in determining whether a species
is endangered or threatened.
However, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals appeared to conclude, without
any analysis or explanation that the
‘‘range’’ referred to in the SPR phrase
includes the historical range of the
species. The court stated that a species
‘‘can be extinct ‘throughout * * * a
significant portion of its range’ if there
are major geographical areas in which it
is no longer viable but once was,’’ and
then faults the Secretary for not ‘‘at least
explain[ing] her conclusion that the area
in which the species can no longer live
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
15089
is not a significant portion of its range.’’
Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258
F.3d 1136, 1145 (emphasis added). This
would suggest that the range we must
analyze in assessing endangerment
includes unoccupied historical range—
i.e., the places where the species was
once viable but no longer exists.
The statute does not support this
interpretation. This interpretation is
based on what appears to be an
inadvertent misquote of the relevant
statutory language. In addressing this
issue, the Ninth Circuit states that we
must determine whether a species is
‘‘extinct throughout * * * a significant
portion of its range.’’ Id. If that were
true, we would have to study the
historical range. But that is not what the
statute says, and the Ninth Circuit
quotes the statute correctly elsewhere in
its opinion. Under the Act, we are not
to determine if a species is ‘‘extinct
throughout * * * a significant portion
of its range,’’ but are to determine if it
‘‘is in danger of extinction throughout
* * * a significant portion of its range.’’
A species cannot presently be ‘‘in
danger of extinction’’ in that portion of
its range where it ‘‘was once viable but
no longer is’’—if by the latter phrase the
court meant lost historical habitat. In
that portion of its range, the species has
by definition ceased to exist. In such a
situation, it is not ‘‘in danger of
extinction’’; it is extinct.
Although we must focus on the range
in which the species currently exists,
data about the species’ historical range
and how the species came to be extinct
in that location may be relevant in
understanding or predicting whether a
species is ‘‘in danger of extinction’’ in
its current range and therefore relevant
to our 5 factor analysis. But the fact that
it has ceased to exist in what may have
been portions of its historical range does
not necessarily mean that it is ‘‘in
danger of extinction’’ in a significant
portion of the range where it currently
exists.
For the purposes of this notice, we
consider the range of the gray wolf to be
the entire geographical area delineated
by the boundaries of the WGL DPS.
‘‘Significant’’
The Act does not clearly indicate
what portion(s) of a species’ range
should be considered ‘‘significant.’’
Most dictionaries list several definitions
of ‘‘significant.’’ For example, one
standard dictionary defines
‘‘significant’’ as ‘‘important,’’
‘‘meaningful,’’ ‘‘a noticeably or
measurably large amount,’’ or
‘‘suggestive’’ (Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary 1088 10th ed.
2000). If it means a ‘‘noticeably or
measurably large amount,’’ then we
would have to focus on the size of the
range in question, either in relation to
the rest of the range or perhaps even in
absolute terms. If it means ‘‘important,’’
then we would have to consider factors
in addition to size in determining a
portion of a species’ range is
‘‘significant.’’ For example, would a key
breeding ground of a species be
‘‘significant,’’ even if it was only a small
part of the species’ entire range?
One district court interpreted the term
to mean ‘‘a noticeably or measurably
large amount’’ without analysis or any
reference to other alternate meanings,
including ‘‘important’’ or ‘‘meaningful.’’
Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 239 F.
Supp. 2d 9, 19 (D.D.C. 2002). We
consider the court’s interpretation to be
unpersuasive, because the court did not
explain why we could not employ
another, equally plausible definition of
‘‘significant.’’ It is impossible to
determine from the word itself, even
when read in the context of the entire
statute, which meaning of ‘‘significant’’
Congress intended. Moreover, even if it
were clear which meaning was
intended, ‘‘significant’’ would still
require interpretation. For example, if it
were meant to refer to size, what size
would be ‘‘significant’’: 30 percent, 60
percent, 90 percent? Should the
percentage be the same in every case or
for each species? Moreover, what
factors, if any, would be appropriate to
consider in making a size
determination? Is size all by itself
‘‘significant,’’ or does size only become
‘‘significant’’ when considered in
combination with other factors? On the
other hand, if ‘‘significant’’ were meant
to refer to importance, what factors
would need to be considered in
deciding that a particular portion of a
species’ range is ‘‘important’’ enough to
trigger the protections of the Act?
Where there is ambiguity in a statute,
as with the meaning of ‘‘significant,’’ the
agency charged with administering the
statute, in this case the Service, has
broad discretion to resolve the
ambiguity and give meaning to the term.
As the Supreme Court has stated:
In Chevron, this Court held that
ambiguities in statutes within an agency’s
jurisdiction to administer are delegations of
authority to the agency to fill the statutory
gap in reasonable fashion. Filling these gaps,
the Court explained, involves difficult policy
choices that agencies are better equipped to
make than courts. If a statute is ambiguous,
and if the implementing agency’s
construction is reasonable, Chevron requires
a federal court to accept the agency’s
construction of the statute, even if the
agency’s reading differs from what the court
believes is the best statutory interpretation.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
15090
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v.
Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967,
980 (2005) (internal citations omitted).
We have broad discretion in defining
what portion of a species’ range is
‘‘significant.’’ No ‘‘bright line’’ or
‘‘predetermined’’ percentage of
historical range loss is considered
‘‘significant’’ in all cases, and we may
consider factors other than simply the
size of the range portion in defining
what is ‘‘significant.’’ In light of the
general ecosystems conservation
purposes and findings in section 2 of
the Act, our goal is to define
‘‘significant’’ in such a way as to insure
the conservation of the species
protected by the Act. In determining
whether a range portion is significant,
we consider the ecosystems on which
the species that use that range depend
as well as the values listed in the Act
that would be impaired or lost if the
species were to become extinct in that
portion of the range or in the range as
a whole.
However, our discretion in defining
‘‘significant’’ is not unlimited. The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, while
acknowledging that we have ‘‘a wide
degree of discretion in delineating’’
what portion of a range is ‘‘significant,’’
appeared to set outer limits of that
discretion. See Defenders of Wildlife v.
Norton, 258 F.3d 1136. On the one
hand, it rejected what it called a
quantitative approach to defining
‘‘significant,’’ where a ‘‘bright line’’ or
‘‘predetermined’’ percentage of
historical range loss is considered
‘‘significant’’ in all cases. 258 F.3d. at
1143. As the court explained:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
First, it simply does not make sense to
assume that the loss of a predetermined
percentage of habitat or range would
necessarily qualify a species for listing. A
species with an exceptionally large historical
range may continue to enjoy healthy
population levels despite the loss of a
substantial amount of suitable habitat.
Similarly, a species with an exceptionally
small historical range may quickly become
endangered after the loss of even a very small
percentage of habitat.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that
what is ‘‘significant’’ must ‘‘necessarily
be determined on a case by case basis,’’
and must take into account not just the
size of the range but also the biological
importance of the range to the species.
258 F.3d. at 1143. At the other end of
the spectrum, the Ninth Circuit rejected
what it called ‘‘the faulty definition
offered by the Secretary,’’ a definition
that holds that a portion of a species’
range is ‘‘significant’’ only if the threats
faced by the species in that area are so
severe as to threaten the viability of the
species as a whole. 258 F.3d. at 1143,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
1146. It thus appears that within the two
outer boundaries set by the Ninth
Circuit, we have wide discretion to give
the definitive interpretation of the word
‘‘significant’’ in the phrase significant
‘‘portion of its range.’’
Based on these principles, we
consider the following factors in
determining whether a portion of a
range is ‘‘significant’’—quality, quantity,
and distribution of habitat relative to the
biological requirements of the species;
the historical value of the habitat to the
species; the frequency of use of the
habitat; the uniqueness or importance of
the habitat for other reasons, such as
breeding, feeding, migration, wintering,
or suitability for population expansion;
genetic diversity; and other biological
factors. We focus on portions of a
species’ range that are important to the
conservation of the species, such as
‘‘recovery units’’ identified in approved
Section 4 recovery plans; unique habitat
or other ecological features that provide
adaptive opportunities that are of
conservation importance to the species;
and ‘‘core’’ populations that generate
additional individuals of a species that
can, over time, replenish depleted
populations or stocks at the periphery of
the species’ range. We do not apply the
term ‘‘significant’’ to portions of the
species’ range that constitute lessproductive peripheral habitat,
artificially-created habitat, or areas
where wildlife species have established
themselves in urban or suburban
settings—such portions of the species’
range are not ‘‘significant,’’ in our view,
to the conservation of the species in the
wild.
Determining the SPR for the WGL
DPS of the gray wolf is based on the
biological needs of the species in the
DPS. As discussed previously in our
proposed WGL wolf rule (71 FR 15266–
15305; March 27, 2006), wolves are
highly adaptable habitat generalists, and
their primary biological need is an
adequate natural prey base of large
ungulates. The primary current and
likely future threats to wolves are
excessive human-caused mortality and
increased mortality from diseases and
parasites. Therefore, our determination
of the SPR for the WGL DPS of the gray
wolf is primarily based on the portion
of the DPS that provides an adequate
wild prey base, suitably low levels of
human-caused mortality, and sufficient
representation, resiliency, and
redundancy to buffer the impacts of
disease and parasite-induced mortality.
These biological needs, and the
threats to gray wolves in the WGL DPS,
are discussed in the following
paragraphs addressing the five factors
specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
We describe the necessary
characteristics of suitable habitat and
the necessary size and distribution of
such habitat for it to constitute a SPR in
the WGL DPS. Areas of habitat within
the range of the gray wolf that are not
suitable, or are not of sufficient size or
appropriate geographic distribution, are
not an SPR of the DPS.
A. The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
A common misperception is that
wolves inhabit only remote portions of
pristine forests or mountainous areas,
where human developments and other
activities have produced negligible
change to the natural landscape. Their
extirpation south of Canada and Alaska,
except for the heavily forested portions
of northeastern Minnesota, reinforced
this popular belief. Wolves, however,
survived in those areas not because
those were the only places with the
necessary habitat conditions, but
because only in those remote areas were
they sufficiently free of the human
persecution that elsewhere killed
wolves faster than the species could
reproduce (Mech 1995a, p. 271).
In the western Great Lakes region,
wolves in the densely forested
northeastern corner of Minnesota have
expanded into the more agricultural
portions of central and northwestern
Minnesota, northern and central
Wisconsin, and the entire UP of
Michigan. Habitats currently being used
by wolves span the broad range from the
mixed hardwood-coniferous forest
wilderness area of northern Minnesota,
through sparsely settled, but similar
habitats in Michigan’s UP and northern
Wisconsin, and into more intensively
cultivated and livestock-producing
portions of central and northwestern
Minnesota and central Wisconsin.
Wolf research and the expansion of
wolf range over the last three decades
have shown that wolves can
successfully occupy a wide range of
habitats, and they are not dependent on
wilderness areas for their survival. In
the past, gray wolf populations
occupied nearly every type of habitat
north of mid-Mexico that contained
large ungulate prey species, including
bison, elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer,
moose, and woodland caribou; thus,
wolves historically occupied the entire
Midwest. Inadequate prey density or
high levels of human-caused mortality
appear to be the only factors that limit
wolf distribution (Mech 1995a, p. 271;
1995b, p. 544).
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Suitable Habitat Within the Western
Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPS
Various researchers have investigated
habitat suitability for wolves in the
central and eastern portions of the
United States. In recent years, most of
these efforts have focused on using a
combination of human density, deer
density or deer biomass, and road
density, or have used road density alone
to identify areas where wolf populations
are likely to persist or become
established. (Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp.
284–285, 1997, pp. 23–27, 1998, pp. 1–
8, 1999, pp. 39–43; Harrison and Chapin
1997, p. 3, 1998, pp. 769–770; Wydeven
et al. 2001a, pp. 110–113; Erb and
Benson 2004, p. 2; Potvin et al. 2005,
pp. 1661–1668).
Road density has largely been adopted
as the best predictor of habitat
suitability in the Midwest due to the
connection between roads and humanrelated wolf mortality. Several studies
demonstrated that wolves generally did
not maintain breeding packs in areas
with a road density greater than about
0.9 to 1.1 linear miles per sq mi (0.6 to
0.7 km per sq km) (Thiel 1985, pp. 404–
406; Jensen et al. 1986, pp. 364–366;
Mech et al. 1988, pp. 85–87; Fuller et al.
1992, pp. 48–51). Work by Mladenoff
and associates indicated that colonizing
wolves in Wisconsin preferred areas
where road densities were less than 0.7
mi per sq mi (0.45 km per sq km)
(Mladenoff et al 1995, p. 289). However,
recent work in the UP of Michigan
indicates that in some areas with low
road densities, low deer density appears
to separately limit wolf occupancy
(Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 1667–1668) and
may prevent recolonization of portions
of the UP. In Minnesota a combination
of road density and human density is
used by MN DNR to model suitable
habitat. Areas with a human density up
to 8 per sq km are suitable if they also
have a road density less than 0.5 km per
sq km. Areas with a human density of
less than 4 per sq km are suitable if they
have road densities up to 0.7 km per sq
km (Erb and Benson 2004, p. 2).
Road density is a useful parameter
because it is easily measured and
mapped, and because it correlates
directly and indirectly with various
forms of other human-related wolf
mortality factors. A rural area with more
roads generally has a greater human
density, more vehicular traffic, greater
access by hunters and trappers, more
farms and residences, and more
domestic animals. As a result, there is
a greater likelihood that wolves in such
an area will encounter humans,
domestic animals, and various human
activities. These encounters may result
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
in wolves being hit by motor vehicles,
being controlled by government agents
after becoming involved in depredations
on domestic animals, being shot
intentionally by unauthorized
individuals, being trapped or shot
accidentally, or contracting diseases
from domestic dogs (Mech et al. 1988,
pp. 86–87; Mech and Goyal 1993, p.
332; Mladenoff et al. 1995, p. 282, 291).
Based on mortality data from radiocollared Wisconsin wolves from 1979 to
1999, natural causes of death
predominate (57 percent of mortalities)
in areas with road densities below 1.35
mi per sq mi (0.84 km per sq km), but
human-related factors produced 71
percent of the wolf deaths in areas with
higher road densities (Wydeven et al.
2001a, pp. 112–113).
Some researchers have used a road
density of 1 mi per sq mi (0.6 km per
sq km) of land area as an upper
threshold for suitable wolf habitat.
However, the common practice in more
recent studies is to use road density to
predict probabilities of persistent wolf
pack presence in an area. Areas with
road densities less than 0.7 mi per sq mi
(0.45 km per sq km) are estimated to
have a greater than 50 percent
probability of wolf pack colonization
and persistent presence, and areas
where road density exceeded 1 mi per
sq mi (0.6 km per sq km) have less than
a 10 percent probability of occupancy
(Mladenoff et al. 1995. pp. 288–289;
Mladenoff and Sickley 1998, p. 5;
Mladenoff et al. 1999, pp. 40–41).
Wisconsin researchers view areas with
greater than 50 percent probability
‘‘primary wolf habitat,’’ areas with 10 to
50 percent probability as ‘‘secondary
wolf habitat,’’ and areas with less than
10 percent probability as unsuitable
habitat (WI DNR 1997, pp. 47–48). The
territories of packs that do occur in
areas of high road density, and hence
with low expected probabilities of
occupancy, are generally near broad
areas of more suitable habitat that are
likely serving as a source of wolves,
thereby assisting in maintaining wolf
presence in the higher road density, less
suitable, areas (Mech 1989, pp. 387–388;
Wydeven et al. 2001a, p.112). We note
that the predictive ability of this model
has recently been questioned (Mech
2006a, 2006b) and responded to
(Mladenoff et al. 2006), and that an
updated analysis of Wisconsin pack
locations and habitat has been
completed and is being prepared for
publication (Mladenoff et al., to be
submitted).
It appears that essentially all suitable
habitat in Minnesota is now occupied,
and the wolf population within the
State may have slowed its increase or
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15091
has stabilized (Erb and Benson 2004, p.
7). This suitable habitat closely matches
the areas designated as Wolf
Management Zones 1 through 4 in the
Federal Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, p.
72), which are identical in area to
Minnesota Wolf Management Zone A
(see Figure 2, below; MN DNR 2001,
Appendix III).
Recent surveys for Wisconsin wolves
and wolf packs show that wolves have
now recolonized the areas predicted by
habitat models to have high and
moderate probability of occupancy
(primary and secondary wolf habitat).
The late winter 2005–06 Wisconsin wolf
survey identified packs occurring
throughout the central Wisconsin forest
area (Wolf Management Zone 2, Figure
3) and across the northern forest zone
(Zone 1, Figure 3), with highest pack
densities in the northwest and north
central forest; pack densities are lower,
but increasing, in the northeastern
corner of the State (Wydeven et al. 2006,
p. 33).
Michigan wolf surveys in winter
2003–04 and 2004–05 continue to show
wolf pairs or packs (defined by
Michigan DNR as three or more wolves
traveling together) in every UP county
except Keweenaw County (Huntzinger
et al. 2005, p. 6), which probably lacks
a suitable ungulate prey base during
winter months (Potvin et al. 2005, p.
1665).
Such habitat suitability studies in the
Upper Midwest indicate that the only
large areas of suitable or potentially
suitable habitat areas that are currently
unoccupied by wolves are located in the
NLP of Michigan (Mladenoff et al. 1997,
p. 23; Mladenoff et al. 1999, p. 39;
Potvin 2003, pp. 44–45; Gehring and
Potter 2005, p. 1239). One published
Michigan study (Gehring and Potter
2005, p. 1239) estimates that these areas
could host 46 to 89 wolves, while a
masters degree thesis investigation
estimates that 110–480 wolves could
exist in the NLP (Potvin 2003, p. 39).
The NLP is separated from the UP by
the Straits of Mackinac, whose 4-mile
(6.4 km) width freezes during mid- and
late-winter in some years. In recent
years there have been two documented
occurrences of wolves in the NLP (the
last recorded wolf in the LP was in
1910), but no indication of persistence
beyond several months. In the first
instance a radio-collared female wolf
from the central UP was trapped and
killed by a coyote trapper in Presque
Isle County in late October 2004. In late
November 2004, tracks from two wolves
were verified in the same NLP county.
Follow-up winter surveys by the DNR in
early 2005 failed to find additional wolf
tracks in the NLP (Huntzinger et al.
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15092
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
2005, p. 7); additional surveys
conducted in February and March 2006
also failed to find evidence of continued
NLP wolf presence (Beyer et al. 2006, p.
35).
These NLP patches of potentially
suitable habitat contain a great deal of
private land, are small in comparison to
the occupied habitat on the UP and in
Minnesota and Wisconsin, and are
intermixed with agricultural and higher
road density areas (Gehring and Potter
2005, p. 1240). Therefore, continuing
wolf immigration from the UP may be
necessary to maintain a future NLP
population. The Gehring and Potter
study (p. 1239) concludes that NLP
suitable habitat (i.e., areas with greater
than a 50 percent probability of wolf
occupancy) amounts to 850 sq mi (2,198
sq km). Potvin, using deer density in
addition to road density, believes there
are about 3,090 sq mi (8,000 sq km) of
suitable habitat in the NLP (Potvin 2003,
p. 21). Gehring and Potter exclude from
their calculations those NLP low-roaddensity patches that are less than 19 sq
mi (50 sq km), while Potvin does not
limit habitat patch size in his
calculations (Gehring and Potter 2005,
p. 1239; Potvin 2003, pp. 10–15). Both
of these area estimates are well below
the minimum area described in the
Federal Recovery Plan, which states that
10,000 sq mi (25,600 sq km) of
contiguous suitable habitat is needed for
a viable isolated gray wolf population,
and half that area (5,000 sq mi or 12,800
sq km) is needed to maintain a viable
wolf population that is subject to wolf
immigration from a nearby population
(USFWS 1992, pp. 25–26).
Based on the above-described studies
and the guidance of the 1992 Recovery
Plan, the Service has concluded that
suitable habitat for wolves in the WGL
DPS can be determined by considering
four factors—road density, human
density, prey base, and size. An
adequate prey base is an absolute
requirement, but in much of the WGL
DPS the white-tailed deer density is
well above adequate levels, causing the
other factors to become the
determinants of suitable habitat. Prey
base is primarily of concern in the UP
where severe winter conditions cause
deer to move away from some lakeshore
areas, making otherwise suitable areas
locally and seasonally unsuitable. Road
density and human density frequently
are highly correlated; therefore, road
density is the best single predictor of
habitat suitability. However, areas with
higher road density may still be suitable
if the human density is very low, so a
consideration of both factors is
sometimes useful (Erb and Benson 2004,
p. 2). Finally, although the territory of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
individual wolf packs can be relatively
small, a single, or several, packs are not
likely to persist as a viable population
if they occupy a small isolated island of
otherwise suitable habitat. The 1992
Recovery Plan indicates that a wolf
population needs to occupy at least
10,000 contiguous sq mi (25,600 sq km)
to be considered viable if it is isolated
from other wolf populations, and must
occupy at least half that area if it is not
isolated from another self-sustaining
population (USFWS 1992, pp. 25–26).
In summary, Minnesota Wolf
Management Zone A (Federal Wolf
Management Zones 1–4, Figure 2),
Wisconsin Wolf Zones 1 and 2 (Figure
3), and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
contain suitable wolf habitat. The other
areas within the DPS are unsuitable
habitat, or are potentially habitat that is
too small or too fragmented to be
suitable for maintaining a viable wolf
population.
Determining the Significant Portion of
the Range Within the WGL DPS
The biological values of the various
portions of the suitable habitat in the
DPS are the important considerations
for determining what constitutes SPR.
Portions of the range that contribute
minimally to the long-term viability of
a species are likely to be insignificant,
even if those areas constitute
geographically large portions of the
species’ range. On the other hand, a
small portion of the range that is
necessary for a species’ survival (e.g.,
the nesting areas of a wide-ranging
colonially nesting bird) is a significant
portion of its range regardless of its size.
Significance of portions of the range
must be evaluated in a case-by-case
context, and not only in a quantitative
or theoretical context.
Therefore, in determining the SPR
within the WGL DPS we considered the
factors listed above. These include the
quality, quantity, and distribution of the
habitat relative to the biological needs of
the species, the need to maintain the
remaining genetic diversity, the
importance of geographic distribution in
coping with catastrophes such as
disease, the ability of the habitat to
provide adequate wild prey, and the
need to otherwise meet the conservation
needs of the species.
It is generally recognized that
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
provide the only sufficiently large areas
in the Midwest having an adequate wild
ungulate prey base and low road and
human density for this DPS (USFWS
1992, pp. 56–58). Based on the biology
of the gray wolf, threats to its continued
existence, and conservation biology
principles, the federal Recovery Plan
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
specifies that two populations (or what
equates to a single metapopulation) are
needed to ensure long-term viability
(see Recovery Criteria, above). The
Recovery Plan states the importance of
a large wolf population throughout
Minnesota Wolf Management Zones 1
through 4 (geographically identical to
Zone A in the 2001 Minnesota Wolf
Management Plan, see Figure 2 in this
rule) and the need for a second viable
wolf population occupying 10,000 sq mi
or 5,000 sq mi elsewhere in the eastern
United States (depending on its
isolation from the Minnesota wolf
population) (USFWS 1992, pp. 24–29).
These portions of Minnesota
(Management Zones 1 through 4) and
the portions of the range that support
the second viable wolf population
(Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2 and the entire
Upper Peninsula of Michigan) are a SPR
in the WGL DPS.
The Recovery Plan also discusses the
importance of low-road-density areas,
the importance of minimizing wolfhuman conflicts, and the maintenance
of an adequate natural prey base in the
areas hosting these two necessary wolf
populations. The Recovery Plan, along
with numerous other scientific
publications, supports the need to
manage and reduce wolf-human
conflicts. The Recovery Plan specifically
recommends against managing wolves
in large areas of unsuitable habitat,
stating that Minnesota Zone 5 should be
managed with a goal of zero wolves
there, because ‘‘Zone 5 is not suitable
for wolves. Wolves found there should
be eliminated by any legal means’’
(USFWS 1992, p. 20). Therefore, the
Recovery Plan views Zone 5 (identical
to Minnesota Wolf Management Zone B,
Figure 2), which is roughly 60 percent
of the State, as not an important part of
the range of the gray wolf. This portion
of the State is predominantly
agricultural land, with high road
densities, and high potential for wolves
to depredate on livestock. Although
individual wolves and some wolf packs
occupy parts of Zone 5, these wolves are
using habitat islands or are existing in
other situations where conditions
generally are not conducive to their
long-term persistence. Therefore,
Minnesota Wolf Management Zone B
(Recovery Plan Zone 5) is not a
significant portion of the range within
the DPS.
The second population, necessary to
enhance both the resiliency and
redundancy of the WGL DPR, has
developed by naturally recolonizing
suitable habitat areas in Wisconsin and
the UP (see Recovery of the Gray Wolf
in the Western Great Lakes Area, above).
In Wisconsin, suitable habitat
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(delineated as Zones 1 and 2 in Figure
3) is now largely occupied by wolf
packs, but there are some gaps in the
northeastern part of the State in Zone 1
where there appears to be room for
additional packs to occupy areas
between existing packs (Wydeven et al.
2006, p. 33). Similarly, in the UP of
Michigan, wolf pairs or packs occur
throughout the area identified as
suitable (i.e., a high probability of wolf
pack occupancy; Mladenoff et al. 1995,
p. 287, Potvin et al. 2005, p. 1666),
including every county of the UP except
possibly Keweenaw County. Wolf
density is lower in the northern and
eastern portions of the UP where lower
deer numbers may prevent
establishment of packs in some
localities (Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 1665–
1666), but over the next several years
packs may be able to fill in some of the
currently unoccupied areas. Based on
the suitability of the habitat in these
areas and the importance of this second
population to long-term wolf population
viability, Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2 (see
Figure 3) and the entire UP of Michigan
are a SPR of the gray wolf WGL DPS.
The NLP of Michigan appears to have
the only unoccupied potentially suitable
wolf habitat in the Midwest that is of
sufficient size to maintain wolf packs
(Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1239;
Potvin 2003, pp. 44–45), although its
small size and fragmented nature may
mean that NLP wolf population viability
would be dependent upon continuing
immigration from the UP. The only part
of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula that
warrants any consideration for inclusion
as suitable habitat for the WGL DPS is
composed of those areas of fragmented
habitat studied by Potvin (2003, pp. 44–
45) and Gehring and Potter (2005, p.
1239). However, these areas amount to
less than half of the minimum area
identified by the Recovery Plan as
needed for the establishment of viable
populations. These Lower Peninsula
areas therefore might have difficulty
maintaining wolf populations even with
the help of occasional immigration of
wolves from the UP (see Suitable
Habitat Within the Western Great Lakes
Gray Wolf DPS for additional
discussion). While the UP wolves may
be significant to any Lower Peninsula
wolf population that may develop
(occasional UP to Lower Peninsula
movements may provide important
genetic and demographic augmentation
crucial to a small population founded
by only a few individuals), the reverse
will not be true—Lower Peninsula
wolves would not be important to the
wolf population in the UP. Thus, we
conclude that the Northern Lower
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
Peninsula is not a significant portion of
the range of the gray wolf in the WGL
DPS.
The only area outside these three
states and within the WGL DPS that
potentially might hold wolves on a
frequent or possibly constant basis is the
Turtle Mountain region that straddles
the international border in north central
North Dakota in the northwestern corner
of the DPS. Road densities within the
Turtle Mountains are below the
thresholds believed to limit colonization
by wolves. However, this area is only
about 579 sq mi (1,500 sq km), with
approximately 394 sq mi (1,020 sq km)
in North Dakota, and roughly 185 sq mi
(480 sq km) in Manitoba (Licht and
Huffman 1996, p. 172). This area is far
smaller that the 10,000 sq mi of habitat
considered minimally necessary to
support an isolated wolf population
(USFWS 1992, pp. 25–26). Furthermore,
the Manitoba portion of the Turtle
Mountains is outside the currently
listed area for the gray wolf and outside
this WGL DPS. While this area may
provide a small area of marginal wolf
habitat and may support limited and
occasional wolf reproduction, the Turtle
Mountain area within the United States
is not a SPR of gray wolves within the
WGL DPS, because of its very small area
and its setting as an island of forest
surrounded by a landscape largely
modified for agriculture and grazing
(Licht and Huffman 1996, p. 173).
Similarly, other portions of the WGL
DPS that lack suitable habitat, or only
have areas of suitable habitat that are
below the area thresholds specified in
the Recovery Plan and/or are highly
fragmented, cannot be considered a SPR
of the gray wolf in the WGL DPS. These
areas include the rest of eastern North
Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin Wolf
Management Zones 3 and 4 (see Figure
3), and most of the LP of Michigan.
While large areas of historical range
within the DPS boundary are either
unoccupied by the species or occupied
only on a transient basis, these areas are
almost completely lacking suitable
habitat, and there is little likelihood that
they could ever support viable wolf
populations. For example, of the five
States partially included in the WGL
DPS, the eastern halves of North Dakota
and South Dakota arguably contain the
best potential area for wolf recovery
because of their low human population
densities. Yet even there, the landscape
is predominantly cropland and grazing
land, the result of massive conversion
from the native prairies where gray
wolves once hunted bison, and it is
covered with a network of public roads.
Road density in eastern South Dakota is
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15093
approximately 1.68 mi per sq mi, and
the South Dakota Department of
Transportation states that figure likely
does not include the many section line
roads that are open to public travel but
are not on a regular maintenance
schedule (Larson in litt. 2006b). The
landscape of North Dakota is similar,
with merely two percent of the State
forested, resulting in a croplanddominated landscape in eastern North
Dakota that provides negligible cover for
wolf use in denning and escape, except
in the Turtle Mountains. The road
density across the portion of North
Dakota within the WGL DPS is 1.01 mi
per sq mi (Barnhardt in litt. 2006). A
finer-grained analysis (Moffett 1997, p.
31) shows that only small and scattered
areas are below the 1 mi per sq mi
threshold established by Great Lakes
area researchers (Mladenoff et al., 1995,
pp. 288–289) as needed for the
maintenance of viable wolf populations,
and none of these areas of lower road
density come close to the minimum size
identified by the Recovery Plan (USFWS
1992, pp. 25–26) for a viable wolf
population. In the open grazing and
cropland-dominated landscape of the
eastern Dakotas, it is likely that viable
wolf populations would require even
lower road densities than the threshold
established by researchers in the much
more wooded landscapes of Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and the UP. Therefore, the
eastern portions of South Dakota and
North Dakota do not provide suitable
gray wolf habitat and these areas cannot
be considered to be significant portions
of gray wolf range in the WGL DPS.
In summary, the areas that we
determine to be a significant portion of
the range of the WGL DPS are
Minnesota Wolf Management Zone A
(Figure 2), Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2
(Figure 3), and the entire Upper
Peninsula of Michigan. These areas
constitute the SPR in the DPS, because
they fully meet the biological needs of
the species and provide the conditions
and land base to counter the threats to
the wolf population within the DPS.
The other areas of the WGL DPS do not
constitute significant portions of the
range of the gray wolf.
Wolf Populations on Federal Lands
National forests, and the prey species
found in their various habitats, have
been important to wolf conservation and
recovery in the core areas of the WGL
DPS. There are five national forests with
resident wolves (Superior, Chippewa,
Chequamegon-Nicolet, Ottawa, and
Hiawatha National Forests) in
Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.
Their wolf populations range from
approximately 20 on the Nicolet portion
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15094
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National
Forest in northeastern Wisconsin, to
160–170 on the UP’s Ottawa National
Forest, to an estimated 465 (in winter of
2003–04) on the Superior National
Forest in northeastern Minnesota
(Lindquist in litt. 2005). Nearly half of
the wolves in Wisconsin currently use
the Chequamegon portion of the
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.
Voyageurs National Park, along
Minnesota’s northern border, has a land
base of nearly 882 km2 (340 mi2). There
are 40 to 55 wolves within 7 to 11 packs
that exclusively or partially reside
within the park, and at least 4 packs are
located wholly inside the Park
boundaries (Holbeck in litt. 2005, based
on 2000–2001 data).
Within the boundaries of the WGL
DPS, we currently manage seven units
within the National Wildlife Refuge
System with significant wolf activity.
Primary among these are Agassiz
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR),
Tamarac NWR, and Rice Lake NWR in
Minnesota; Seney NWR in the UP of
Michigan; and Necedah NWR in central
Wisconsin. Agassiz NWR has had as
many as 20 wolves in 2 to 3 packs in
recent years. In 1999, mange and illegal
shootings reduced them to a single pack
of five wolves and a separate lone wolf.
Since 2001, however, two packs with a
total of 10 to 12 wolves have been using
the Refuge. About 60 percent of the
packs’ territories are located on the
Refuge or on adjacent State-owned
wildlife management area (Huschle in
litt. 2005). Tamarac NWR has 2 packs,
with a 15-year average of 12 wolves in
one pack; adults and an unknown
number of pups comprise the second
pack Boyle, in litt. 2005). Rice Lake
NWR, in Minnesota, has one pack of
nine animals using the Refuge in 2004;
in 2005, the pack had at least 6
individuals. Other single or paired
wolves pass through the Refuge
frequently (Stefanski pers. comm. 2004;
McDowell in litt. 2005). In 2003, Seney
NWR had one pack with two adults and
two pups; in 2005 there were two pairs
of wolves and several lone individuals
using the Refuge (Olson in litt. 2005).
Necedah NWR currently has 2 packs
with at least 13 wolves in the packs
(Trick in litt. 2005). Over the past ten
years, Sherburne and Crane Meadows
NWRs in central Minnesota have had
intermittent, but reliable, observations
and signs of individual wolves each
year. To date, no established packs have
been documented on either of those
Refuges. The closest established packs
are within 15 miles of Crane Meadows
NWR at Camp Ripley Military
Installation and 30 miles north of
Sherburne NWR at Mille Lacs State
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
Wildlife Management Area (Holler in
litt. 2005).
Suitable Habitat Ownership and
Protection
In Minnesota, public lands, including
national forests, a national park,
national wildlife refuges, tax-forfeit
lands (managed mostly by counties),
State forests, State wildlife management
areas, and State parks, encompass
approximately 42 percent of current
wolf range. American Indians and
Tribes own 3 percent, an additional
1,535 square miles (2,470 sq km), in
Minnesota’s wolf range (see Erb and
Benson 2004, table 1). In its 2001
Minnesota Wolf Management Plan, MN
DNR states that it ‘‘will continue to
identify and manage currently occupied
and potential wolf habitat areas to
benefit wolves and their prey on public
and private land, in cooperation with
landowners and other management
agencies’’ (MN DNR 2001, p. 25). MN
DNR will monitor deer and moose
habitat and, when necessary and
appropriate, improve habitat for these
species. MN DNR maintains that several
large public land units of State parks
and State forests along the Wisconsin
border will likely ensure that the
connection between the two States’ wolf
populations will remain open to wolf
movements. Nevertheless, MN DNR
stated that it would cooperate with
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources to incorporate the effects of
future development ‘‘into long-term
viability analyses of wolf populations
and dispersal in the interstate area’’
(MN DNR 2001, p. 27).
The MN DNR Divisions of Forestry
and Wildlife directly administer
approximately 5,330 square miles of
land in Minnesota’s wolf range. DNR
has set goals of enlarging and protecting
its forested land base by, in part,
‘‘minimizing the loss and fragmentation
of private forest lands’’ (MN DNR 2000,
p. 20) and by connecting forest habitats
with natural corridors (MN DNR 2000,
p. 21). It plans to achieve these goals
and objectives via several strategies,
including the development of
(Ecological) Subsection Forest Resource
Management Plans (SFRMP) and to
expand its focus on corridor
management and planning.
In 2005 the Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC) certified that 4.84 million
acres of State-administered forest land
are ‘‘well managed’’ (FSC 2005); the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) also
certified that MN DNR was managing
these lands to meet its standards. For
the FSC certification, independent
certifiers assessed forest management
against FSC’s Lakes States Regional
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Standard, which includes a requirement
to maximize habitat connectivity to the
extent possible at the landscape level
(FSC 2005, p. 22).
Efforts to maximize habitat
connectivity in the range of gray wolves
would complement measures the MN
DNR described in its State wolf plan
(MN DNR 2001, pp. 26–27). As part of
its post-delisting monitoring, the
Service will review certification
evaluation reports issued by FSC to
assess MN DNR’s ongoing efforts in this
area.
Counties manage approximately 3,860
square miles of tax forfeit land in
Minnesota’s wolf range (MN DNR
unpublished data). We are aware of no
specific measures that any county in
Minnesota takes to conserve wolves. If
most of the tax-forfeit lands are
maintained for use as timber lands or
natural areas, however, and if regional
prey levels are maintained, management
specifically for wolves on these lands
will not be necessary. MN DNR manages
ungulate populations ‘‘on a regional
basis to ensure sustainable harvests for
hunters, sufficient numbers for aesthetic
and nonconsumptive use, and to
minimize damage to natural
communities and conflicts with humans
such as depredation of agricultural
crops’’ (MN DNR 2001, p. 17).
Moreover, although counties may sell
tax-forfeit lands subject to Minnesota
State law, they generally manage these
lands to ensure that they will retain
their productivity as forests into the
future. For example, Crow Wing
County’s mission for its forest lands
includes the commitment to ‘‘sustain a
healthy, diverse, and productive forest
for future generations to come.’’ In
addition, at least four counties in
Minnesota’s wolf range—Beltrami,
Carlton, Koochiching, and St. Louis—
are certified by SFI, and four others
(Aitkin, Cass, Itasca, and Lake) have
been certified by FSC. About ten private
companies with industrial forest lands
in Minnesota’s wolf range have also
been certified by FSC.
There are no legal or regulatory
requirements for the protection of wolf
habitat, per se, on private lands in
Minnesota. Land management activities
such as timber harvest and prescribed
burning carried out by public agencies
and by private land owners in
Minnesota’s wolf range incidentally and
significantly improves habitat for deer,
the primary prey for wolves in the State.
The impact of these measures is
apparent from the continuing high deer
densities in Minnesota’s wolf range. The
State’s three largest deer harvests have
occurred in the last three years (2003–
05), and approximately one-half of the
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Minnesota deer harvest is in the Forest
Zone, which encompasses most of the
occupied wolf range in the State
(Lennarz 2005, p. 93, 98).
Given the extensive public ownership
and management of land within
Minnesota’s wolf range, as well as the
beneficial habitat management expected
from tribal lands, we believe suitable
habitat, and especially an adequate wild
prey base, will remain available to the
State’s wolf population for the
foreseeable future. Management of
private lands for timber production will
provide additional habitat suitable for
wolves and white-tailed deer.
Similarly, current lands in northern
and central Wisconsin that are judged to
be primary and secondary wolf habitat
are well protected from significant
adverse development and habitat
degradation due to public ownership
and/or protective management that
preserves the habitat and wolf prey
base. Primary habitat (that is, areas with
greater than 50 percent probability of
wolf pack occupancy, Wydeven et al.
1999, pp. 47–48) totals 5,743 sq mi
(14,874 sq km) and is 62 percent in
Federal, State, Tribal, or county
ownership. County lands, mostly county
forests, comprise 29 percent of the
primary habitat and Federal lands,
mostly the Chequamegon-Nicolet
National Forest, total another 17
percent. Most tribal land (7 percent of
primary habitat), while not public land,
is also very likely to remain as suitable
deer and wolf habitat for the foreseeable
future. State forest ownership protects 8
percent. Private industrial forest
management practices will protect
another 10 percent of the primary
habitat, although unpredictable timber
markets and the demand for second or
vacation home sites may reduce this
acreage over the next several decades.
The remaining 29 percent is in other
forms of private ownership and is
vulnerable to loss from the primary
habitat category to an unknown extent
(Sickley in litt. 2006, unpublished data
updating Table C2 of WI DNR 1999, p.
48).
Areas judged to be secondary wolf
habitat by Wisconsin DNR (10 to 50
percent probability of occupancy by
wolf packs, Wydeven et al. 1999, pp.
47–48) are somewhat more developed or
fragmented habitats and are less well
protected overall, because only slightly
over half is in public ownership or
under management that protects the
habitat and prey base. Public and tribal
ownership protects 48 percent of the
secondary habitat, with county (17
percent) and national (18 percent)
forests ownership again protecting the
largest segments. Tribal ownership
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
covers 5 percent, and state ownership,
7 percent. Private industrial forest
ownership provides protection to 5
percent, and the remaining 47 percent is
in other forms of private ownership
(Sickley in litt. 2006).
County forest lands represent the
single largest category of primary wolf
habitat in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Statute
28.11 guides the administration of
county forests, and directs management
for production of forest products
together with recreational opportunities,
wildlife, watershed protection and
stabilization of stream flow. This Statute
also provides a significant disincentive
to conversion for other uses. Any
proposed withdrawal of county forest
lands for other uses must meet a
standard of a higher and better use for
the citizens of Wisconsin, and be
approved by two-thirds of the County
Board. As a result of this requirement,
withdrawals are infrequent, and the
county forest land base is actually
increasing.
This analysis shows that nearly threequarters of the primary habitat in
Wisconsin receives substantial
protection due to ownership and/or
management for sustainable timber
production. Over half of the secondary
habitat is similarly protected. Given that
portions of the primary habitat in
northeastern Wisconsin remain sparsely
populated with wolf packs (Wydeven et
al. 2006, p. 33), thereby allowing for
continuing wolf population expansion
in that area, we believe this degree of
habitat protection is more than adequate
to support a viable wolf population in
Wisconsin for the foreseeable future.
In the UP of Michigan, State and
Federal ownership comprises 2.0 and
2.1 million acres respectively,
representing 19.3 percent and 20.1
percent of the land surface of the UP.
The Federal ownership is composed of
87 percent national forest, 8 percent
national park, and 5 percent national
wildlife refuge. The management of
these three categories of Federal land is
discussed elsewhere, but clearly will
benefit gray wolves and their prey.
State lands on the UP are 94 percent
State forest land, 6 percent State park,
and less than 1 percent in fishing and
boating access areas and State game
areas. Part 525, Sustainable Forestry on
State Forestlands, of the Michigan
Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as
amended, directs State forestland
management in Michigan. It requires the
MI DNR to manage the State forests in
a manner consistent with sustainable
forestry, to prepare and implement a
management plan, and to seek and
maintain a third party certification that
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15095
the lands are managed in a sustainable
fashion (MI DNR 2005c, p. 1).
Much of the private land on the UP
is managed or protected in a manner
that will maintain forest cover and
provide suitable habitat for wolves and
white-tailed deer. Nearly 1.9 million
acres of large-tract industrial forest
lands and another 1.9 million acres of
smaller private forest land are enrolled
in the Commercial Forest Act (CFA).
These 3.7 million acres are managed for
long-term sustainable timber production
under forest management plans written
by certified foresters; in return, the
landowners benefit from a reduction in
property taxes. In addition, nearly
37,000 acres on the UP are owned by
The Nature Conservancy, and continue
to be managed to restore and preserve
native plant and animal communities.
Therefore, these private land
management practices currently are
preserving an additional 36 percent of
the UP as suitable habitat for wolves
and their prey species.
In total, 39 percent of the UP is
federally- and State-owned land whose
management will benefit wolf
conservation for the foreseeable future,
and another 36 percent is private forest
land that is being managed, largely
under the incentives of the CFA, in a
way that provided provides suitable
habitat and prey for wolf populations.
Therefore, a minimum of nearly threequarters of the UP should continue to be
suitable for gray wolf conservation, and
we do not envision UP habitat loss or
degradation as a problem for wolf
population viability in the foreseeable
future.
Hearne et al. (2003), determined that
a viable wolf population (one having
less than 10 percent chance of
extinction over 100 years), should
consist of at least 175 to 225 wolves (p.
170), and they modeled various likely
scenarios of habitat conditions in the UP
of Michigan and northern Wisconsin
through the year 2020 to determine
whether future conditions would
support a wolf population of that size.
Most scenarios of future habitat
conditions resulted in viable wolf
populations in each State through 2020.
When the model analyzed the future
conditions in the two States combined,
all scenarios produced a viable wolf
population through 2020. Their
scenarios included increases in human
population density, changes in land
ownership that may result in decreased
habitat suitability, and increased road
density (pp. 101–151).
The large areas of unsuitable habitat
in the eastern Dakotas; the northern
portions of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and
Ohio; and the southern areas of
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
15096
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; as
well as the relatively small areas of
unoccupied potentially suitable habitat,
do not constitute a SPR for the WGL
DPS. Therefore, we have determined
that the existing and likely future
threats to wolves outside the currently
occupied areas, and especially to wolves
outside of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
the UP, do not rise to the level that they
threaten the long-term viability of wolf
populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin,
and the UP of Michigan.
In summary, wolves currently occupy
the vast majority of the suitable habitat
in the WGL DPS, which constitutes the
SPR within the WGL DPS, and that
habitat is adequately protected for the
foreseeable future. Unoccupied areas
that have the characteristics of suitable
habitat exist in small and fragmented
parcels and are not likely to develop
viable wolf populations. Threats to
those habitat areas, which are not a SPR
within the WGL SPR, will not adversely
impact the recovered wolf
metapopulation in the DPS.
Prey
Wolf density is heavily dependent on
prey availability (e.g., expressed as
ungulate biomass, Fuller et al. 2003, pp.
170–171), but prey availability is not
likely to threaten wolves in the WGL
DPS. Conservation of primary wolf prey
in the WGL DPS, white-tailed deer and
moose, is clearly a high priority for State
conservation agencies. As Minnesota
DNR points out in its wolf management
plan (MN DNR 2001, p. 25), it manages
ungulates to ensure a harvestable
surplus for hunters, nonconsumptive
users, and to minimize conflicts with
humans. To ensure a harvestable
surplus for hunters, MN DNR must
account for all sources of natural
mortality, including loss to wolves, and
adjust hunter harvest levels when
necessary. For example, after severe
winters in the 1990’s, MN DNR
modified hunter harvest levels to allow
for the recovery of the local deer
population (MN DNR 2001, p. 25). In
addition to regulation of human harvest
of deer and moose, MN DNR also plans
to continue to monitor and improve
habitat for these species. Land
management carried out by other public
agencies and by private land owners in
Minnesota’s wolf range, including
timber harvest and prescribed fire,
incidentally and significantly improves
habitat for deer, the primary prey for
wolves in the State. The success of these
measures is apparent from the
continuing high deer densities in the
Forest Zone of Minnesota, and the fact
that the State’s three largest deer
harvests have occurred in the last three
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
years. Approximately one-half of the
Minnesota deer harvest is in the Forest
Zone, which encompasses most of the
occupied wolf range in the State
(Lennarz 2005, p. 93). There is no
indication that harvest of deer and
moose or management of their habitat
will significantly depress abundance of
these species in Minnesota’s core wolf
range. Therefore, prey availability is not
likely to endanger gray wolves in the
foreseeable future in the State.
Similarly, the deer populations in
Wisconsin and the UP of Michigan are
at historically high levels. Wisconsin’s
pre-season deer population has
exceeded 1 million animals since 1984
(WI DNR undated a), and hunter harvest
has exceeded 400,000 deer in 9 of the
last 11 years (WI DNR undated b).
Michigan’s 2005 pre-season deer
population was approximately 1.7
million deer, with about 336,000
residing in the UP, and the 2006
estimates projects slightly higher UP
deer populations (MI DNR 2006b, pp.
2–4). Currently MI DNR is proposing
revised deer management goals to guide
management of the deer population
through 2010. The proposed UP 2006–
2010 goal range is 323,000 to 411,000
(MI DNR 2005d), which would
maintain, or possibly increase, the
current ungulate prey base for UP
wolves. Short of a major, and unlikely,
shift in deer management and harvest
strategies, there will be no shortage of
prey for Wisconsin and Michigan
wolves for the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A—The wolf
population in the WGL DPS currently
occupies all the suitable habitat area
identified for recovery in the Midwest
in the 1978 and 1992 Recovery Plans,
which are the SPR within the DPS, and
most of the potentially suitable habitat
in the WGL DPS. Unsuitable habitat,
and the small fragmented areas of
suitable habitat away from these core
areas, are areas where viable wolf
populations are unlikely to develop and
persist. Although they may have been
historical habitat, many of these areas
are no longer suitable for wolves, and
none of them are important to meet the
biological needs of the species. They
therefore are not a SPR of the WGL DPS.
The WGL DPS wolf population
exceeds its numerical, temporal, and
distributional goals for recovery. A
delisted wolf population would be
safely maintained above recovery levels
for the foreseeable future within the SPR
of the DPS. Because much important
wolf habitat in the SPR is in public
ownership, the States will continue to
manage for high ungulate populations,
and the States, Tribes, and Federal land
management agencies will adequately
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
regulate human-caused mortality of
wolves and wolf prey. This will allow
these three States to easily support a
recovered and viable wolf
metapopulation into the foreseeable
future. We conclude that gray wolves
within the SPR in this DPS are not in
danger of extinction now, or likely to be
in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future, as a result of
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species’ habitat or
range.
B. Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes.
Threats to wolves resulting from
scientific or educational purposes are
not likely to increase substantially
following delisting of the DPS, and any
increased use for these purposes will be
regulated and monitored by the States
and Tribes in the core recovery areas.
Since their listing under the Act, no
gray wolves have been legally killed or
removed from the wild in any of the
nine States included in the WGL DPS
for either commercial or recreational
purposes. Some wolves may have been
illegally killed for commercial use of the
pelts and other parts, but we think that
illegal commercial trafficking in wolf
pelts or parts and illegal capture of
wolves for commercial breeding
purposes is rare. State wolf management
plans for Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan ensure that wolves will not be
killed for these purposes for many years
following Federal delisting, so these
forms of mortality will not emerge as
new threats upon delisting. See Factor
D for a detailed discussion of State wolf
management plans, and for applicable
regulations in States lacking wolf
management plans.
We do not expect the use of wolves
for scientific purposes to increase in
proportion to total wolf numbers in the
WGL DPS after delisting. Prior to
delisting, the intentional or incidental
killing, or capture and permanent
confinement, of endangered or
threatened gray wolves for scientific
purposes has only legally occurred
under permits or subpermits issued by
the Service (under section 10(a)(1)(A))
or by a State agency operating under a
cooperative agreement with the Service
pursuant to section 6 of the Act (50 CFR
17.21(c)(5) and 17.31(b)). Although
exact figures are not available,
throughout the conterminous 48 States,
such permanent removals of wolves
from the wild have been very limited
and probably comprise an average of not
more than two animals per year since
the species was first listed as
endangered. In the WGL DPS, these
animals were either taken from the
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Minnesota wolf population during longterm research activities (about 15 gray
wolves) or were accidental takings as a
result of research activities in Wisconsin
(4 to 5 mortalities and 1 long-term
confinement) and in Michigan (2
mortalities) (Berg in litt. 1998; Mech in
litt. 1998; Roell in litt. 2004, in litt.
2005a).
The Minnesota DNR plans to
encourage the study of wolves with
radio-telemetry after delisting, with an
emphasis on areas where they expect
wolf-human conflicts and where wolves
are expanding their range (MN DNR
2001, p. 19). Similarly, Wisconsin and
Michigan DNRs will continue to trap
wolves for radio-collaring, examination,
and health monitoring for the
foreseeable future (WI DNR 1999, pp.
19–21; MI DNR 1997, p. 22; WI DNR
2006a, p. 14). The continued handling
of wild wolves for research, including
the administration of drugs, may result
in some accidental deaths of wolves. We
believe that capture and radiotelemetry-related injuries or mortalities
will not increase significantly above the
level observed before delisting in
proportion to wolf abundance; adverse
effects to wolves associated with such
activities have been minimal and would
not constitute a threat to the WGL DPS.
No wolves have been legally removed
from the wild for educational purposes
in recent years. Wolves that have been
used for such purposes are the captivereared offspring of wolves that were
already in captivity for other reasons,
and this is not likely to change as a
result of Federal delisting. We do not
expect taking for educational purposes
to constitute any threat to Midwest wolf
populations for the foreseeable future.
See Factor E for a discussion of taking
of gray wolves by Native Americans for
religious, spiritual, or traditional
cultural purposes. See the Depredation
Control Programs sections under Factor
D for discussion of other past, current,
and potential future forms of intentional
and accidental take by humans,
including depredation control, public
safety, and under public harvest. While
public harvest may include recreational
harvest, it is likely that public harvest
will also serve as a management tool, so
it is discussed in Factor D.
Summary of Factor B—Taking wolves
for scientific or educational purposes in
the other WGL DPS States may not be
regulated or closely monitored in the
future, but the threat to wolves in those
States will not be significant to the longterm viability of the wolf population in
the WGL DPS. The potential limited
commercial and recreational harvest
that may occur in the DPS will be
regulated by State and/or Tribal
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
conservation agencies and is discussed
under Factor D. Therefore, we conclude
that overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes will not be a threat sufficient
to cause the WGL DPS gray wolves to be
in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future in all or a significant
portion of the range within the WGL
DPS.
C. Disease or predation.
Disease
Many diseases and parasites have
been reported for the gray wolf, and
several of them have had significant
impacts during the recovery of the
species in the 48 conterminous States
(Brand et al. 1995, p. 419; WI DNR 1999,
p. 61). If not monitored and controlled
by States, these diseases and parasites,
and perhaps others, may threaten gray
wolf populations in the future. Thus, to
avoid a future decline caused by
diseases or parasites, States and their
partners will have to diligently monitor
the prevalence of these pathogens in
order to effectively respond to
significant outbreaks.
Canine parvovirus (CPV) is a
relatively new disease that infects
wolves, domestic dogs, foxes, coyotes,
skunks, and raccoons. Recognized in the
United States in 1977 in domestic dogs,
it appeared in Minnesota wolves (based
upon retrospective serologic evidence)
live-trapped as early as 1977 (Mech et
al. 1986, p. 105). Minnesota wolves,
however, may have been exposed to the
virus as early as 1973 (Mech and Goyal
1995, p. 568). Serologic evidence of gray
wolf exposure to CPV peaked at 95
percent for a group of Minnesota wolves
live-trapped in 1989 (Mech and Goyal
1993, p, 331). In a captive colony of
Minnesota wolves, pup and yearling
mortality from CPV was 92 percent of
the animals that showed indications of
active CPV infections in 1983 (Mech
and Fritts 1987, p. 6), demonstrating the
substantial impacts this disease can
have on young wolves. It is believed
that the population impacts of CPV
occur via diarrhea-induced dehydration
leading to abnormally high pup
mortality (WI DNR 1999, p. 61). CPV has
been detected in nearly every wolf
population in North America including
Alaska (Bailey et al. 1995, p. 443) and
exposure in wolves is now believed to
be almost universal.
There is no evidence that CPV has
caused a population decline or has had
a significant impact on the recovery of
the Minnesota gray wolf population.
Mech and Goyal (1995, p. 566, Table 1,
p. 568, Fig. 3), however, found that high
CPV prevalence in the wolves of the
Superior National Forest in Minnesota
occurred during the same years in
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15097
which wolf pup numbers were low.
Because the wolf population did not
decline during the study period, they
concluded that CPV-caused pup
mortality was compensatory, that is, it
replaced deaths that would have
occurred from other causes, especially
starvation of pups. They theorized that
CPV prevalence affects the amount of
population increase and that a wolf
population will decline when 76
percent of the adult wolves consistently
test positive for CPV exposure. Their
data indicate that CPV prevalence in
adult wolves in their study area
increased by an annual average of 4
percent during 1979–93 and was at least
80 percent during the last 5 years of
their study (Mech and Goyal 1995, pp.
566, 568). Additional data gathered
since 1995, currently in preparation for
publication, suggests that CPV has been
reducing pup survival both in the
Superior National Forest and statewide,
between 1984 and 2004; however,
statewide there is some evidence of a
slight increase in pup survival since
about 1995. These conclusions are based
upon an inverse relationship between
pup numbers in summer captures and
seroprevalence of CPV antibodies in
summer-captured adult wolves (Mech in
litt. 2006). These data provide strong
justification for continuing population
and disease monitoring.
Wisconsin DNR, in conjunction with
the U.S. Geological Survey National
Wildlife Health Center in Madison,
Wisconsin, (formerly the National
Wildlife Health Laboratory) has an
extensive dataset on the incidence of
wolf diseases, beginning in 1981.
Canine parvovirus exposure was evident
in 5 of 6 wolves tested in 1981, and
probably stalled wolf population growth
in Wisconsin during the early and mid1980s when numbers there declined or
were static; at that time 75 percent of 32
wolves tested positive for CPV. During
the following years of population
increase (1988–96) only 35 percent of
the 63 wolves tested positive for CPV
(WI DNR 1999, p. 62). More recent
exposure rates for CPV continue to be
high in Wisconsin wolves, with annual
rates ranging from 60 to 100 percent
among wild wolves handled from 2001
through mid-2005. Part of the reason for
high exposure percentages is likely an
increased emphasis in sampling pups
and Central Forest wolves starting in
2001, so comparisons of post- and pre2001 data are of limited value. CPV
appears not to be a significant cause of
mortality, as only a single wolf (male
pup) is known to have died from CPV
during this period (Wydeven and
Wiedenhoeft 2002, p. 8 Table 4; 2003a,
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15098
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
pp. 11–12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12
Table 5; 2005, pp. 19–20 Table 4; 2006,
pp. 23–25 Table 4). While the difficulty
of discovering CPV-killed pups must be
considered, and it is possible that CPVcaused pup mortality is being
underestimated, the continuing increase
of the Wisconsin wolf population
indicates that CPV mortality is no longer
impeding wolf population growth in the
State. It may be that many Wisconsin
wolves have developed some degree of
resistance to CPV, and this disease is no
longer a significant threat in the State.
Similar to Wisconsin wolves,
serological testing of Michigan wolves
captured from 1992 through 2001 (most
recent available data) shows that the
majority of UP wolves have been
exposed to CPV. Fifty-six percent of 16
wolves captured from 1992 to 1999 and
83 percent of 23 wolves captured in
2001 showed antibody titers at levels
established as indicative of previous
CPV exposure that may provide
protection from future infection from
CPV (Beheler in litt. undated, in litt.
2004). There are no data showing any
CPV-caused wolf mortality or
population impacts to the gray wolf
population on the UP, but few wolf
pups are handled in the UP (Hammill in
litt. 2002, Beyer in litt. 2006a), so low
levels of CPV-caused pup mortality may
go undetected there. Mortality data are
primarily collected from collared
wolves, which until recently received
CPV inoculations. Therefore, mortality
data for the UP should be interpreted
cautiously.
Sarcoptic mange is caused by a mite
(Sarcoptes scabiei) infection of the skin.
The irritation caused by the feeding and
burrowing mites results in scratching
and then severe fur loss, which in turn
can lead to mortality from exposure
during severe winter weather. The mites
are spread from wolf to wolf by direct
body contact or by common use of
‘‘rubs’’ by infested and uninfested
animals. Thus, mange is frequently
passed from infested females to their
young pups, and from older pack
members to their pack mates. In a longterm Alberta, Canada, wolf study, higher
wolf densities were correlated with
increased incidence of mange, and pup
survival decreased as the incidence of
mange increased (Brand et al. 1995, p.
428).
From 1991 to 1996, 27 percent of livetrapped Wisconsin wolves exhibited
symptoms of mange. During the winter
of 1992–93, 58 percent showed
symptoms, and a concurrent decline in
the Wisconsin wolf population was
attributed to mange-induced mortality
(WI DNR 1999, p. 61). Seven Wisconsin
wolves died from mange from 1993
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
through October 15, 1998, and severe
fur loss affected five other wolves that
died from other causes. During that
period, mange was the third largest
cause of death in Wisconsin wolves,
behind trauma (usually vehicle
collisions) and shooting (Thomas in litt.
1998). Largely as a result of mange, pup
survival was only 16 percent in 1993,
compared to a normal 30 percent
survival rate from birth to one year of
age.
Mange continues to be prevalent in
Wisconsin, especially in the central
Wisconsin wolf population. Mortality
data from closely monitored radiocollared wolves provides a relatively
unbiased estimate of mortality factors,
especially those linked to disease or
illegal actions, because nearly all
carcasses are located within a few days
of deaths. Diseased wolves suffering
from hypothermia or nearing death
generally crawl into dense cover and
may go undiscovered if they are not
radio-tracked (Wydeven et al. 2001b, p.
14). These data show that during the
period of 2000 through August 2006
mange has killed as many wolves as
were killed by illegal shooting, making
them the two highest causes of wolf
mortality in the State. Based on
mortality data from closely monitored
radio-collared wolves, mange mortality
ranged from 14 percent of deaths in
2002 to 30 percent of deaths in 2003,
totaling 27 percent of radio-collared
wolf deaths for this period. Illegal
shootings resulted in the death of an
identical percentage of wolves
(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2001, p. 8
Table 5; 2002 p. 8 Table 4; 2003a, pp.
11–12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 Table
5; 2005, pp. 19–20 Table 4). Preliminary
data for 2006 show mange mortality and
illegal shooting remain equal at 30
percent of radio-collared wolf mortality
(Wydeven in litt. 2006c, unpublished
data). Mange mortality does not appear
to be declining in Wisconsin, and the
incidence of mange may be on the
increase among central Wisconsin wolf
packs (Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 6).
However, not all mangy wolves
succumb; other observations showed
that some mangy wolves are able to
survive the winter (Wydeven et al.
2001b, p. 14).
The survival of pups during their first
winter is believed to be strongly affected
by mange. The highest to date wolf
mortality (30 percent of radio-collared
wolves; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft
2004a, p. 12) from mange in Wisconsin
in 2003 may have had more severe
effects on pup survival than in previous
years. The prevalence of the disease
may have contributed to the relatively
small population increase in 2003 (2.4
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
percent in 2003 as compared to the
average 18 percent to that point since
1985). However, mange has not caused
a decline in the State’s wolf population,
and even though the rate of population
increase has slowed in recent years, the
wolf population continues to increase
despite the continued prevalence of
mange in Wisconsin wolves. Although
mange mortality may not be the primary
determinant of wolf population growth
in the State, the impacts of mange in
Wisconsin need to be closely monitored
as identified and addressed in the
Wisconsin wolf management plan (WI
DNR 1999, p. 21; 2006a, p. 14).
Seven wild Michigan wolves died
from mange during 1993–97, making it
responsible for 21 percent of all
mortalities, and all disease-caused
deaths, during that period (MI DNR
1997, p. 39). During bioyears (mid-April
to mid-April) 1999–04, mange-induced
hypothermia killed 9 of the 11 radiocollared Michigan wolves whose cause
of death was attributed to disease, and
it represented 17 percent of the total
mortality during those years. Mange
caused the death of 31 percent of radiocollared wolves during the 1999–2001
bioyears, but that rate decreased to 11
percent during the 2001–04 bioyears.
However, the sample sizes are too small
to reliably detect a trend (Beyer 2005
unpublished data). Before 2004, MI DNR
treated all captured wolves with
Ivermectin if they showed signs of
mange. In addition, MI DNR vaccinated
all captured wolves against CPV and
canine distemper virus (CDV) and
administered antibiotics to combat
potential leptospirosis infections. These
inoculations were discontinued in 2004
to provide more natural biotic
conditions and to provide biologists
with an unbiased estimate of diseasecaused mortality rates in the population
(Roell in litt. 2005b).
Wisconsin wolves similarly had been
treated with Ivermectin and vaccinated
for CPV and CDV when captured, but
the practice was stopped in 1995 to
allow the wolf population to experience
more natural biotic conditions. Since
that time, Ivermectin has been
administered only to captured wolves
with severe cases of mange. In the
future, Ivermectin and vaccines will be
used sparingly on Wisconsin wolves,
but will be used to counter significant
disease outbreaks (Wydeven in litt.
1998).
Among Minnesota wolves, mange
may always have been present at low
levels. However, based on observations
of wolves trapped under the Federal
wolf depredation control program,
mange appears to have become more
widespread in the State during the
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
1999–2005 period. Data from Wildlife
Services trapping efforts showed only 8
wolves showing symptoms of mange
were trapped during a 22-month period
in 1994–96; in contrast, Wildlife
Services trapped 10, 6, and 19 mangy
wolves in 2003, 2004, and 2005,
respectively (2005 data run through
November 22 only). These data indicate
that 12.6 percent of Minnesota wolves
were showing symptoms of mange in
2005 (Paul 2005 in litt.). However, the
thoroughness of these observations may
not have been consistent over this 11year period. In a separate study,
mortality data from 12 years (1994–
2005) of monitoring radio-collared
wolves in 7–9 packs in north-central
Minnesota show that 11 percent died
from mange (DelGiudice in litt. 2005).
However, the sample size (17 total
mortalities, 2 from mange in 1998 and
2004) is far too small to deduce trends
in mange mortality over time.
Furthermore, these data are from mange
mortalities, while the Wildlife Services’
data are based on mange symptoms, not
mortalities.
It is hypothesized that the current
incidence of mange is more widespread
than it would have otherwise been,
because the WGL wolf range has
experienced a series of mild winters
beginning with the winter of 1997–98
(Van Deelen 2005, Fig. 2). Mangeinduced mortality is chiefly a result of
winter hypothermia, thus the less severe
winters resulted in higher survival of
mangy wolves, and increased spread of
mange to additional wolves during the
following spring and summer. The high
wolf population, and especially higher
wolf density on the landscape, may also
be contributing to the increasing
occurrence of mange in the WGL wolf
population. There has been speculation
that 500 or more Minnesota wolves died
as a result of mange over the last 5 to
6 years, causing a slowing or cessation
of previous wolf population increase in
the State (Paul in litt. 2005).
Lyme disease, caused by the
spirochete (Borrelia burgdorferi), is
another relatively recently recognized
disease, first documented in New
England in 1975, although it may have
occurred in Wisconsin as early as 1969.
It is spread by ticks that pass the
infection to their hosts when feeding.
Host species include humans, horses,
dogs, white-tailed deer, white-footed
mice, eastern chipmunks, coyotes, and
wolves. The prevalence of Lyme disease
exposure in Wisconsin wolves averaged
70 percent of live-trapped animals in
1988–91, dropped to 37 percent during
1992–97 and was back up to 56 percent
(32 of 57 tested) in 2002–04 (Wydeven
and Wiedenhoeft 2004b, pp. 23–24
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
Table 7; 2005, pp. 23–24 Table 7).
Clinical symptoms have not been
reported in wolves, but infected dogs
can experience debilitating conditions,
and abortion and fetal mortality have
been reported in infected humans and
horses. It is possible that individual
wolves may be debilitated by Lyme
disease, perhaps contributing to their
mortality; however, Lyme disease is not
believed to be a significant factor
affecting wolf populations (Kreeger
2003, p. 212).
The dog louse (Trichodectes canis)
has been detected in wolves in Ontario,
Saskatchewan, Alaska, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin (Mech et al. 1985, pp. 404–
405; Kreeger 2003, p. 208; Paul in litt.
2005). Dogs are probably the source of
the initial infections, and subsequently
wild canids transfer lice by direct
contact with other wolves, particularly
between females and pups. Severe
infestations result in irritated and raw
skin, substantial hair loss, particularly
in the groin. However, in contrast to
mange, lice infestations generally result
in loss of guard hairs but not the
insulating under fur, thus, hypothermia
is less likely to occur and much less
likely to be fatal (Brand et al. 1995, p.
426). Even though observed in nearly
4 percent in a sample of 391 Minnesota
wolves in 2003–05 (Paul in litt. 2005),
dog lice infestations have not been
confirmed as a cause of wolf mortality,
and are not expected to have a
significant impact even at a local scale.
Canine distemper virus (CDV) is an
acute disease of carnivores that has been
known in Europe since the sixteenth
century and is now infecting dogs
worldwide (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). CDV
generally infects dog pups when they
are only a few months old, so mortality
in wild wolf populations might be
difficult to detect (Brand et al. 1995, pp.
420–421). CDV mortality among wild
wolves has been documented only in
two littermate pups in Manitoba
(Carbyn 1982, pp. 111–112), in two
Alaskan yearling wolves (Peterson et al.
1984, p. 31), and in two Wisconsin
wolves (an adult in 1985 and a pup in
2002 (Thomas in litt. 2006; Wydeven
and Wiedenhoeft 2003b, p. 20). Carbyn
(1982, pp. 113–116) concluded that CDV
was a contributor to a 50 percent
decline of the wolf population in Riding
Mountain National Park (Manitoba,
Canada) in the mid-1970s. Serological
evidence indicates that exposure to CDV
is high among some Midwest wolves—
29 percent in northern Wisconsin
wolves and 79 percent in central
Wisconsin wolves in 2002–04 (Wydeven
and Wiedenhoeft 2004b, pp. 23–24
Table 7; 2005, pp 23–24 Table 7).
However, the continued strong
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15099
recruitment in Wisconsin and elsewhere
in North American wolf populations
indicates that distemper is not likely a
significant cause of mortality (Brand et
al. 1995, p. 421).
Other diseases and parasites,
including rabies, canine heartworm,
blastomycosis, bacterial myocarditis,
granulomatous pneumonia, brucellosis,
leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis,
hookworm, coccidiosis, and canine
hepatitis have been documented in wild
gray wolves, but their impacts on future
wild wolf populations are not likely to
be significant (Brand et al. 1995, pp.
419–429; Hassett in litt. 2003; Johnson
1995, p. 431, 436–438; Mech and Kurtz
1999, pp. 305–306; Thomas in litt. 1998,
Thomas in litt. 2006, WI DNR 1999,
p. 61; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202–214).
Continuing wolf range expansion,
however, likely will provide new
avenues for exposure to several of these
diseases, especially canine heartworm,
raccoon rabies, and bovine tuberculosis
(Thomas in litt. 2000, in litt. 2006),
further emphasizing the need for disease
monitoring programs. In addition, the
possibility of new diseases developing
and existing diseases, such as chronic
wasting disease (CWD), West Nile Virus
(WNV) and canine influenza (Crawford
et al. 2005, 482–485), moving across
species barriers or spreading from
domestic dogs to wolves must all be
taken into account, and monitoring
programs will need to address such
threats. Currently there is no evidence
that CWD can directly affect canids
(Thomas in litt. 2006). Wisconsin
wolves have been tested for WNV at
necropsy since the first spread of the
virus across the State: to date all results
have been negative. Although
experimental infection of dogs produced
no ill effects, WNV is reported to have
killed two captive wolf pups, so young
wolves may be at some risk (Thomas in
litt. 2006).
In aggregate, diseases and parasites
were the cause of 21 percent of the
diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared
wolves in Michigan from 1999 through
2004 (Beyer unpublished data 2005) and
27 percent of the diagnosed mortalities
of radio-collared wolves in Wisconsin
and adjacent Minnesota from October
1979 through June 2005 (Wydeven and
Wiedenhoeft 2005, p. 21).
Many of the diseases and parasites are
known to be spread by wolf-to-wolf
contact. Therefore, the incidence of
mange, CPV, CDV, and canine
heartworm may increase as wolf
densities increase in the more recently
colonized areas (Thomas in litt. 2006).
Because wolf densities generally are
relatively stable following the first few
years of colonization, wolf-to-wolf
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15100
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
contacts will not likely lead to a
continuing increase in disease
prevalence in areas that have been
occupied for several years or more and
are largely saturated with wolf packs
(Mech in litt. 1998).
Disease and parasite impacts may
increase because several wolf diseases
and parasites are carried and spread by
domestic dogs. This transfer of
pathogens from domestic dogs to wild
wolves may increase as gray wolves
continue to colonize non-wilderness
areas (Mech in litt. 1998). Heartworm,
CPV, and rabies are the main concerns
(Thomas in litt. 1998) but dogs may
become significant vectors for other
diseases with potentially serious
impacts on wolves in the future
(Crawford et al. 2005, pp. 482–485).
However, to date wolf populations in
Wisconsin and Michigan have
continued their expansion into areas
with increased contacts with dogs and
have shown no adverse pathogen
impacts since the mid-1980s impacts
from CPV.
Disease and parasite impacts are a
recognized concern of the Minnesota,
Michigan, and Wisconsin DNRs. The
Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and
Management Plan states that necropsies
will be conducted on all dead wolves,
and that all live wolves that are handled
will be examined, with blood, skin, and
fecal samples taken to provide disease
information. The Michigan Plan states
that wolf health and disease monitoring
will receive a high priority for a
minimum of five years following
Federal delisting (MI DNR 1997, pp. 21–
22, 45).
Similarly, the Wisconsin Wolf
Management Plan states that as long as
the wolf is State-listed as a threatened
or endangered species, the WI DNR will
conduct necropsies of dead wolves and
test a sample of live-captured wolves for
diseases and parasites, with a goal of
screening 10 percent of the State wolf
population for diseases annually.
However, the plan anticipates that since
State delisting (which occurred on
March 24, 2004), disease monitoring
will be scaled back because the
percentage of the wolf population that is
live-trapped each year will decline.
Disease monitoring of captured wolves
currently is focusing on diseases known
to be causing noteworthy mortality,
such as mange, and other diseases for
which data are judged to be sparse, such
as Lyme disease and ehrlichiosis
(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2006, p. 8).
The State will continue to test for
disease and parasite loads through
periodic necropsy and scat analyses.
The 2006 update to the 1999 plan also
recommends that all wolves live-
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
trapped for other studies should have
their health monitored and reported to
the WI DNR wildlife health specialists
(WI DNR 1999, p. 21; 2006c, p. 14).
Furthermore, the 2006 update identifies
a need for ‘‘continued health monitoring
to document significant disease events
that may impact the wolf population
and to identify new diseases in the
population * * *.’’ (WI DNR 2006a,
p. 24).
The Minnesota Wolf Management
Plan states that MN DNR ‘‘will
collaborate with other investigators and
continue monitoring disease incidence,
where necessary, by examination of
wolf carcasses obtained through
depredation control programs, and also
through blood/tissue physiology work
conducted by DNR and the U.S.
Geological Survey. DNR will also keep
records of documented and suspected
incidence of sarcoptic mange (MN DNR
2001, p. 32).’’ In addition, it will initiate
‘‘(R)egular collection of pertinent tissues
of live captured or dead wolves’’ and
periodically assess wolf health ‘‘when
circumstances indicate that diseases or
parasites may be adversely affecting
portions of the wolf population (MN
DNR 2001, p. 19).’’ Unlike Michigan and
Wisconsin, Minnesota has not
established minimum goals for the
proportion of its wolves that will be
assessed for disease nor does it plan to
treat any wolves, although it does not
rule out these measures. Minnesota’s
less intensive approach to disease
monitoring and management seems
warranted in light of its much greater
abundance of wolves than in the other
two States.
In areas within the WGL DPS, but
outside Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan, we lack data on the incidence
of diseases or parasites in transient
wolves. However, the WGL DPS
boundary is laid out in a manner such
that the vast majority of, and perhaps
all, wolves that will occur in the DPS in
the foreseeable future will have
originated from the MinnesotaWisconsin-Michigan wolf
metapopulation. Therefore, they will be
carrying the ‘‘normal’’ complement of
Midwest wolf parasites, diseases, and
disease resistance with them. For this
reason, any new pairs, packs, or
populations that develop within the
DPS are likely to experience the same
low to moderate adverse impacts from
pathogens that have been occurring in
the core recovery areas. The most likely
exceptions to this generalization would
arise from exposure to sources of novel
diseases or more virulent forms that are
being spread by other canid species that
might be encountered by wolves
dispersing into currently unoccupied
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
areas of the DPS. To increase the
likelihood of detecting such novel, or
more virulent diseases and thereby
reduce the risk that they might pose to
the core meta-population after delisting,
we will encourage these States and
Tribes to provide wolf carcasses or
suitable tissue, as appropriate, to the
USGS Madison Wildlife Health Center
or the Service’s National Wildlife
Forensics Laboratory for necropsy. This
practice should provide an early
indication of new or increasing
pathogen threats before they reach the
core metapopulation or impact future
transient wolves to those areas.
Disease summary—We believe that
several diseases have had noticeable
impacts on wolf population growth in
the Great Lakes region in the past. These
impacts have been both direct, resulting
in mortality of individual wolves, and
indirect, by reducing longevity and
fecundity of individuals or entire packs
or populations. Canine parvovirus
stalled wolf population growth in
Wisconsin in the early and mid-1980s
and has been implicated in the decline
in the mid-1980s of the isolated Isle
Royale wolf population in Michigan,
and in attenuating wolf population
growth in Minnesota (Mech in litt.
2006). Sarcoptic mange has affected
wolf recovery in Michigan’s UP and in
Wisconsin over the last ten years, and
it is recognized as a continuing issue.
Despite these and other diseases and
parasites, the overall trend for wolf
populations in the WGL DPS continues
to be upward. Wolf management plans
for Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin
include disease monitoring components
that we expect will identify future
disease and parasite problems in time to
allow corrective action to avoid a
significant decline in overall population
viability. We conclude that diseases and
parasites will not prevent the
continuation of wolf recovery or the
maintenance of viable wolf populations
in the DPS. Delisting wolves in the WGL
DPS will not significantly change the
incidence or impacts of disease and
parasites on these wolves. Furthermore,
we conclude that diseases and parasites
will not be threats sufficient to cause the
WGL DPS gray wolves to be in danger
of extinction in the foreseeable future in
all or a significant portion of the range
within the WGL DPS.
Predation
No wild animals habitually prey on
gray wolves. Large prey such as deer,
elk, or moose (Mech and Nelson 1989,
pp. 207–208; Smith et al. 2001, p. 3), or
other predators, such as mountain lions
(Felis concolor) or grizzly bears (Ursus
arctos horribilis) where they are extant
(USFWS 2005, p. 3), occasionally kill
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
wolves, but this has only been rarely
documented. This very small
component of wolf mortality will not
increase with delisting.
Wolves frequently are killed by other
wolves, most commonly when packs
encounter and attack a dispersing wolf
as an intruder or when two packs
encounter each other along a territorial
boundary (Mech 1994, p. 201). This
form of mortality is likely to increase as
more of the available wolf habitat
becomes saturated with wolf pack
territories, as is the case in northeastern
Minnesota, but such a trend is not yet
evident from Wisconsin or Michigan
data. From October 1979 through June
1998, seven (12 percent) of the
mortalities of radio-collared Wisconsin
wolves resulted from wolves killing
wolves, and 8 of 73 (11 percent)
mortalities were from this cause during
2000–05 (Wydeven 1998, p. 16 Table 4;
Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2001, p. 8
Table 5; 2002, pp. 8–9 Table 4; 2003a,
pp. 11–12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12
Table 5, 2005, p. 21 Table 5). Gogan et
al. (2004, p. 7) studied 31 radio-collared
wolves in northern Minnesota from
1987–91 and found that 4 (13 percent)
were killed by other wolves,
representing 29 percent of the total
mortality of radio-collared wolves. Intraspecific strife caused 50 percent of
mortality within Voyageurs National
Park and 20 percent of the mortality of
wolves adjacent to the Park (Gogan et al.
2004, p. 22). The Del Giudice data (in
litt. 2005) show a 17 percent mortality
rate from other wolves in another study
area in north-central Minnesota from
1994–2005. This behavior is normal in
healthy wolf populations and is an
expected outcome of dispersal conflicts
and territorial defense, as well as
occasional intra-pack strife. This form of
mortality is something that the species
has evolved with and it should not pose
a threat to wolf populations in the WGL
DPS following delisting.
Humans have functioned as highly
effective predators of the gray wolf in
North America for several hundred
years. European settlers in the Midwest
attempted to eliminate the wolf entirely
in earlier times, and the U.S. Congress
passed a wolf bounty that covered the
Northwest Territories in 1817. Bounties
on wolves subsequently became the
norm for States across the species’
range. In Michigan, an 1838 wolf bounty
became the ninth law passed by the
First Michigan Legislature; this bounty
remained in place until 1960. A
Wisconsin bounty was instituted in
1865 and was repealed about the time
wolves were extirpated from the State in
1957. Minnesota maintained a wolf
bounty until 1965.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
Subsequent to the gray wolf’s listing
as a federally endangered species, the
Act and State endangered species
statutes prohibited the killing of wolves
except under very limited
circumstances, such as in defense of
human life, for scientific or
conservation purposes, or under special
regulations intended to reduce wolf
depredations of livestock or other
domestic animals. The resultant
reduction in human-caused wolf
mortality is the main cause of the wolf’s
reestablishment in large parts of its
historical range. It is clear, however,
that illegal killing of wolves has
continued in the form of intentional
mortality and incidental deaths.
Illegal killing of wolves occurs for a
number of reasons. Some of these
killings are accidental (e.g., wolves are
hit by vehicles, mistaken for coyotes
and shot, or caught in traps set for other
animals); some of these accidental
killings are reported to State, Tribal, and
Federal authorities. It is likely that most
illegal killings, however, are intentional
and are never reported to government
authorities. Because they generally
occur in remote locations and the
evidence is easily concealed, we lack
reliable estimates of annual rates of
intentional illegal killings.
In Wisconsin, all forms of humancaused mortality accounted for 54
percent of the diagnosed deaths of
radio-collared wolves from October
1979 through June 2005. Thirty percent
of the diagnosed mortalities, and 55
percent of the human-caused
mortalities, were from shooting
(firearms and bows). Another 14 percent
of all the diagnosed mortalities (25
percent of the human-caused
mortalities) resulted from vehicle
collisions. (These percentages and those
in the following paragraphs exclude two
radio-collared Wisconsin wolves that
were killed in depredation control
actions by USDA—APHIS—Wildlife
Services in 2003–04. The wolf
depredation control programs in the
Midwest are discussed separately under
Depredation Control, below.)
Preliminary 2006 data through
September (8 diagnosed mortalities of
radio-collared wolves) show these
mortality percentages to be unchanged,
with 38 percent of the mortalities
resulting from mange, 38 percent shot,
and 13 percent from vehicle collisions
(Wydeven in litt. 2006c).
As the Wisconsin population has
increased in numbers and range, vehicle
collisions have increased as a
percentage of radio-collared wolf
mortalities. During the October 1979
through June 1992 period, only 1 of 27
(4 percent) known mortalities was from
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15101
that cause; but from July 1992 through
June 1998, 5 of the 26 (19 percent)
known mortalities resulted from vehicle
collisions (Wydeven 1998, p. 6). From
2002 through 2004, 7 of 45 (16 percent)
known mortalities were from that cause
(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003a, pp.
11–12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 Table
5; 2005, pp. 19–20 Table 4).
A comparison over time for diagnosed
mortalities of radio-collared Wisconsin
wolves shows that 18 of 57 (32 percent)
were illegally shot from October 1979
through 1998, while 12 of 42 (29
percent) were illegally shot from 2002
through 2004 (Wisconsin DNR 1999, p.
63; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003a,
pp. 11–12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12
Table 4; 2005. pp. 19–20 Table 4).
However, a more recent analysis
incorporating 2005 and preliminary
2006 data for radio-collared wolves
indicates an increase in illegal killing of
wolves since 2000 (about 32 percent)
compared to the previous decade (about
19 percent). The same analysis shows
vehicle mortality declined and disease/
malnutrition mortality increased from
the 1990s to the 2000s (Wiedenhoeft
2006 unpublished data).
In the UP of Michigan, human-caused
mortalities accounted for 75 percent of
the diagnosed mortalities, based upon
34 wolves recovered from 1960 to 1997,
including mostly non-radio-collared
wolves. Twenty-eight percent of all the
diagnosed mortalities and 38 percent of
the human-caused mortalities were from
shooting. In the UP during that period,
about one-third of all the known
mortalities were from vehicle collisions
(MI DNR 1997, pp. 5–6). During the
1998 Michigan deer hunting season, 3
radio-collared wolves were shot and
killed, resulting in one arrest and
conviction (Hammill in litt. 1999,
Michigan DNR 1999). During the
subsequent 3 years, 8 additional wolves
were killed in Michigan by gunshot, and
the cut-off radio-collar from a ninth
animal was located, but the animal was
never found. These incidents resulted in
6 guilty pleas, with 3 cases remaining
open. Data collected from radio-collared
wolves from the 1999 to 2004 bioyears
(mid-April to mid-April) show that
human-caused mortalities still account
for the majority of the wolf mortalities
(60 percent) in Michigan. Deaths from
vehicular collisions were about 15
percent of total mortality (25 percent of
the human-caused mortality) and
showed no trend over this six-year
period. Deaths from illegal killing
constituted 38 percent of all mortalities
(65 percent of the human-caused
mortality) over the period. From 1999
through 2001 illegal killings were 31
percent of the mortalities, but this
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15102
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
increased to 42 percent during the 2002
through 2004 bioyears (Beyer
unpublished data 2005),
North-central Minnesota data from 16
diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared
wolves over a 12-year period (1994–
2005) show that human-causes resulted
in 69 percent of the diagnosed
mortalities. This includes 1 wolf
accidentally snared, 2 vehicle collisions,
and 8 (50 percent of all diagnosed
mortalities) that were shot (Del Giudice
in litt. 2005). However, this data set of
only 16 mortalities over 12 years is too
small for reliable comparison to
Wisconsin and Michigan data.
A smaller mortality dataset is
available from a 1987–1991 study of
wolves in, and adjacent to, Minnesota’s
Voyageurs National Park, along the
Canadian border. Of 10 diagnosed
mortalities, illegal killing outside the
Park was responsible for a minimum of
60 percent of the deaths (Gogan et al.
2004, p. 22).
Two Minnesota studies provide some
limited insight into the extent of
human-caused wolf mortality before and
after the species’ listing. On the basis of
bounty data from a period that predated
wolf protection under the Act by 20
years, Stenlund (1955, p. 33) found an
annual human-caused mortality rate of
41 percent. Fuller (1989, pp. 23–24)
provided 1980–86 data from a northcentral Minnesota study area and found
an annual human-caused mortality rate
of 29 percent, a figure that includes 2
percent mortality from legal depredation
control actions. Drawing conclusions
from comparisons of these two studies,
however, is difficult due to the
confounding effects of habitat quality,
exposure to humans, prey density,
differing time periods, and vast
differences in study design. Although
these figures provide support for the
contention that human-caused mortality
decreased after the wolf’s protection
under the Act, it is not possible at this
time to determine if human-caused
mortality (apart from mortalities from
depredation control) has significantly
changed over the 30-year period that the
gray wolf has been listed as threatened
or endangered.
Wolves were largely eliminated from
the Dakotas in the 1920s and 1930s and
were rarely reported from the mid-1940s
through the late 1970s. Ten wolves were
killed in these two States from 1981 to
1992 (Licht and Fritts 1994, pp. 76–77).
Six more were killed in North Dakota
since 1992, with four of these
mortalities occurring in 2002 and 2003;
in 2001, one wolf was killed in Harding
County in extreme northwestern South
Dakota. The number of reported
sightings of gray wolves in North Dakota
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
is increasing. From 1993–98, six wolf
depredation reports were investigated in
North Dakota, and adequate signs were
found to verify the presence of wolves
in two of the cases. A den with pups
was also documented in extreme northcentral North Dakota near the Canadian
border in 1994. From 1999–2003, 16
wolf sightings/depredation incidents in
North Dakota were reported to USDA—
APHIS—Wildlife Services, and 9 of
these incidents were verified.
Additionally, one North Dakota wolf
sighting was confirmed in early 2004,
and two wolf depredation incidents
were verified north of Garrison in late
2005. USDA—APHIS—Wildlife Services
also confirmed a wolf sighting along the
Minnesota border near Gary, South
Dakota, in 1996, and a trapper with the
South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks
Department sighted a lone wolf in the
western Black Hills in 2002. Several
other unconfirmed sightings have been
reported from these States, including
two reports in South Dakota in 2003.
Wolves killed in North and South
Dakota are most often shot by hunters
after being mistaken for coyotes, or were
killed by vehicles. The 2001 mortality in
South Dakota and one of the 2003
mortalities in North Dakota were caused
by M–44 devices that had been legally
set in response to complaints about
coyotes.
In and around the core recovery areas
in the Midwest, a continuing increase in
wolf mortalities from vehicle collisions,
both in actual numbers and as a percent
of total diagnosed mortalities, is
expected as wolves continue their
colonization of areas with more human
developments and a denser network of
roads and vehicle traffic. In addition,
the growing wolf populations in
Wisconsin and Michigan are producing
greater numbers of dispersing
individuals each year, and this also will
contribute to increasing numbers of
wolf-vehicle collisions. This increase
would be unaffected by a removal of
WGL DPS wolves from the protections
of the Act.
In those areas of the WGL DPS that
are beyond the areas currently occupied
by wolf packs in Minnesota, Wisconsin,
and the UP, we expect that humancaused wolf mortality in the form of
vehicle collisions, shooting, and
trapping have been removing all, or
nearly all, the wolves that disperse into
these areas. We expect this to continue
after Federal delisting. Road densities
are high in these areas, with numerous
interstate highways and other freeways
and high-speed thoroughfares that are
extremely hazardous to wolves
attempting to move across them.
Shooting and trapping of wolves also is
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
likely to continue as a threat to wolves
in these areas for several reasons.
Especially outside of Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and the UP, hunters will not
expect to encounter wolves, and may
easily mistake them for coyotes from a
distance, resulting in unintentional
shootings.
It is important to note that, despite the
difficulty in measuring the extent of
illegal killing of wolves, all sources of
wolf mortality, including legal (e.g.,
depredation control) and illegal humancaused mortality, have not been of
sufficient magnitude to stop the
continuing growth of the wolf
population in Wisconsin and Michigan,
nor to cause a wolf population decline
in Minnesota. This indicates that total
gray wolf mortality does not threaten
the continued viability of the wolf
population in these three States, or in
the WGL DPS.
Predation summary—The high
reproductive potential of wolves allows
wolf populations to withstand relatively
high mortality rates, including humancaused mortality. The principle of
compensatory mortality is believed to
occur in wolf populations. This means
that human-caused mortality is not
simply added to ‘‘natural’’ mortality, but
rather replaces a portion of it. For
example, some of the wolves that are
killed during depredation control
actions would have otherwise died
during that year from disease,
intraspecific strife, or starvation. Thus,
the addition of intentional killing of
wolves to a wolf population will reduce
the mortality rates from other causes on
the population. Based on 19 studies by
other wolf researchers, Fuller et al.
(2003, pp. 182–186) concludes that
human-caused mortality can replace
about 70 percent of other forms of
mortality.
Fuller et al. (2003, p. 182 Table 6.8)
has summarized the work of various
researchers in estimating mortality rates,
especially human harvest, that would
result in wolf population stability or
decline. They provide a number of
human-caused and total mortality rate
estimates and the observed population
effects in wolf populations in the United
States and Canada. While variability is
apparent, in general, wolf populations
increased if their total average annual
mortality was 30 percent or less, and
populations decreased if their total
average annual mortality was 40 percent
or more. Four of the cited studies
showed wolf population stability or
increases with human-caused mortality
rates of 24 to 30 percent. The clear
conclusion is that a wolf population
with high pup productivity—the normal
situation in a wolf population—can
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
withstand levels of overall and of
human-caused mortality without
suffering a long-term decline in
numbers.
The wolf populations in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan will stop
growing when they have saturated the
suitable habitat and are curtailed in less
suitable areas by natural mortality
(disease, starvation, and intraspecific
aggression), depredation management,
incidental mortality (e.g., road kill),
illegal killing, and other means. At that
time, we should expect to see
population declines in some years
followed by short-term increases in
other years, resulting from fluctuations
in birth and mortality rates. Adequate
wolf monitoring programs, however, as
described in the Michigan, Wisconsin,
and Minnesota wolf management plans
are likely to identify high mortality rates
and/or low birth rates that warrant
corrective action by the management
agencies. The goals of all three State
wolf management plans are to maintain
wolf populations well above the
numbers recommended in the Federal
Eastern Recovery Plan to ensure longterm viable wolf populations. The State
management plans recommend a
minimum wolf population of 1,600 in
Minnesota, 350 in Wisconsin, and 200
in Michigan.
Despite human-caused mortalities of
wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan, these wolf populations have
continued to increase in both numbers
and range. If wolves in the WGL DPS are
delisted, as long as other mortality
factors do not increase significantly and
monitoring is adequate to document,
and if necessary counteract, the effects
of excessive human-caused mortality
should that occur, the MinnesotaWisconsin-Michigan wolf population
will not decline to nonviable levels in
the foreseeable future as a result of
human-caused killing or other forms of
predation either within the core wolf
populations or in all other parts of the
DPS. Therefore, we conclude that
predation, including all forms of
human-caused mortality, will not be a
sufficient future threat to cause the WGL
DPS gray wolves to be in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future in
all or a significant portion of the range
within the WGL DPS
D. The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms.
For the reasons described in the
following section, the Service has
determined that over a significant
portion of the WGL DPS range, there are
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
adequate regulatory mechanisms to
ensure that this population of gray
wolves is neither threatened nor
endangered.
Regulatory Mechanisms in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan
State Wolf Management Planning
During the 2000 legislative session,
the Minnesota Legislature passed wolf
management provisions addressing wolf
protection, taking of wolves, and
directing MN DNR to prepare a wolf
management plan. The MN DNR revised
a 1999 draft wolf management plan to
reflect the legislative action of 2000, and
completed the Minnesota Wolf
Management Plan (MN Plan) in early
2001 (MN DNR 2001, pp. 8–9).
The Wisconsin Natural Resources
Board approved the Wisconsin Wolf
Management Plan in October 1999 (WI
Plan). In 2004 and 2005 the Wisconsin
Wolf Science Advisory Committee and
the Wisconsin Wolf Stakeholders group
reviewed the 1999 Plan, and the Science
Advisory Committee subsequently
developed updates and recommended
modifications to the 1999 Plan. The WI
DNR presented the Plan updates and
modifications to the Wisconsin Natural
Resources Board on June 28, 2006, and
the NRB approved them at that time,
with the understanding that some
numbers would be updated and an
additional reference document would be
added (Holtz in litt. 2006). The updates
were completed and received final NRB
approval on November 28, 2006 (WI
DNR 2006a, p. 1).
In late 1997, the Michigan Wolf
Recovery and Management Plan (MI
Plan) was completed and received the
necessary State approvals. However, it
is primarily focused on wolf recovery,
rather than long-term management of a
large wolf population and the conflicts
that result as a consequence of
successful wolf restoration. In 2006 the
MI DNR convened a Michigan Wolf
Management Roundtable committee
(Roundtable) to provide guiding
principles to the DNR on changes and
revisions to the 1997 Plan and to guide
management of Michigan wolves and
wolf-related issues following Federal
delisting of the species. The MI DNR
will rely heavily on those guiding
principles as it drafts a new wolf
management plan. The Roundtable is
composed of representatives from 20
Michigan stakeholder interests in wolf
recovery and management, and its
membership is roughly equal in
numbers from the UP and the LP.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15103
During 2006, the Roundtable provided
its ‘‘Recommended Guiding Principles
for Wolf Management in Michigan’’ to
the DNR in November (Michigan Wolf
Management Roundtable 2006. p. 2).
The first public draft of the revised MI
Plan is expected to be available for
public review and comment in March
2007, and the plan should be completed
in late 2007 (Hogrefe in litt. 2006). See
The Michigan Wolf Management Plan
section below for a detailed description
of the efforts of the Roundtable.
The Minnesota Wolf Management Plan
The Minnesota Plan is based, in part,
on the recommendations of a State wolf
management roundtable (MN DNR 2001,
Appendix V) and on a State wolf
management law enacted in 2000 (MN
DNR 2001, Appendix I). This law and
the Minnesota Game and Fish Laws
constitute the basis of the State’s
authority to manage wolves. The Plan’s
stated goal is ‘‘to ensure the long-term
survival of wolves in Minnesota while
addressing wolf-human conflicts that
inevitably result when wolves and
people live in the same vicinity’’ (MN
DNR 2001, p. 2). It establishes a
minimum goal of 1,600 wolves in the
State. Key components of the plan are
population monitoring and
management, management of wolf
depredation of domestic animals,
management of wolf prey, enforcement
of laws regulating take of wolves, public
education, and increased staffing to
accomplish these actions. Following
delisting, Minnesota DNR’s management
of wolves would differ from their
current management while listed as
threatened under the Act. Most of these
differences deal with the control of
wolves that attack or threaten domestic
animals.
The Minnesota Plan divides the State
into two wolf management zones—
Zones A and B (see Figure 2 below).
Zone A corresponds to Federal Wolf
Management Zones 1 through 4
(approximately 30,000 sq mi (48,000 sq
km) in northeastern Minnesota) in the
Service’s Eastern Recovery Plan,
whereas Zone B constitutes zone 5 in
the Eastern Recovery Plan (MN DNR
2001, pp. 19–20 and Appendix III;
USFWS 1992, p. 72). Within Zone A,
wolves would receive strong protection
by the State, unless they were involved
in attacks on domestic animals. The
rules governing the take of wolves to
protect domestic animals in Zone B
would be less protective than in Zone A.
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
The MN DNR plans to allow wolf
numbers and distribution to naturally
expand, with no maximum population
goal, and if any winter population
estimate is below 1,600 wolves, it would
take actions to ‘‘assure recovery’’ to
1,600 wolves (MN DNR 2001 p. 19). The
MN DNR will continue to monitor
wolves in Minnesota to determine
whether such intervention is necessary.
The MN DNR will conduct a statewide
population survey in the first and fifth
years after delisting and at subsequent
five-year intervals. In addition to these
statewide population surveys, MN DNR
annually reviews data on depredation
incident frequency and locations
provided by Wildlife Services and
winter track survey indices (see Erb
2005) to help ascertain annual trends in
wolf population or range (MN DNR
2001, p. 18–19).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
Minnesota (MN DNR 2001, pp. 21–24,
27–28) plans to reduce or control illegal
mortality of wolves through education,
increased enforcement of the State’s
wolf laws and regulations, by
discouraging new road access in some
areas, and by maintaining a depredation
control program that includes
compensation for livestock losses. The
MN DNR plans to use a variety of
methods to encourage and support
education of the public about the effects
of wolves on livestock, wild ungulate
populations, and human activities and
the history and ecology of wolves in the
State (MN DNR 2001, pp. 29–30). These
are all measures that have been in effect
for years in Minnesota, although
‘‘increased enforcement’’ of State laws
against take of wolves would replace
enforcement of the Act’s take
prohibitions. Financial compensation
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
for livestock losses has been increased
in recent years to the full market value
of the animal, replacing previous caps of
$400 and $750 per animal (MN DNR
2001, p. 24). We do not expect the
State’s efforts will result in the
reduction of illegal take of wolves from
existing levels, but we believe these
measures will be crucial in ensuring
that illegal mortality does not
significantly increase following Federal
delisting.
The likelihood of illegal take
increases in relation to road density and
human population density, but
changing attitudes towards wolves may
allow them to survive in areas where
road and human densities were
previously thought to be too high (Fuller
et al. 2003, p. 181). The MN DNR does
not plan to reduce current levels of road
access, but would encourage managers
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
ER02AP09.001</GPH>
15104
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
of land areas large enough to sustain one
or more wolf packs to ‘‘be cautious
about adding new road access that could
exceed a density of one mile of road per
square mile of land, without considering
the potential effect on wolves’’ (MN
DNR 2001, pp. 27–28).
Under Minnesota law, the illegal
killing of a wolf is a gross misdemeanor
and is punishable by a maximum fine of
$3,000 and imprisonment for up to one
year. The restitution value of an illegally
killed wolf is $2,000 (MN DNR 2001,
p.29). The MN DNR acknowledges that
increased enforcement of the State’s
wolf laws and regulations would be
dependent on increases in staff and
resources, additional cross-deputization
of tribal law enforcement officers, and
continued cooperation with Federal law
enforcement officers. They specifically
propose after delisting to add three
Conservation Officers ‘‘strategically
located within current gray wolf range
in Minnesota’’ whose priority duty
would be to implement the gray wolf
management plan (MN DNR 2001, pp.
29, 32).
Minnesota DNR will consider wolf
population management measures,
including public hunting and trapping
seasons and other methods, in the
future. However, State law and the
Minnesota Plan state that such
consideration will occur no sooner than
five years after Federal delisting, and
there would be opportunity for full
public comment on such possible
changes at that time (Minnesota Statutes
97B.645 Subdiv. 9, see MN DNR 2001
Appendix 1, p. 6; MN DNR 2001, p. 20)
The Minnesota Plan requires that these
population management measures have
to be implemented in such a way to
maintain a statewide late-winter wolf
population of at least 1,600 animals
(MN DNR 2001, pp. 19–20), well above
the Federal Recovery Plan’s 1250–1400
for the State (USFWS 1992, p. 28).
Depredation Control in Minnesota
While federally-protected as a
threatened species in Minnesota (since
their 1978 reclassification), wolves that
have attacked domestic animals have
been killed by designated government
employees under the authority of a
special regulation (50 CFR 17.40(d))
under section 4(d) of the Act. However,
no control of depredating wolves was
allowed in Federal Wolf Management
Zone 1, comprising about 4,500 sq mi
(7,200 sq km) in extreme northeastern
Minnesota (USFWS 1992, p. 72). In
Federal Wolf Management Zones 2
through 5, employees or agents of the
Service (including USDA–APHIS—
Wildlife Services) have taken wolves in
response to depredations of domestic
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
animals within one-half mile of the
depredation site. Young-of-the-year
captured on or before August 1 must be
released. The regulations that allow for
this take (50 CFR 17.40(d)(2)(i)(B)(4)) do
not specify a maximum duration for
depredation control, but Wildlife
Services personnel have followed
internal guidelines under which they
trap for no more than 10–15 days,
except at sites with repeated or chronic
depredation, where they may trap for up
to 30 days (Paul pers. comm. 2004).
During the period from 1980–2005,
the Federal Minnesota wolf depredation
control program euthanized from 20 (in
1982) to 216 (in 1997) gray wolves
annually. Annual averages (and
percentage of statewide population)
were 30 (2.2 percent) wolves killed from
1980 to 1984, 49 (3.0 percent) from 1985
to 1989, 115 (6.0 percent) from 1990 to
1994, and 152 (6.7 percent) from 1995
to 1999. During 2000–05 an average of
128 wolves (4.2 percent of the wolf
population, based on the 2003–2004
statewide estimate) were killed under
the program annually. Since 1980, the
lowest annual percentage of Minnesota
wolves killed under this program was
1.5 percent in 1982; the highest
percentage was 9.4 in 1997 (Paul 2004,
pp. 2–7; 2006, p. 1).
This level of wolf removal for
depredation control has not interfered
with wolf recovery in Minnesota,
although it may have slowed the
increase in wolf numbers in the State,
especially since the late-1980s, and may
be contributing to the possibly
stabilized Minnesota wolf population
suggested by the 2003–04 estimate (see
additional information in Minnesota
Recovery). Minnesota wolf numbers
grew at an average annual rate of nearly
4 percent between 1989 and 1998 while
the depredation control program was
taking its highest percentages of wolves
(Paul 2004, pp. 2–7).
Under a Minnesota statute, the
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
(MDA) compensates livestock owners
for full market value of livestock that
wolves have killed or severely injured.
A university extension agent or
conservation officer must confirm that
wolves were responsible for the
depredation. The agent or officer also
evaluates the livestock operation for
conformance to a set of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) designed
to minimize wolf depredation and
provides operators with an itemized list
of any deficiencies relative to the BMPs
(MN DNR 2001, p. 24). The Minnesota
statute also requires MDA to
periodically update its BMPs to
incorporate new practices that it finds
would reduce wolf depredation
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15105
(Minnesota Statutes 2005, Section 3.737,
subdivision 5).
Post-Delisting Depredation Control in
Minnesota
Following Federal delisting,
depredation control will be authorized
under Minnesota State law and
conducted in conformance with the
Minnesota Wolf Management Plan (MN
DNR 2001). The Minnesota Plan divides
the State into Wolf Management Zones
A and B. Zone A is composed of Federal
Wolf Management Zones 1–4, covering
30,728 sq mi (49,452 sq km),
approximately the northeastern third of
the State. Zone B is identical to the
current Federal Wolf Management Zone
5, and contains the 54,603 sq mi (87,875
sq km.) that make up the rest of the
State (MN DNR 2001, pp. 19–20 and
Appendix III; USFWS 1992, p. 72). The
statewide survey conducted during the
winter of 2003–04 estimated that there
were approximately 2,570 wolves in
Zone A and 450 in Zone B (Erb in litt.
2005). As discussed in Recovery
Criteria, the Federal planning goal is
1251–1400 wolves for Zones 1–4 and no
wolves in Zone 5 (USFWS 1992, p. 28).
In Zone A wolf depredation control is
limited to situations of (1) immediate
threat and (2) following verified loss of
domestic animals. In this zone, if DNR
verifies that a wolf destroyed any
livestock, domestic animal, or pet, and
if the owner requests wolf control be
implemented, trained and certified
predator controllers may take wolves
within a one-mile radius of the
depredation site (depredation control
area) for up to 60 days. In contrast, in
Zone B, predator controllers may take
wolves for up to 214 days after MN DNR
opens a depredation control area,
depending on the time of year. Under
State law, the DNR may open a control
area in Zone B anytime within five years
of a verified depredation loss upon
request of the landowner, thereby
providing more of a preventative
approach than is allowed in Zone A, in
order to head off repeat depredation
incidents (MN DNR 2001, p. 22).
State law and the Minnesota Plan will
also allow for private wolf depredation
control throughout the State. Persons
may shoot or destroy a gray wolf that
poses ‘‘an immediate threat’’ to their
livestock, guard animals, or domestic
animals on lands that they own, lease,
or occupy. Immediate threat is defined
as ‘‘in the act of stalking, attacking, or
killing.’’ This does not include trapping
because traps cannot be placed in a
manner such that they trap only wolves
in the act of stalking, attacking, or
killing. Owners of domestic pets may
also kill wolves posing an immediate
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15106
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
threat to pets under their supervision on
lands that they do not own or lease,
although such actions are subject to
local ordinances, trespass law, and other
applicable restrictions. The MN DNR
will investigate any private taking of
wolves in Zone A (MN DNR 2001, p.
23).
To protect their domestic animals in
Zone B, individuals do not have to wait
for an immediate threat or a depredation
incident in order to take wolves. At
anytime in Zone B, persons who own,
lease, or manage lands may shoot
wolves on those lands to protect
livestock, domestic animals, or pets.
They may also employ a predator
controller to trap a gray wolf on their
land or within one mile of their land
(with permission of the landowner) to
protect their livestock, domestic
animals, or pets (MN DNR 2001, p. 23–
24).
The Minnesota Plan will also allow
persons to harass wolves anywhere in
the State within 500 yards of ‘‘people,
buildings, dogs, livestock, or other
domestic pets or animals’’. Harassment
may not include physical injury to a
wolf.
Depredation control will be allowed
throughout Zone A, which includes an
area (Federal Wolf Management Zone 1)
where such control has not been
permitted under the Act’s protection.
Depredation in Zone 1, however, has
been limited to 3 to 6 reported incidents
per year, mostly of wolves killing dogs
(Paul pers. comm. 2004), although some
dog kills in this zone probably go
unreported. There are few livestock in
Zone 1; therefore, the number of verified
future depredation incidents in that
Zone is expected to be low, resulting in
a correspondingly low number of
depredating wolves being killed there
after delisting.
The final change in Zone A is the
ability for owners/lessees to respond to
situations of immediate threat by
shooting wolves in the act of stalking,
attacking, or killing livestock or other
domestic animals. We believe this is not
likely to result in the killing of many
additional wolves, as opportunities to
shoot wolves ‘‘in the act’’ will likely be
few and difficult to successfully
accomplish, a belief shared by the most
experienced wolf depredation agent in
the lower 48 States (Paul in litt. 2006,
p. 5). It is also possible that illegal
killing of wolves in Minnesota will
decrease, because the expanded options
for legal control of problem wolves may
lead to an increase in public tolerance
for wolves (Paul in litt. 2006, p. 5).
Within Zone B, State law and the
Minnesota Plan provide broad authority
to landowners and land managers to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
shoot wolves at any time to protect their
livestock, pets, or other domestic
animals on land owned, leased, or
managed by the individual. Such
takings can occur in the absence of wolf
attacks on the domestic animals. Thus,
the estimated 450 wolves in Zone B
could be subject to substantial reduction
in numbers, and at the extreme, wolves
could be eliminated from Zone B.
However, there is no way to reasonably
evaluate in advance the extent to which
residents of Zone B will use this new
authority, nor how vulnerable Zone B
wolves will be. Thus, any estimate of
future wolf numbers in Zone B would
be highly speculative at this time. The
limitation of this broad take authority to
Zone B is fully consistent with the
Federal Recovery Plan’s advice that
wolves should be restored to the rest of
Minnesota but not to Zone B (Federal
Zone 5) because that area ‘‘is not
suitable for wolves’’ (USFWS 1992, p.
20). The Federal Recovery Plan
envisioned that the Minnesota
numerical recovery goal would be
achieved solely in Zone A (Federal
Zones 1–4) (USFWS 1992, p. 28), and
that has occurred. Wolves outside of
Zone A are not necessary to the
establishment and long-term viability of
a self-sustaining wolf population in the
State, and therefore there is no need to
establish or maintain a wolf population
in Zone B. Therefore, there is no need
to maintain significant protection for
wolves in Zone B in order to maintain
a Minnesota wolf population that
continues to satisfy the Federal recovery
goals after Federal delisting.
This expansion of depredation control
activities will not threaten the
continued conservation of wolves in the
State or the long-term viability of the
wolf population in Zone A, the
significant part of wolf range in
Minnesota. Significant changes in wolf
depredation control under State
management will primarily be restricted
to Zone B, which is outside of the area
necessary for wolf recovery (USFWS
1992, pp. 20, 28). Furthermore, wolves
may still persist in Zone B despite the
likely increased take there. The Eastern
Timber Wolf Recovery Team concluded
that the changes in wolf management in
the State’s Zone A would be ‘‘minor’’
and would not likely result in
‘‘significant change in overall wolf
numbers in Zone A.’’ They found that,
despite an expansion of the individual
depredation control areas and an
extension of the control period to 60
days, depredation control will remain
‘‘very localized’’ in Zone A. The
requirement that such depredation
control activities be conducted only in
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
response to verified wolf depredation in
Zone A played a key role in the team’s
evaluation (Peterson in litt. 2001).
The proposed changes in the control
of depredating wolves in Minnesota
under State management emphasize the
need for post-delisting monitoring.
Minnesota will continue to monitor
wolf populations throughout the State
and will also monitor all depredation
control activities in Zone A (MN DNR
2001, p. 18). These and other activities
contained in their plan will be essential
in meeting their population goal of a
minimum statewide winter population
of 1,600 wolves, which exceeds the
1992 Federal Recovery Plan’s criteria of
1,251 to 1,400 wolves (USFWS 1992, p.
28).
The Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan
Both the Wisconsin and Michigan
Wolf Management Plans are designed to
manage and ensure the existence of wolf
populations in the States as if they are
isolated populations and are not
dependent upon immigration of wolves
from an adjacent State or Canada. We
support this approach and believe it
provides strong assurances that the gray
wolf in both States will remain a viable
component of the WGL DPS for the
foreseeable future.
The WI Plan allows for differing
levels of protection and management
within four separate management zones
(see figure 3). The Northern Forest Zone
(Zone 1) and the Central Forest Zone
(Zone 2) now contain most of the wolf
population, with less than 5 percent of
the Wisconsin wolves in Zones 3 and 4
(Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 27–29). Zones
1 and 2 contain all the larger
unfragmented areas of suitable habitat
(see Wolf Range Ownership and
Protection, above), so most of the State’s
wolf packs will continue to inhabit
those parts of Wisconsin for the
foreseeable future. The varying levels of
protection provided across these zones
are fully consistent with our
determination of the SPR in Wisconsin.
The inclusion of all primary and
secondary habitat in Zones 1 and 2, and
the lack of suitable habitat in Zones 3
and 4 (Wydeven et al. 1999, pp. 46–49),
indicate that Zones 1 and 2 constitute
the SPR in Wisconsin and preclude the
need for substantial wolf protection
outside these zones.
At the time the Wisconsin Wolf
Management Plan was completed, it
recommended immediate
reclassification from State-endangered
to State-threatened status, because
Wisconsin’s wolf population had
already exceeded its reclassification
criterion of 80 wolves for 3 years. That
State reclassification occurred in 1999,
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
after the population exceeded that level
for 5 years. The Wisconsin Plan further
recommends the State manage for a gray
wolf population of 350 wolves outside
of Native American reservations, and
specifies that the species should be
delisted by the State once the
population reaches 250 animals outside
of reservations. The species was
proposed for State delisting in late 2003,
and the State delisting process was
completed in 2004. Upon State
delisting, the species was classified as a
‘‘protected nongame species,’’ a
designation that continues State
prohibitions on sport hunting and
trapping of the species (Wydeven and
Jurewicz 2005, p. 1; WI DNR 2006b, p.
71). The Wisconsin Plan includes
criteria that would trigger State relisting
to threatened (a decline to fewer than
250 wolves for 3 years) or endangered
status (a decline to fewer than 80 wolves
for 1 year). The Wisconsin Plan will be
reviewed annually by the Wisconsin
Wolf Advisory Committee and will be
reviewed by the public every 5 years.
The WI Plan was updated during
2004–06 to reflect current wolf
numbers, additional knowledge, and
issues that have arisen since its 1999
completion. This update is in the form
of text changes, revisions to two
appendices, and the addition of a new
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
appendix to the 1999 plan, rather than
as a major revision to the plan. Several
components of the plan that are key to
our delisting evaluation are unchanged.
The State wolf management goal of 350
animals and the boundaries of the four
wolf management zones remain the
same as in the 1999 Plan. The updated
2006 Plan continues access management
on public lands and the protection of
active den sites. However, protection of
pack rendezvous sites is no longer
considered to be needed in areas where
wolves have become well established,
due to the transient nature of these sites
and the larger wolf population. The
updated Plan states that rendezvous
sites may need protection in areas
where wolf colonization is still
underway or where pup survival is
extremely poor, such as in northeastern
Wisconsin (WI DNR 2006a, p. 17). The
guidelines for the wolf depredation
control program did not undergo
significant alteration during the update
process. The only substantive change to
depredation control practices is to
expand the area of depredation control
trapping in Zones 1 and 2 to 1 mi (1.6
km) outward from the depredation site,
replacing the previous 0.5 mi (0.8 km)
radius trapping zone (WI DNR 2006a,
pp. 3–4).
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15107
An important component of the WI
Plan is the annual monitoring of wolf
populations by radio collars and winter
track surveys in order to provide
comparable annual data to assess
population size and growth for at least
5 years after Federal delisting. This
monitoring will include health
monitoring of captured wolves and
necropsies of dead wolves that are
found. Wolf scat will be collected and
analyzed to monitor for canine viruses
and parasites. Health monitoring will be
part of the capture protocol for all
studies that involve the live capture of
Wisconsin wolves (WI DNR 2006a, p.
14).
Cooperative habitat management will
be promoted with public and private
landowners to maintain existing road
densities in Zones 1 and 2, protect wolf
dispersal corridors, and manage forests
for deer and beaver (WI DNR 1999, pp.
4, 22–23; 2006a, pp. 15–17).
Furthermore, in Zone 1, a year-around
prohibition on tree harvest within 330
feet of den sites, and seasonal
restrictions to reduce disturbance
within one-half mile of dens, will be
DNR policy on public lands and will be
encouraged on private lands (WI DNR
1999, p. 23; 2006a, p. 17).
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
The 1999 WI Plan contains, and the
2006 update retains, other
recommendations that will provide
protection to assist in maintenance of a
viable wolf population in the State: (1)
Continue the protection of the species as
a ‘‘protected wild animal’’ with
penalties similar to those for unlawfully
killing large game species (fines of
$1,000–2,000, loss of hunting privileges
for 3–5 years, and a possible 6-month
jail sentence), (2) maintain closure
zones where coyotes cannot be shot
during deer hunting season in Zone 1,
(3) legally protect wolf dens under the
Wisconsin Administrative Code, (4)
require State permits to possess a wolf
or wolf-dog hybrid, and (5) establish a
restitution value to be levied in addition
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
to fines and other penalties for wolves
that are illegally killed (WI DNR 1999,
pp. 21, 27–28, 30–31; 2006a, pp. 3–4).
The 2006 update of the WI Plan
continues to emphasize the need for
public education efforts that focus on
living with a recovered wolf population,
ways to manage wolves and wolf-human
conflicts, and the ecosystem role of
wolves. The Plan continues the State
reimbursement for depredation losses
(including dogs and missing calves),
citizen stakeholder involvement in the
wolf management program, and
coordination with the Tribes in wolf
management and investigation of illegal
killings (WI DNR 1999, pp. 24, 28–29;
2006a, pp. 22–23).
Given the decline and ultimate
termination in Federal funding for wolf
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
monitoring in the future, Wisconsin and
Michigan DNRs are seeking an effective,
yet cost-efficient, method for detecting
wolf population changes to replace the
current labor-intensive and expensive
monitoring protocols. Both DNRs have
considered implementing a ‘‘Minnesotatype’’ wolf survey. Such methodology is
less expensive for larger wolf
populations than the intensive radio
monitoring/track survey methods
currently used by the two States, and if
the wolf population continues to grow
there will be increased need to develop
and implement a less expensive
method. However, each State conducted
independent field testing of the
Minnesota method several years ago and
found that method to be unsuitable for
both States’ lower wolf population
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
ER02AP09.002</GPH>
15108
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
density and uneven pack distribution.
In both States the application of that
method resulted in an overestimate of
wolf abundance, possibly due to the
more patchy distribution of wolves and
packs in these States and the difficulty
in accurately delineating occupied wolf
range in areas where wolf pack density
is relatively low in comparison to
Minnesota and where agricultural lands
are interspersed with forested areas
(Wiedenhoeft 2005, pp. 11–12; Beyer in
litt. 2006b).
Both States remain interested in
developing accurate but less costly
alternate survey methods. WI DNR
might test other methods following
Federal delisting, but the State will not
replace its traditional radio tracking/
snow tracking surveys during the five
year post-delisting monitoring period
(Wydeven in litt. 2006b). The 2006
update to the Wisconsin Wolf
Management Plan has not changed the
WI DNR’s commitment to annual wolf
population monitoring in a manner that
ensures accurate and comparable data
(WI DNR 1999, pp. 19–20), and we are
confident that adequate annual
monitoring will continue for the
foreseeable future.
Depredation Control in Wisconsin
The rapidly expanding Wisconsin
wolf population has resulted in
increased need for depredation control.
From 1979 through 1989, there were
only five cases (an average of 0.4 per
year) of verified wolf depredations in
Wisconsin. Between 1990 and 1997,
there were 27 verified depredation
incidents in the State (an average of 3.4
per year), and 82 incidents (an average
of 16.4 per year) occurred from 1998–
2002. Depredation incidents increased
to 23 cases (including 50 domestic
animals killed and 4 injured) in 2003,
and to 35 cases (53 domestic animals
killed, 3 injured, and 6 missing) in 2004
(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2004a, pp.
2–3, 7–8 Table 3; Wydeven et al. 2005b,
p. 7). In 2005, depredation grew to 45
cases, with 53 domestic animals killed
and 11 injured (Wydeven et al. 2006b,
p. 7). The number of farms experiencing
wolf depredations on livestock averaged
2.8 annually (range 0 to 8) during the
1990s, but jumped to an average of 14.0
per year during 2000–2005 (WI DNR
2006a, p. 19). During those five years an
annual upward trend was evident,
increasing from 10 in 2002, to 14 in
2003, to 22 in 2004, and to 25 in 2005
(WI DNR 2006a, p. 34).
A significant portion of depredation
incidents in Wisconsin involve attacks
on dogs engaged in bear hunting
activities or dogs being trained in the
field for hunting. In almost all cases,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
these have been hunting dogs that were
being used for, or being trained for,
hunting bears and bobcats at the time
they were attacked. It is believed that
the dogs entered the territory of a wolf
pack and may have been close to a den,
rendezvous site, or feeding location,
thus triggering an attack by wolves
defending their territory or pups. The
frequency of attacks on hunting dogs
has increased as the State’s wolf
population has grown. In 2004, 13 dogs
involved in bear hunting or training
were killed by wolves and 2 dogs not
involved in hunting/training were
killed. These incidents were believed to
involve 7 different wolf packs, or 6
percent of the 108 packs in Wisconsin
in the winter of 2003–2004. Preliminary
data from 2006 through the middle of
October show a continuation of
increased wolf attacks on bear hunting
dogs, with 20 killed and 5 injured by 8
separate wolf packs, 7 percent of the
winter 2005–2006 packs. (https://
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/
mammals/wolf/dogdepred.htm,
accessed Nov. 21, 2006). While
Wisconsin DNR compensates dog
owners for mortalities and injuries to
their dogs, DNR takes no action against
the depredating pack unless the attack
was on a dog that was leashed,
confined, or under the owner’s control
on the owner’s land. Instead, the DNR
issues press releases to warn bear
hunters and bear dog trainers of the
areas where wolf packs have been
attacking bear dogs (WI DNR 2005, p. 4)
and provides maps and advice to
hunters on the DNR Web site (see
https://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/
mammals/wolf/dogdepred.htm).
Post-Delisting Depredation Control in
Wisconsin
Following Federal delisting, wolf
depredation control in Wisconsin will
be carried out according to the 2006
Updated Wisconsin Wolf Management
Plan (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 19–23),
Wisconsin Guidelines for Conducting
Depredation Control on Wolves
(Wisconsin DNR 2005) which are being
revised to conform to the 2006 Updated
Plan, and any Tribal wolf management
plans or guidelines that may be
developed in the future for reservations
in occupied wolf range. The 2006
updates have not significantly changed
the 1999 State Plan, and the State wolf
management goal of 350 wolves outside
of Indian reservations (WI DNR 2006a,
p. 3) is unchanged. Verification of wolf
depredation incidents will continue to
be conducted by USDA–APHIS–
Wildlife Services, working under a
cooperative agreement with WI DNR, or
at the request of a Tribe, depending on
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15109
the location of the suspected
depredation incident. If determined to
be a confirmed or probable depredation
by a wolf or wolves, one or more of
several options will be implemented to
address the depredation problem. These
options include technical assistance,
loss compensation to landowners,
translocation or euthanizing problem
wolves, and private landowner control
of problem wolves in some
circumstances (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 3–4,
20–22).
Technical assistance, consisting of
advice or recommendations to prevent
or reduce further wolf conflicts, will be
provided. This may also include
providing to the landowner various
forms of non-injurious behavior
modification materials, such as flashing
lights, noise makers, temporary fencing,
and fladry. Monetary compensation is
also provided for all verified and
probable losses of domestic animals and
for a portion of documented missing
calves (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23).
The WI DNR compensates livestock
and pet owners for confirmed losses to
depredating wolves. The compensation
is made at full market value of the
animal (up to a limit of $2500 for
hunting dogs and pets) and can include
veterinarian fees for the treatment of
injured animals (WI DNR 2006c 12.54).
Compensation costs have been funded
from the endangered resources tax
check-off and sales of the endangered
resources license plates. Current
Wisconsin law requires the continuation
of the compensation payment for wolf
depredation regardless of Federal listing
or delisting of the species (WI DNR
2006c 12.50). In recent years annual
depredation compensation payments
have ranged from $18,630 to nearly
$110,000 (WI DNR 2006a, p. 22–23, 29).
For depredation incidents in
Wisconsin Zones 1 through 3, where all
wolf packs currently reside, wolves may
be trapped by Wildlife Services or WI
DNR personnel and, if feasible, they are
translocated and released at a point
distant from the depredation site. If
wolves are captured adjacent to an
Indian reservation or a large block of
public land the animals may be
translocated locally to that area. As
noted above, long-distance translocating
of depredating wolves has become
increasingly difficult in Wisconsin and
is likely to be used infrequently in the
future as long as the off-reservation wolf
population is above 350 animals. In
most wolf depredation cases where
technical assistance and non-lethal
methods of behavior modification are
judged to be ineffective, wolves will be
shot or trapped and euthanized by
Wildlife Services or DNR personnel.
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15110
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Trapping and euthanizing will be
conducted within a 1 mi (1.6 km) radius
of the depredation in Zones 1 and 2, and
within a 5 mi (8 km) radius in Zone 3.
There is no distance limitation for
depredation control trapping in Zone 4,
and all wolves trapped in Zone 4 will
be euthanized, rather than translocated
(WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23).
Following Federal delisting,
Wisconsin landowners who have had a
verified wolf depredation will be able to
obtain limited-duration permits from WI
DNR to kill a limited number of
depredating wolves on land they own or
lease. In addition, landowners and
lessees of land statewide will be
allowed to kill a wolf without obtaining
a permit ‘‘in the act of killing,
wounding, or biting a domestic animal,’’
and the incident must be reported to a
conservation warden within 24 hours
(WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23).
The updated Wisconsin Plan also
envisions the possibility of intensive
control management actions in subzones of the larger wolf management
zones, but such actions, and the
triggering events for them, have yet to be
determined (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23).
These actions would be considered on
a case-by-case basis to address specific
problems, and would likely be carried
out only in areas that lack suitable
habitat, have extensive agricultural
lands with little forest interspersion, in
urban or suburban settings, and only
when the State wolf population is well
above the management goal of 350
wolves in late winter surveys. The use
of intensive population management in
small areas will be adapted as
experience is gained with implementing
and evaluating localized control actions
(Wydeven pers. comm. 2006).
We have evaluated future lethal
depredation control based upon verified
depredation incidents over the last
decade and the impacts of the
implementation of similar lethal control
of depredating wolves under 50 CFR
17.40(d) for Minnesota, 17.40(o) for
Wisconsin and Michigan, and section
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act for Wisconsin and
Michigan. Under those authorities, WI
DNR and Wildlife Services trapped and
euthanized 17 wolves in 2003, 24 in
2004, 32 (including several possible
hybrids) in 2005, and 18 in 2006 (WI
DNR 2006a, p. 32). (Although these
lethal control authorities applied to
Wisconsin and Michigan DNRs for only
a portion of 2003 (April through
December) and 2005 (all of January for
both States; April 1 and April 19, for
Wisconsin and Michigan respectively,
through September 13), they covered
nearly all of the verified wolf
depredations during those years, and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
thus provide a reasonable measure of
annual lethal depredation control.
Lethal control authority only occurred
for about 4 months in 2006.) For 2003,
2004, and 2005 this represents 5.1
percent, 6.4 percent, 7.4 percent
(including the several possible wolf-dog
hybrids), respectively, of the late winter
population of Wisconsin wolves during
the previous winter. Note that some of
the wolves euthanized after August 1
were young-of-the-year who were not
present during the late winter survey, so
the cited percentages are overestimates.
This level of lethal depredation control
was followed by a wolf population
increase of 11 percent from 2003 to
2004, 17 percent from 2004 to 2005, and
7 percent from 2005 to 2006 (Wydeven
and Jurewicz 2005, p.5; Wydeven et al
2006a, p. 10). This provides strong
evidence that this form and magnitude
of depredation control will not
adversely impact the viability of the
Wisconsin wolf population. The
locations of depredation incidents
provide additional evidence that lethal
control will not be an adverse impact on
the State’s wolf population. Most
livestock depredations are caused by
packs near the northern forest—farm
land interface. Few depredations occur
in core wolf range and in large blocks
of public land. Thus, lethal depredation
control actions will not impact most of
the Wisconsin wolf population (WI DNR
2006a, p. 30).
One substantive change to lethal
control that likely will result from
Federal delisting is the ability of a small
number of private landowners, whose
farms have a history of recurring wolf
depredation, to obtain DNR permits to
kill depredating wolves (WI DNR 2006a,
p. 23). We estimate that up to 3 wolves
from each of 5 to 10 farms may be killed
annually under these permits in the
several years immediately after
delisting. Because the late-winter 2005–
06 Wisconsin wolf population was
approaching 500 animals, the death of
these 5 to 30 additional wolves—only 1
to 6 percent of the State wolves—would
not affect the viability of the population.
Another substantive change may be
potential proactive trapping or
‘‘intensive control’’ of wolves in limited
areas as described above. While it is not
possible to estimate the number of
wolves that might be killed via these
actions, we are confident that they will
not impact the long-term viability of the
Wisconsin wolf population, because
they will be carried out only if the
State’s late-winter wolf population
exceeds 350 animals.
The State’s current guidelines for
conducting depredation control actions
say that no control trapping will be
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
conducted on wolves that kill ‘‘dogs that
are free-roaming, roaming at large,
hunting, or training on public lands,
and all other lands except land owned
or leased by the dog owner’’ (Wisconsin
DNR 2005, p, 4). Because of these Stateimposed limitations, we believe that
lethal control of wolves depredating on
hunting dogs will be rare, and therefore
will not be a significant additional
source of mortality in Wisconsin.
Lethal control of wolves that attack
captive deer is included in the WI DNR
depredation control program, because
farm-raised deer are considered to be
livestock under Wisconsin law (WI DNR
2005, p. 4; 2006c, 12.52). However,
Wisconsin regulations for deer farms
fencing have been strengthened, and it
is unlikely that more than an occasional
wolf will need to be killed to end wolf
depredations inside deer farms in the
foreseeable future. Claims for wolf
depredation compensation are rejected
if the claimant is not in compliance
with regulations regarding farm-raised
deer fencing or livestock carcass
disposal (Wisconsin Statutes 90.20 &
90.21, WI DNR 2006c 12.54).
Data from verified wolf depredations
in recent years indicate that depredation
on livestock is likely to increase as long
as the Wisconsin wolf population
increases in numbers and range. Most
large areas of forest land and public
lands are included in Wisconsin Wolf
Management Zones 1 and 2, and they
have already been colonized by wolves.
Therefore, new areas likely to be
colonized by wolves in the future will
be in Zones 3 and 4, where they will be
exposed to much higher densities of
farms, livestock, and residences. During
the period from July 2004 through June
2005, 29 percent (8 of 28) of farms
experiencing wolf depredation were in
Zone 3, yet only 4 percent of the State
wolf population occurs in this zone
(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005, p. 3).
Further expansion of wolves into Zone
3 would likely lead to an increase in
depredation incidents and an increase
in lethal control actions against Zone 3
wolves. However, these Zone 3
mortalities will have no impact on wolf
population viability in Wisconsin
because of the much larger wolf
populations in Zones 1 and 2.
For the foreseeable future, the wolf
population in Zones 1 and 2 will
continue to greatly exceed the Federal
recovery goal of 200 late winter wolves
for an isolated population and 100
wolves for a subpopulation connected to
the larger Minnesota population,
regardless of the extent of wolf mortality
from all causes in Zones 3 and 4.
Ongoing annual wolf population
monitoring by WI DNR will provide
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
timely and accurate data to evaluate the
effects of wolf management under the
Wisconsin Plan.
The possibility of a public harvest of
wolves is acknowledged in the
Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan and
in plan update drafts (WI DNR 1999,
Appendix D; 2006c, p. 23). However,
the question of whether a public harvest
will be initiated and the details of such
a harvest are far from resolved. Public
attitudes toward a wolf population in
excess of 350 would have to be fully
evaluated, as would the impacts from
other mortalities, before a public harvest
could be initiated. Establishing a public
harvest would be preceded by extensive
public input, including public hearing,
and would require legislative
authorization and approval by the
Wisconsin Natural Resources Board.
Because of the steps that must precede
a public harvest of wolves and the
uncertainty regarding the possibility of,
and the details of, any such program, it
is not possible to evaluate the potential
impacts of the public harvest of wolves.
Therefore, we consider public harvest of
Wisconsin wolves to be highly
speculative at this time. The Service
will closely monitor any steps taken by
States and/or Tribes within the WGL
DPS to establish any public harvest of
gray wolves during our post-delisting
monitoring program. The fact that the
Wisconsin Plan calls for State relisting
of the wolf as a threatened species if the
population falls to fewer than 250 for 3
years provides a strong assurance that
any future public harvest is not likely to
threaten the persistence of the
population (WI DNR 1999, pp. 15–17).
Based on wolf population data, the
current Wisconsin Plan and the 2006
updates, we believe that any public
harvest plan would continue to
maintain the State wolf population well
above the recovery goal of 200 wolves
in late winter.
Michigan Wolf Management Plan
The 1997 Michigan Gray Wolf
Recovery and Management Plan (MI
Plan) (MI DNR 1997) describes the wolf
recovery goals and management actions
needed to achieve a viable wolf
population in the UP of Michigan. It
does not address the potential need for
wolf recovery or management in the
Lower Peninsula, nor wolf management
within Isle Royale National Park (where
the wolf population is fully protected by
the National Park Service). Necessary
wolf management actions detailed in the
Michigan Plan include public education
and outreach activities, annual wolf
population and health monitoring,
research, depredation control, and
habitat management. As described
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
above, MI DNR currently is in the
process of revising its plan to enable
more effective management of a
recovered and expanding wolf
population. The revision is expected to
be completed in late 2007.
As with the WI Plan, the MI DNR has
chosen to manage the State’s wolves as
though they are an isolated population
that receives no genetic or demographic
benefits from immigrating wolves.
Therefore, although we do not know if
the revised Michigan Plan will contain
any long-term minimum numerical goal
for wolves in the UP or NLP, as a result
of written commitments from the MI
DNR, as discussed below, we are
confident that the State plan will have
a goal of maintaining a wolf population
that is large enough so as to be viable
for the foreseeable future and will not
have to be listed as threatened or
endangered under either State or
Federal law (Moritz in litt. 2006; Koch
in litt. 2006a). The MI DNR has assured
us that ‘‘the new revised Plan will
underscore commitments to wolf
management already made in the 1997
plan.’’ (Koch in litt. 2006b). We strongly
support this approach, as it provides
assurance that a viable wolf population
will remain in the UP regardless of the
future fate of wolves in Wisconsin or
Ontario.
Until the MI Plan revision is
completed, the 1997 Michigan Plan will
remain in effect, as supplemented by
additional guidance developed since
1997 to deal with aspects of wolf
management and recovery not
adequately covered in the 1997 Plan,
such as ‘‘Guidelines for Management
and Lethal Control of Wolves Following
Confirmed Depredation Events’’ (MI
DNR 2005a).
The 1997 Michigan Plan identifies
wolf population monitoring as a priority
activity (MI DNR 1997, pp. 21–22). As
discussed previously, the size of the
wolf population is determined annually
by extensive radio and snow tracking
surveys. Recently the Michigan DNR
also conducted a field evaluation of a
less expensive ‘‘Minnesota-type’’ wolf
survey. However, similar to Wisconsin
DNR’s experience, the evaluation
concluded that the method
overestimated wolf numbers, and is not
suitable for use on the State’s wolf
population as it currently is distributed
(Beyer in litt. 2006b).
The MI DNR remains interested in
developing accurate but less costly
alternate survey methods, and in the
winter of 2006–2007 is planning to
implement a sampling approach to
increase the efficiency of the survey
based on an analysis by Potvin et al.
(2005, p. 1668). The UP will be stratified
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15111
into three sampling areas, and within
each stratum the DNR will intensively
survey roughly 40 to 50 percent of the
wolf habitat area annually. Computer
simulations have shown that such a
geographically stratified monitoring
program will produce unbiased and
precise estimates of the total wolf
population which can be statistically
compared to estimates derived from the
previous method to detect significant
changes in the UP wolf population
(Beyer in litt 2006b, see attachment by
Drummer; Lederle in litt. 2006).
The 1997 Michigan Plan identifies
800 wolves as the estimated biological
carrying capacity of suitable areas in the
UP (MI DNR 1997, p. 17). ‘‘Carrying
capacity’’ is the number of animals that
an area is able to support over the long
term; for wolves, it is primarily based on
the availability of prey animals and
competition from other wolf packs.
Under the 1997 Michigan Plan, wolves
in the State will be considered
recovered when a sustainable
population of at least 200 wolves is
maintained for 5 consecutive years. The
UP has had more than 200 wolves since
the winter of 1999–2000. Therefore,
Michigan reclassified wolves from
endangered to threatened in June 2002,
and the gray wolf became eligible for
State delisting under the Michigan
Plan’s criteria in 2004. In Michigan,
however, State delisting cannot occur
until after Federal delisting; therefore
we expect State delisting to be initiated
in the near future. During the State
delisting process, Michigan intends to
amend its Wildlife Conservation Order
to grant ‘‘protected animal’’ status to the
gray wolf. That status would ‘‘prohibit
take, establish penalties, and restitution
for violations of the Order, and detail
conditions under which lethal
depredation control measures could be
implemented’’ (Humphries in litt. 2004).
Population management, except for
depredation control, is not addressed in
the 1997 Michigan Plan beyond
statements that the wolf population may
need to be controlled by lethal means at
some future time.
Similar to the Wisconsin Plan, the
1997 Michigan Plan recommends high
levels of protection for wolf den and
rendezvous sites, whether on public or
private land. The Plan recommends that
most land uses be prohibited at all times
within 330 feet (100 meters) of active
sites. Seasonal restrictions (March
through July) should be enforced within
0.5 mi (0.8 km) of these sites, to prevent
high-disturbance activities, such as
logging, from disrupting pup-rearing
activities. These restrictions should
remain in effect even after State
delisting occurs (MI DNR 1997, pp. 26-
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15112
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
27), but they may be modified by the
revision of the 1997 Plan, which is
expected to be completed in late 2007.
The 1997 Michigan Plan calls for reevaluation of the plan at 5-year
intervals. The MI DNR initiated this reevaluation process in 2001, with the
appointment of a committee to evaluate
wolf recovery and management. As a
result of that review, MI DNR concluded
that a revision of the 1997 Plan is
needed, and a more formal review,
including extensive stakeholder input,
was recently initiated. Recognizing that
wolf recovery has been achieved in
Michigan, additional scientific
knowledge has been gained, and new
social issues have arisen since the 1997
Plan was drafted, the DNR intends the
revised plan to be more of a wolf
management document than a recovery
plan. The DNR convened a Michigan
Wolf Management Roundtable to assist
in this endeavor. The Roundtable is a
diverse group of 20 citizens drawn from
organizations spanning the spectrum of
those interested in, and impacted by,
wolf recovery and management in
Michigan, including Tribal entities and
organizations focused on agriculture,
hunting/trapping, the environment,
animal protection, law enforcement and
public safety, and tourism.
To help the Roundtable produce
guiding principles that are based on the
best biological and sociological data
available, the MI DNR developed a
‘‘Review of Social and Biological
Science Relevant to Wolf Management
in Michigan’’ (Beyer et al. 2006). The MI
DNR instructed the Roundtable to
provide strategic guidance for the DNR’s
use in subsequent development of an
operational wolf management plan. The
Roundtable was asked to review the
1997 wolf management goal, to set
priorities for management issues, and to
recommend strategic goals or policies
the DNR should use in addressing the
management issues. The Roundtable
was not asked to provide input
regarding specific methods to achieve
wolf management goals and objectives.
The DNR’s instructions specified the
‘‘wolf management working goal’’
currently is ‘‘to establish and maintain
a population of gray wolves in the
Upper Peninsula at a level that (1)
assures wolf population sustainability,
(2) is consistent with available wolf
habitat, and (3) is compatible with
human land-use practices’’ (Moritz in
litt 2006, attachment pp. 1–2).
The Roundtable has provided this
guidance to MI DNR in the form of a
series of ‘‘guiding principles’’ that were
developed by member consensus over a
period of 10 days of meetings over a 5month period. The Roundtable prefaced
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
their guidance by stating that wolf
management should have a goal of
maintaining ‘‘acceptable levels of
positive and negative [wolf-human]
interactions while ensuring the longterm viability of a wolf population’’
(Michigan Wolf Management
Roundtable 2006, p. 5). Because the
factors that influence the levels of wolfhuman interactions vary across
geographic scales and over time, the
Roundtable felt that setting numerical
goals for large geographical areas would
be unwise. Instead, the Roundtable
believes that local and case-by-case
management would be better able to
enhance opportunities for positive
interactions and reduce negative
interactions. Therefore, in place of
recommending a numerical goal for the
Michigan wolf population, the
Roundtable provided a series of general
guiding principles for the DNR to use in
wolf population management (Michigan
Wolf Management Roundtable 2006, pp.
6-7):
• Strategic management goals should
be based on positive and negative wolf
impacts, rather than on wolf numbers,
and should consider genetic diversity,
population sustainability, ecological
and social benefits, impacts on wildlife
and their habitats, human safety, and
limiting wolf depredation on domestic
animals.
• Wolf-human conflicts are best
resolved at the individual wolf or pack
level, with broader scale wolf
population management considered
only when excessive wolf numbers are
determined to be the cause of significant
conflict.
• Wolf management should be
‘‘adaptive management’’ and should
include evaluation of management
practices.
• Michigan wolves will need to be
killed on a case-by-case basis to resolve
conflicts, and hunters can be used for
such management in the future.
• Natural expansion of wolves to the
NLP should be accompanied by
education efforts to enhance public
tolerance of that expansion.
The Roundtable provided a series of
guiding principles that specifically deal
with wolf-related conflicts in order to
minimize such conflicts and provide
relief when they occur, with the goal of
ensuring long-term viability of the wolf
population (Michigan Wolf Management
Roundtable 2006, pp. 7–9).
• Lethal control is an accepted
option, but more emphasis is needed on
the development and use of non-lethal
methods. The Roundtable does not
recommend the use of lethal measures
as a preventative approach where
conflicts do not yet exist.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• Attacks on dogs trespassing into a
pack territory are predictable and
normal wolf behavior, and the primary
responsibility for reducing the attacks
lies with the dog owner. Lethal control
of the pack should not be used unless
non-lethal methods are ineffective and
the attacks become chronic.
• Compensation for livestock losses
should be tied to the use of best
management practices to decrease wolflivestock conflicts. An incremental
approach by MI DNR to resolve wolflivestock conflicts should involve
technical support, non-lethal methods,
and lethal control, and should be
implemented in a manner that reflects
the severity and frequency of the
attacks.
• Livestock owners should be
allowed, without a permit, to kill
wolves in the act of attacking livestock
on private property. Lethal take permits
should be available to landowners if
non-lethal methods are ineffective
following verified wolf depredations.
Abuses of these permits should be
referred for prosecution.
While recognizing that public hunting
or trapping of wolves is a valid
management tool to reduce wolf-related
conflicts under specific conditions, the
Roundtable was unable to come to a
consensus position on conducting a
wolf hunting or trapping program in the
absence of a need to reduce the wolf
population to address identified
conflicts. Developing guiding principles
regarding such a public harvest of
wolves was not possible due to the
significantly different and deeply held
fundamental values of various
Roundtable members (Michigan Wolf
Management Roundtable 2006, p. 10).
Guiding principles also were
provided by the Roundtable to stress the
importance of continuing and
enhancing information, education, and
research components of wolf
management and to include information
in the management plan regarding the
cultural and spiritual significance of the
wolf to Native Americans. The
Roundtable provided additional guiding
principles that support a prohibition on
the private possession of wolves
without a permit, express concern that
wolf-dog hybrids will have negative
effects on the State’s wild wolf
population, and encourage annual
review by a State wolf advisory council
and plan updates at 5-year intervals.
Because the Michigan plan revision
process will not be completed until late
in 2007, we cannot evaluate the goals,
strategies, or activities that it will
contain. However, MI DNR has long
been an innovative leader, not a
reluctant follower, in wolf recovery
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
efforts, exemplified by its initiation of
the nation’s first attempt to reintroduce
wild wolves to vacant historical wolf
habitat in 1974 (Weise et al. 1975). MI
DNR’s history of leadership in wolf
recovery, its repeated written
commitments to ensure the continued
viability of a Michigan wolf population
above a level that would trigger State or
Federal listing as threatened or
endangered, along with the protective
‘‘Guiding Principles’’ from the Michigan
Wolf Management Roundtable, lead us
to conclude that both the current
Michigan Plan, and the revised plan to
be developed using the guidance of the
Roundtable, will provide adequate
regulatory mechanisms for Michigan
wolves. The DNR’s goal remains to
‘‘ensure the wolf population remains
viable and above a level that would
require either Federal or State
reclassification as a threatened or
endangered species’’ (Moritz in litt.
2006) and upon Federal delisting to
‘‘conduct management to ensure the
persistence of a viable wolf population
in Michigan, and thus preclude the need
for its reclassification as threatened or
endangered under State or Federal law’’
(Koch in litt. 2006a).
Depredation Control in Michigan
Data from Michigan show a general
increase in confirmed wolf depredations
on livestock: 3 in 1998, 1 in 1999, 5 in
2000, 3 in 2001, 5 in 2002, 13 in 2003,
11 in 2004, and 5 in 2005. These
livestock depredations occurred at 34
different UP farms; nearly three-quarters
of the depredations were on cattle, with
the rest on sheep, poultry and captive
cervids ( Beyer et al. 2006, p. 85).
Michigan has not experienced as high
a level of attacks on dogs by wolves as
Wisconsin, although a slight increase in
such attacks has occurred over the last
decade. The number of dogs killed in
the State was one in 1996, two in 1999,
three in 2001, four in 2002, eight in
2003, 4 in 2004, and 2 in 2005; seven
additional dogs were injured in wolf
attacks during that same period (Beyer
et al. 2006, p. 93). Similar to Wisconsin,
MI DNR has guidelines for its
depredation control program, stating
that lethal control will not be used
when wolves kill dogs that are freeroaming, hunting, or training on public
lands. Lethal control of wolves,
however, would be considered if wolves
have killed confined pets and remain in
the area where more pets are being held
(MI DNR 2005a, p. 6).
During the several years that lethal
control of depredating wolves had been
conducted in Michigan, there is no
evidence of resulting adverse impacts to
the maintenance of a viable wolf
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
population in the UP. Four, six, two,
and seven wolves, respectively, were
euthanized in 2003, 2004, 2005, and
2006 (Beyer et al. 2006, p. 88; Roell in
litt. 2006c, p. 1). This represents 1.2
percent, 1.7 percent, 0.5 percent, and
1.6 percent, respectively, of the UP’s
late winter population of wolves during
the previous winter. Following this
level of lethal depredation control, the
UP wolf population increased 12
percent from 2003 to 2004, 13 percent
from 2004 to 2005, and 7 percent from
2005 to 2006, demonstrating that the
wolf population continues to increase at
a healthy rate (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p.
6; MI DNR 2006a).
Post-Delisting Depredation Control in
Michigan
Following Federal delisting, wolf
depredation control in Michigan would
be carried out according to the 1997
Michigan Wolf Recovery and
Management Plan (MI DNR 1997), the
revised Michigan management plan
when completed, and any Tribal wolf
management plans that may be
developed in the future for reservations
in occupied wolf range. Until such time
as MI DNR adopts changes to wolf
depredation control measures, the
following management practices will be
used following the effective date of
Federal delisting.
To provide depredation control
guidance when lethal control is an
option, MI DNR has developed detailed
instructions for incident investigation
and response (MI DNR 2005a).
Verification of wolf depredation
incidents will be conducted by MI DNR
or USDA–APHIS–Wildlife Services
personnel (working under a cooperative
agreement with MI DNR or at the
request of a Tribe, depending on the
location) who have been trained in
depredation investigation techniques.
The MI DNR specifies that the
verification process will use the
investigative techniques that have been
developed and successfully used in
Minnesota by Wildlife Services (MI
DNR 2005a, Append. B, pp. 9–10).
Following verification, one or more of
several options will be implemented to
address the depredation problem.
Technical assistance, consisting of
advice or recommendations to reduce
wolf conflicts, will be provided.
Technical assistance may also include
providing to the landowner various
forms of non-injurious behavior
modification materials, such as flashing
lights, noise makers, temporary fencing,
and fladry.
Trapping and translocating
depredating wolves has been used in the
past, resulting in the translocation of 23
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15113
UP wolves during 1998–2003 (Beyer et
al. 2006, p. 88), and it may be used in
the future, but as with Wisconsin,
suitable relocation sites are becoming
rarer, and there is local opposition to
the release of translocated depredators.
Furthermore, none of the past
translocated depredators have remained
near their release sites, making this a
questionable method to end the
depredation behaviors of these wolves
(MI DNR 2005a, pp. 3–4).
Lethal control of depredating wolves
is likely to be the most common future
response in situations when improved
livestock husbandry and wolf behavior
modification techniques (e.g., flashing
lights, noise-making devices) are judged
to be inadequate. As wolf numbers
continue to increase on the UP, the
number of verified depredations will
also increase, and will probably do so at
a rate that exceeds the rate of wolf
population increase. This will occur as
wolves increasingly disperse into and
occupy areas of the UP with more
livestock and more human residences,
leading to additional exposure to
domestic animals. In a recent
application for a lethal take permit
under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, MI
DNR requested authority to euthanize
up to 10 percent of the late-winter wolf
population annually (MI DNR 2005b, p.
1). However, based on 2003–2005
depredation data, it is likely that
significantly less than 10 percent lethal
control will be needed over the next
several years.
The Michigan Wolf Management
Roundtable has provided
recommendations to guide management
of various conflicts caused by wolf
recovery, including depredation on
livestock and pets, human safety, and
public concerns regarding wolf impacts
on other wildlife. We view the
Roundtable’s depredation and conflict
control recommendations to be
conservative, in that they recommend
non-lethal depredation management
whenever possible, oppose preventative
wolf removal where problems have not
yet occurred, encourage incentives for
best management practices that decrease
wolf-livestock practices without
impacting wolves, and support closely
monitored and enforced take by
landowners of wolves ‘‘in the act of
livestock depredation’’ or under limited
permits if depredation is confirmed and
non-lethal methods are determined to be
ineffective. Based on these guiding
principles for the revised MI Plan, the
current MI Plan, and stated goals for
maintaining wolf populations at or
above recovery goals, the Service
believes any wolf management changes
will not be implemented in a manner
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
15114
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
that results in significant reductions in
Michigan wolf populations. At this
time, MI DNR remains committed to
ensuring a viable wolf population above
a level that would trigger Federal
relisting as either threatened or
endangered in the future (Koch in litt.
2006a), and we do not see any
indication from their Plan revision
efforts that the DNR is departing from
that commitment.
Similar to Wisconsin, Michigan
livestock owners are compensated when
they lose livestock as a result of a
confirmed wolf depredation. Currently
there are two complementary
compensation programs in Michigan,
one funded by the MI DNR and
implemented by Michigan Department
of Agriculture (MI DA) and another set
up through donations (from Defenders
of Wildlife and private citizens) and
administered by the International Wolf
Center (IWC), a non-profit organization.
From the inception of the program to
2000, MI DA has paid 90 percent of full
market value of depredated livestock
value at the time of loss. The IWC
account was used to pay the remaining
10 percent from 2000 to 2002 when MI
DA began paying 100 percent of the full
market value of depredated livestock.
The IWC account continues to be used
to pay the difference between value at
time of loss and the full fall market
value for depredated young of the year
livestock, and together the two funds
have provided nearly $20,000 in
livestock loss compensation through
2005 (Beyer et al. 2006, p. 86). Neither
of these programs provide compensation
for pets or for veterinary costs to treat
wolf-inflicted livestock injuries. The MI
DNR plans to continue cooperating with
MI DA and other organizations to
maintain the wolf depredation
compensation program (Pat Lederle
pers. comm. 2004).
The complete text of the Wisconsin,
Michigan, and Minnesota wolf plans, as
well as our summaries of those plans,
can be found on our Web site (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above).
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Regulatory Mechanisms in Other States
and Tribal Areas Within the WGL DPS
North Dakota and South Dakota
North Dakota lacks a State endangered
species law or regulations. Any gray
wolves in the State currently are
classified as furbearers, with a closed
season. North Dakota Game and Fish
Department is unlikely to change the
species’ State classification immediately
following Federal delisting. Wolves are
included in the State’s July 2004 list of
100 Species of Conservation Concern as
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
a ‘‘Level 3’’ species. Level 3 species are
those ‘‘having a moderate level of
conservation priority, but are believed
to be peripheral or do not breed in
North Dakota.’’ Placement on this list
gives species greater access to
conservation funding, but does not
afford any additional regulatory or
legislative protection (Bicknell in litt.
2005).
Currently any wolves that may be in
South Dakota are not State listed as
threatened or endangered, nor is there a
hunting or trapping season for them.
Upon the effective date of Federal
delisting gray wolves in eastern South
Dakota will fall under general
protections afforded all State wildlife.
These protections require specific
provisions—seasons and regulations—
be established prior to initiating any
form of legal take. Thus, the State could
choose to implement a hunting, or
trapping season for gray wolves east of
the Missouri River; however, absent
some definitive action to establish a
season, wolves would remain protected.
Following Federal delisting, any
verified depredating wolves east of the
Missouri will likely be trapped and
killed by the USDA–APHIS–Wildlife
Services program (Larson in litt. 2005).
Non-depredating federally-delisted
wolves in North and South Dakota will
continue to receive protection by the
States’ wildlife protection statutes
unless specific action is taken to open
a hunting or trapping season or
otherwise remove existing protections.
Post-Delisting Depredation Control in
North and South Dakota
Since 1993, five incidents of verified
wolf depredation have occurred in
North Dakota, with one in September
2003 and two more in December 2005.
There have been no verified wolf
depredations in South Dakota in recent
decades. Following Federal delisting we
assume that lethal control of a small
number of depredating wolves will
occur in one or both of these States.
Lethal control of depredating wolves
may have adverse impacts on the ability
of wolves to occupy any small areas of
suitable or marginally suitable habitat
that may exist in the States. However,
lethal control of depredating wolves in
these two States will have no adverse
affects on the long-term viability of wolf
populations in the WGL DPS as a whole,
because the existence of a wolf or a wolf
population in the Dakotas will not make
a meaningful contribution to the
maintenance of the current viable, selfsustaining, and representative
metapopulation of wolves in the WGL
DPS.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Other States in the Western Great Lakes
DPS
This delisted DPS includes the
portion of Iowa that is north of Interstate
Highway 80, which is approximately 60
percent of the State. The Iowa Natural
Resource Commission currently lists
gray wolves as furbearers, with a closed
season (Howell in litt. 2005). If the State
retains this listing following Federal
delisting of this DPS, wolves dispersing
into northern Iowa will be protected by
State law.
The portion of Illinois that is north of
Interstate Highway 80, less than onefifth of the State, is included in this
DPS, and is part of the geographic area
where wolves are now delisted and
removed from Federal protection. Gray
wolves are currently protected in
Illinois as a threatened species under
the Illinois Endangered Species
Protection Act (520 ILCS 10). Thus,
following this Federal delisting, wolves
dispersing into northern Illinois will
continue to be protected from human
take by State law.
The extreme northern portions of
Indiana and northwestern Ohio are
included within this delisted DPS, and
any wolves that are found in this area
are no longer federally protected under
the Act. The State of Ohio classifies the
gray wolf as ‘‘extirpated,’’ and there are
no plans to reintroduce or recover the
species in the State. The species lacks
State protection, but State action is
likely to apply some form of protection
if wolves begin to disperse into the State
(Caldwell in litt. 2005). Indiana DNR
lists the gray wolf as extirpated in the
State, and the species would receive no
State protection under this classification
following this Federal delisting. The
only means to provide State protection
would be to list them as Stateendangered, but that is not likely to
occur unless wolves become resident in
Indiana (Johnson in litt. 2005, in litt.
2006). Thus, federally delisted wolves
that might disperse into Indiana and
Ohio would lack State protection there,
unless these two States take specific
action to provide new protections.
Because the portions of Iowa, Illinois,
Indiana, and Ohio within the WGL DPS
do not contain suitable habitat or
currently established packs, depredation
control in these States will not have any
significant impact on the continued
viability of the WGL DPS wolf
populations.
Tribal Management and Protection of
Gray Wolves
Native American tribes and multitribal organizations have indicated to
the Service that they will continue to
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
conserve wolves on most, and probably
all, Native American reservations in the
core recovery areas of the WGL DPS.
The wolf retains great cultural
significance and traditional value to
many Tribes and their members
(additional discussion is found in Factor
E), and to retain and strengthen cultural
connections, many tribes oppose
unnecessary killing of wolves on
reservations and on ceded lands, even
following Federal delisting (Hunt in litt.
1998; Schrage in litt. 1998a; Schlender
in litt. 1998). Some Native Americans
view wolves as competitors for deer and
moose, whereas others are interested in
harvesting wolves as furbearers (Schrage
in litt. 1998a). Many tribes intend to
sustainably manage their natural
resources, wolves among them, to
ensure that they are available to their
descendants. Traditional natural
resource harvest practices, however,
often include only a minimum amount
of regulation by the Tribal government
(Hunt in litt. 1998).
Although the Tribes with wolves that
visit or reside on their reservations do
not yet have management plans specific
to the gray wolf, several Tribes have
informed us that they have no plans or
intentions to allow commercial or
recreational hunting or trapping of the
species on their lands after Federal
delisting. The Service has recently
provided the Little Traverse Bay Band of
Odawa Indians (Michigan) with grant
funding to develop a gray wolf
monitoring and management plan. The
Service has also awarded a grant to the
Ho-Chunk Nation to identify wolf
habitat on reservation lands.
As a result of many past contacts
with, and previous written comments
from, the Midwestern Tribes and their
off-reservation natural resource
management agencies—the Great Lakes
Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
(GLIFWC), the 1854 Authority, and the
Chippewa Ottawa Treaty Authority—it
is clear that their predominant
sentiment is strong support for the
continued protection of wolves at a
level that ensures that viable wolf
populations remain on reservations and
throughout the treaty-ceded lands
surrounding the reservations. While
several Tribes stated that their members
may be interested in killing small
numbers of wolves for spiritual or other
purposes, this would be carried out in
a manner that would not impact
reservation or ceded territory wolf
populations.
The Tribal Council of the Leech Lake
Band of Minnesota Ojibwe (Council)
approved a resolution that describes the
sport and recreational harvest of gray
wolves as an inappropriate use of the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
animal. That resolution supports limited
harvest of wolves to be used for
traditional or spiritual uses by enrolled
Tribal members if the harvest is done in
a respectful manner and would not
negatively affect the wolf population.
The Council is revising the Reservation
Conservation Code to allow Tribal
members to harvest some wolves after
Federal delisting (Googgleye, Jr. in litt.
2004). In 2005, the Leech Lake
Reservation was home to an estimated
75 gray wolves, the largest population of
wolves on a Native American
reservation in the 48 conterminous
States (Mortensen pers. comm. 2006;
White in litt. 2003).
The Red Lake Band of Chippewa
Indians (Minnesota) has indicated that it
is likely to develop a wolf management
plan that will be very similar in scope
and content to the plan developed by
the MN DNR. The Band’s position on
wolf management is ‘‘wolf preservation
through effective management,’’ and the
Band is confident that wolves will
continue to thrive on their lands
(Bedeau in litt. 1998). The Reservation
currently has nine packs with an
estimated 15–30 wolves within its
boundaries (Huseby pers. comm. 2006).
The Fond du Lac Band (Minnesota)
believes that the ‘‘well being of the wolf
is intimately connected to the well
being of the Chippewa People’’ (Schrage
in litt. 2003). In 1998, the Band passed
a resolution opposing Federal delisting
and any other measure that would
permit trapping, hunting, or poisoning
of the gray wolf (Schrage in litt. 1998b,
in litt. 2003). If this prohibition is
rescinded, the Band’s Resource
Management Division will coordinate
with State and Federal agencies to
ensure that any wolf hunting or trapping
would be ‘‘conducted in a biologically
sustainable manner’’ (Schrage in litt.
2003).
The Red Cliff Band (Wisconsin) has
strongly opposed State and Federal
delisting of the gray wolf. Current Tribal
law protects gray wolves from harvest,
although harvest for ceremonial
purposes would likely be permitted
after Federal delisting (Symbal in litt.
2003).
The Keweenaw Bay Indian
Community (Michigan) will continue to
list the gray wolf as a protected animal
under the Tribal Code following Federal
delisting, with hunting and trapping
prohibited (Mike Donofrio pers. comm.
1998). Furthermore, the Keweenaw Bay
Community plans to develop a
Protected Animal Ordinance that will
address gray wolves (Donofrio in litt.
2003).
While we have not received any
written comments from the Menominee
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15115
Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, the Tribe has
shown a great deal of interest in wolf
recovery and protection in recent years.
In 2002, the Tribe offered their
Reservation lands as a site for
translocating seven depredating wolves
that had been trapped by WI DNR and
Wildlife Services. Tribal natural
resources staff participated in the soft
release of the wolves on the Reservation
and helped with the subsequent radiotracking of the wolves. Although by
early 2005 the last of these wolves died
on the reservation, the tribal
conservation department continued to
monitor another pair that had moved
onto the Reservation, as well as other
wolves near the reservation (Wydeven
in litt. 2006a). When that pair produced
pups in 2006, but the adult female was
killed, Reservation biologists and staff
worked diligently with the WI DNR and
the Wildlife Science Center (Forest
Lake, Minnesota) to raise the pups in
captivity in the hope that they could
later be released to the care of the adult
male. However, the adult male died
prior to pup release, and they have been
moved back to the Wildlife Science
Center where they will likely remain in
captivity (Pioneer Press 2006).
Several Midwestern tribes (e.g., the
Bad River Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians and the Little
Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians)
have expressed concern that Federal
delisting will result in increased
mortality of gray wolves on reservation
lands, in the areas immediately
surrounding the reservations, and in
lands ceded by treaty to the Federal
Government by the Tribes (Kiogama and
Chingwa in litt. 2000). At the request of
the Bad River Tribe of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians, we are currently
working with their Natural Resource
Department and WI DNR to develop a
wolf management agreement for lands
adjacent to the Bad River Reservation.
The Tribe’s goal is to reduce the threats
to reservation wolf packs when they are
temporarily off the reservation. Other
Tribes have expressed interest in such
an agreement. If this and similar
agreements are implemented, they will
provide additional protection to certain
wolf packs in the midwestern U.S.
The GLIFWC has stated its intent to
work closely with the States to
cooperatively manage wolves in the
ceded territories in the core areas, and
will not develop a separate wolf
management plan (Schlender in litt.
1998). Furthermore, the Voigt Intertribal
Task Force of GLIFWC has expressed its
support for strong protections for the
wolf, stating ‘‘ [delisting] hinges on
whether wolves are sufficiently restored
and will be sufficiently protected to
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
15116
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
ensure a healthy and abundant future
for our brother and ourselves’’
(Schlender in litt. 2004).
According to the 1854 Authority,
‘‘attitudes toward wolf management in
the 1854 Ceded Territory run the gamut
from a desire to see total protection to
unlimited harvest opportunity.’’
However, the 1854 Authority would not
‘‘implement a harvest system that would
have any long-term negative impacts to
wolf populations’’ (Edwards in litt.
2003). In comments submitted for our
2004 delisting proposal for a larger
Eastern DPS of the gray wolf, the 1854
Authority stated that the Authority does
not have a wolf management plan for
the 1854 Ceded Territory, but is
‘‘confident that under the control of
state and tribal management, wolves
will continue to exist at a self-sustaining
level in the 1854 Ceded Territory.
Sustainable populations of wolves, their
prey and other resources within the
1854 Ceded Territory are goals to which
the 1854 Authority remains committed.
As such, we intend to work with the
State of Minnesota and other tribes to
ensure successful state and tribal
management of healthy wolf
populations in the 1854 Ceded
Territory’’ (Myers in litt. 2004).
While there are few written Tribal
protections currently in place for gray
wolves, the highly protective and
reverential attitudes that have been
expressed by Tribal authorities and
members have assured us that any postdelisting harvest of reservation wolves
would be very limited and would not
adversely impact the delisted wolf
populations. Furthermore, any offreservation harvest of wolves by Tribal
members in the ceded territories would
be limited to a portion of the harvestable
surplus at some future time. Such a
harvestable surplus would be
determined and monitored jointly by
State and Tribal biologists, and would
be conducted in coordination with the
Service and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, as is being successfully done for
the ceded territory harvest of inland and
Great Lakes fish, deer, bear, moose, and
furbearers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan. Therefore, we conclude that
any future Native American take of
delisted wolves will not significantly
impact the viability of the wolf
population, either locally or across the
WGL DPS.
Federal Lands
The five national forests with resident
wolves (Superior, Chippewa,
Chequamegon-Nicolet, Hiawatha, and
Ottawa National Forests) in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan are all
operating in conformance with
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
standards and guidelines in their
management plans that follow the 1992
Recovery Plan’s recommendations for
the Eastern Timber Wolf (USDA FS
2004a, chapter 2, p. 31; USDA FS 2004b,
chapter 2, p. 28; USDA FS 2004c,
chapter 2, p. 19; USDA FS 2006a,
chapter 2, p. 17; USDA FS 2006b,
chapter 2, pp. 28–29). Delisting is not
expected to lead to an immediate
change in these standards and
guidelines; in fact, the Regional Forester
for U.S. Forest Service Region 9 is
expected to maintain the classification
of the gray wolf as a Regional Forester
Sensitive Species for at least 5 years
after Federal delisting (Moore in litt.
2003). Under these standards and
guidelines, a relatively high prey base
will be maintained, and road densities
will be limited to current levels or
decreased. For example, on the
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest
in Wisconsin, the standards and
guidelines specifically include the
protection of den sites and key
rendezvous sites, and management of
road densities in existing and potential
wolf habitat (USDA 2004c, Chap. 2, p.
19). The trapping of depredating wolves
would likely be allowed on national
forest lands under the guidelines and
conditions specified in the respective
State wolf management plans. However,
there are relatively few livestock raised
within the boundaries of national forests
in the upper midwest, so wolf
depredation and lethal control of wolves
is neither likely to be a frequent
occurrence, nor constitute a significant
mortality factor, for the WGL DPS.
Similarly, in keeping with the practice
for other state-managed game species,
any public hunting or trapping season
for wolves that might be opened in the
future by the States would likely
include hunting and trapping within the
national forests (Lindquist in litt. 2005;
Williamson in litt. 2005; Piehler in litt.
2005; Evans in litt. 2005). The
continuation of current national forest
management practices will be important
in ensuring the long-term viability of
gray wolf populations in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Gray wolves regularly use four units
of the National Park System in the WGL
DPS and may occasionally use three or
four other units. Although the National
Park Service (NPS) has participated in
the development of some of the State
wolf management plans in this area,
NPS is not bound by States’ plans.
Instead, the NPS Organic Act and the
NPS Management Policy on Wildlife
generally require the agency to conserve
natural and cultural resources and the
wildlife present within the parks.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
National Park Service management
policies require that native species be
protected against harvest, removal,
destruction, harassment, or harm
through human action, although certain
parks may allow some harvest in
accordance with state management
plans. Management emphasis in
National Parks after delisting will
continue to minimize the human
impacts on wolf populations. Thus,
because of their responsibility to
preserve all native wildlife, units of the
National Park System are often the most
protective of wildlife. In the case of the
gray wolf, the NPS Organic Act and NPS
policies will continue to provide
protection following Federal delisting.
Management and protection of wolves
in Voyageurs National Park, along
Minnesota’s northern border is not
likely to change after delisting. The
park’s management policies require that
‘‘native animals will be protected
against harvest, removal, destruction,
harassment, or harm through human
action.’’ No population targets for
wolves will be established for the NP
(Holbeck in litt. 2005). To reduce
human disturbance, temporary closures
around wolf denning and rendezvous
sites will be enacted whenever they are
discovered in the park. Sport hunting is
already prohibited on park lands,
regardless of what may be allowed
beyond park boundaries (West in litt.
2004). A radio telemetry study
conducted between 1987–91 of wolves
living in and adjacent to the park found
that all mortality inside the park was
due to natural causes (e.g., killing by
other wolves or starvation), whereas the
majority (60–80 percent) of mortality
outside the park was human-induced
(e.g., shooting and trapping) (Gogan et
al. 2004, p. 22). If there is a need to
control depredating wolves outside the
park, which seems unlikely due to the
current absence of agricultural activities
adjacent to the park, the park would
work with the State to conduct control
activities where necessary (West in litt.
2004).
The wolf population in Isle Royale
National Park is described above (see
Michigan Recovery). The NPS has
indicated that it will continue to closely
monitor and study these wolves. This
wolf population is very small and
isolated from the other WGL DPS gray
wolf populations; as described above, it
is not considered to be significant to the
recovery or long-term viability of the
gray wolf (USFWS 1992, p. 28).
Two other units of the National Park
System, Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore and St. Croix National Scenic
Riverway, are regularly used by wolves.
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is a
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
narrow strip of land along Michigan’s
Lake Superior shoreline. Lone wolves
periodically use, but do not appear to be
year-round residents of, the Lakeshore.
If denning occurs after delisting, the
Lakeshore would protect denning and
rendezvous sites at least as strictly as
the Michigan Plan recommends (Gustin
in litt. 2003). Harvesting wolves on the
Lakeshore may be allowed (i.e., if the
Michigan DNR allows for harvest in the
State), but trapping is not allowed. The
St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, in
Wisconsin and Minnesota, is also a
mostly linear ownership. At least 18
wolves from 6 packs use the Riverway.
The Riverway is likely to limit public
access to denning and rendezvous sites
and to follow other management and
protective practices outlined in the
respective State wolf management
plans, although trapping is not allowed
on NPS lands except possibly by Native
Americans (Maercklein in litt. 2003).
Gray wolves occurring on NWRs in
the WGL DPS will be monitored, and
refuge habitat management will
maintain the current prey base for them
for a minimum of 5 years after delisting.
Trapping or hunting by government
trappers for depredation control will not
be authorized on NWRs. Because of the
relatively small size of these NWRs,
however, most or all of these packs and
individual wolves also spend significant
amounts of time off of these NWRs.
Gray wolves also occupy the Fort
McCoy military installation in
Wisconsin. In 2003, one pack containing
five adult wolves occupied a territory
that included the majority of the
installation; in 2004 and 2006, the
installation had one pack with two
adults; in 2005 there was a single pack
with 4 wolves. Management and
protection of wolves on the installation
will not change significantly after
Federal and/or State delisting. Den and
rendezvous sites would continue to be
protected, hunting seasons for other
species (i.e. coyote) would be closed
during the gun-deer season, and current
surveys would continue, if resources are
available. Fort McCoy has no plans to
allow a public harvest of wolves on the
installation (Nobles in litt. 2004;
Wydeven et al. 2005a, p. 25; 2006a, p.
25).
At least one pair of wolves produced
pups on Camp Ripley Army National
Guard Training Facility in Minnesota
since 1994. This military base currently
hosts two packs that have the majority
of their territories within the base
boundaries. The population of the two
packs generally ranges between 10 and
20 animals. Currently three wolves in
each pack are being radio-tracked. There
have been no significant conflicts with
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
military training or with the permit-only
public deer hunting program there, and
no new conflicts are expected following
delisting (Brian Dirks pers. comm.
2006).
The protection afforded to resident
and transient wolves, their den and
rendezvous sites, and their prey by five
national forests, four National Parks,
two military facilities, and numerous
National Wildlife Refuges in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan would further
ensure the conservation of wolves in the
three States after delisting. In addition,
wolves that disperse to other units of
the National Refuge System or the
National Park System within the WGL
DPS will also receive the protection
afforded by these Federal agencies.
In summary, following this Federal
delisting of the WGL DPS of gray
wolves, there will be varying State and
Tribal classifications and protections
provided to wolves. The wolf
management plans currently in place for
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
will be more than sufficient to retain
viable wolf populations in each State
that are above the Federal recovery
criteria for wolf metapopulation
subunits, and even for three completely
isolated wolf populations. These State
plans provide a very high level of
assurance that wolf populations in these
three States will not decline to
nonviable levels in the foreseeable
future. Furthermore, the 2006 Update to
the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan
(WI DNR 2006a, pp. 3–4) demonstrates
the State’s commitment by retaining the
previous management goal of 350
wolves, and it did not weaken any
significant component of the original
1999 Plan. Similarly, current work on
revising the Michigan wolf plan is being
conducted in a manner that will
maintain the State’s commitments to
maintain viable wolf populations after
this Federal delisting. While these State
plans recognize there may be a need to
control or even reduce wolf populations
at some future time, none of the plans
include a public harvest of wolves.
Federally delisted wolves in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
will continue to receive protection from
general human persecution by State
laws and regulations. Michigan has met
the criteria established in their
management plan for State delisting
and, subsequent to Federal delisting,
intends to amend the Wildlife
Conservation Order to grant ‘‘protected
animal’’ status to the gray wolf. That
status would ‘‘prohibit take, establish
penalties and restitution for violations
of the Order, and detail conditions
under which lethal depredation control
measures could be implemented’’
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15117
(Humphries in litt. 2004). Following
Federal delisting, Wisconsin will fully
implement a ‘‘protected wild animal’’
for the species, including protections
that provide for fines of $1,000 to $2,000
for unlawful hunting. Minnesota DNR
will consider population management
measures, including public hunting and
trapping, but this will not occur sooner
than 5 years after Federal delisting and
will maintain a wolf population of at
least 1600 animals (MN DNR 2001, p. 2).
In the meantime, wolves in Zone A
could only be legally taken in
Minnesota for depredation management
or public safety, and Minnesota plans to
increase its capability to enforce laws
against take of wolves (MN DNR 2001,
pp. 3–4).
Except for the very small portions of
Indiana and Ohio, WGL DPS wolves are
likely to remain protected by various
state designations for the immediate
future. States within the boundaries of
the DPS either currently have
mechanisms in place to kill depredating
wolves (North Dakota and South
Dakota) or can be expected to develop
mechanisms following this Federal
delisting of the DPS, in order to deal
with wolf-livestock conflicts in areas
where wolf protection is no longer
required by the Act. Because these
States constitute only about one-third of
the land area within the DPS, and
contain virtually no suitable habitat of
sufficient size to host viable gray wolf
populations, it is clear that even
complete protection for gray wolves in
these areas would neither provide
significant benefits to wolf recovery in
the DPS, nor to the long-term viability
of the recovered populations that
currently reside in the DPS. Therefore,
although current and potential future
regulatory mechanisms may allow the
killing of gray wolves in these six States,
these threats, and the area in which they
will be manifest, will not impact the
recovered wolf populations in the DPS
now or in the foreseeable future.
Finally, although to our knowledge no
Tribes have completed wolf
management plans at this time, based on
communications with Tribes and Tribal
organizations, federally delisted wolves
are very likely to be adequately
protected on Tribal lands. Furthermore,
the numerical recovery criteria in the
Federal Recovery Plan would be
achieved and maintained (based on the
population and range of off-reservation
wolves) even without Tribal protection
of wolves on reservation lands. In
addition, on the basis of information
received from other Federal land
management agencies in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan, we expect
National Forests, units of the National
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
15118
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Park System, military bases, and
National Wildlife Refuges will provide
protections to gray wolves after delisting
that will match, and in some will cases
exceed, the protections provided by
State wolf management plans and State
protective regulations.
Therefore, we conclude that the
regulatory mechanisms that will be in
place subsequent to Federal delisting
will preclude threats sufficient to cause
the WGL DPS gray wolves to be in
danger of extinction in the foreseeable
future in all or a significant portion of
the range within the WGL DPS.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Taking of Wolves by Native Americans
for Religious, Spiritual, or Traditional
Cultural Purposes
As noted elsewhere in this final rule,
the wolf has great significance to many
Native Americans in the Western Great
Lakes area, especially to Wolf Clan
members, and has a central role in their
creation stories. The wolf, Ma’’ingan, is
viewed as a brother to the Anishinaabe
people, and their fates are believed to be
closely linked. Ma’’ingan is a key
element in many of their beliefs,
traditions, and ceremonies, and wolf
pack systems are used as a model for
Anishinaabe families and communities.
We are not aware of any takings of
wolves in the Midwest for use in these
traditions or ceremonies while the wolf
has been listed as a threatened or
endangered species. While wolves have
been listed as threatened in Minnesota,
we have instructed Wildlife Services to
provide, upon request, gray wolf pelts
and other parts from wolves killed
during depredation control actions to
Tribes in order to partially serve these
traditional needs.
Some Tribal representatives, as well
as the GLIFWC, have indicated that
following delisting there is likely to be
interest in the taking of small numbers
of wolves for traditional ceremonies
(King in litt. 2003; White in litt. 2003).
This take could occur on reservation
lands where it could be closely
regulated by a Tribe to ensure that it
does not affect the viability of the
reservation wolf population. Such
takings might also occur on offreservation treaty lands on which
certain Tribes retained hunting, fishing,
and gathering rights when the land was
ceded to the Federal Government in the
19th Century. Native American taking of
wolves from ceded lands would be
limited to a specified portion of a
harvestable surplus of wolves that is
established by the States in coordination
with the Tribes, consistent with past
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
Federal court rulings on treaty rights.
Such taking will not occur until such
time as a harvestable surplus has been
documented based on biological data,
and regulations and monitoring have
been established by the States and
Tribes to ensure a harvest can be carried
out in a manner that ensures the
continued viability of the wolf
population in that State. Previous court
rulings have ensured that Native
American treaty harvest of fish or
wildlife species have not risked
endangering the resource.
If requested by the Tribes, multitribal
natural resource agencies, and/or the
States, the Service or other appropriate
Federal agencies will work with these
parties to help determine if a
harvestable surplus exists, and if so, to
assist in devising reasonable and
appropriate methods and levels of
harvest for delisted wolves for
traditional cultural purposes.
We conclude that small number of
wolves that may be taken by Native
Americans will not be a threat sufficient
to cause the WGL DPS gray wolves to be
in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future in all or a significant
portion of the range within the WGL
DPS.
Public Attitudes Toward the Gray Wolf
An important determinant of the longterm status of gray wolf populations in
the United States will be human
attitudes toward this large predator.
These attitudes are based on the
conflicts between human activities and
wolves, concern with the danger the
species may pose to humans, its
symbolic representation of wilderness,
the economic effect of livestock losses,
the emotions regarding the threat to
pets, the perceived competition with
hunters for deer and moose, the
conviction that the species should never
be a target of sport hunting or trapping,
wolf traditions of Native American
tribes, and other factors.
We have seen indications of a change
in public attitudes toward the wolf over
the last few decades. Public attitude
surveys in Minnesota and Michigan
(Kellert 1985, pp. 157–163; 1990, pp.
100–102; 1999, pp. 400–403), as well as
the citizen input into the wolf
management plans of Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan, have
indicated strong public support for wolf
recovery if the adverse impacts on
recreational activities and livestock
producers can be minimized (MI DNR
1997, pp. 13–14, 50–56; MN DNR 1998,
p. 2; WI DNR 1999, pp. 51–55; WI DNR
2006c, pp. 9–11). However, more recent
surveys of Michigan residents may show
that attitudes are changing now that the
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
wolf recovery has succeeded and longterm wolf management is required.
Although the majority of Michigan
residents still support wolf recovery
efforts, UP residents’ support for wolf
recovery has declined substantially
since the 1990 Kellert survey (Mertig
2004, p. 37). At the same time,
respondents from across the State have
increased their support for killing
individual problem wolves; support for
lethal control of problem wolves ranges
from 70 percent in the Southern Lower
Peninsula to 85 percent in the UP
(Mertig 2004, p. 40). In Wisconsin, a
number of recent surveys, when taken
together, provide strong evidence of
support for a Wisconsin wolf population
of 250–350 wolves or more (NaughtonTreves et al. 2003; Schanning and
Vazquez 2005; Naughton et al. 2005
unpublished report; WI DNR 2006a, p.
9).
Once this delisting is in effect, States
and tribes will have increased flexibility
to deal with wolf human conflicts,
including the use of lethal control of
problems wolves, as specified in their
current wolf management plans. It is
unclear whether such flexibility of wolf
control will affect public attitudes
towards wolves (i.e., diminish
opposition to the local presence of
wolves), due to the strong influence of
other factors.
The Minnesota DNR recognizes that to
maintain public support for wolf
conservation it must work to ensure that
people are well informed about wolves
and wolf management in the State.
Therefore, MN DNR plans to provide
‘‘timely and accurate information about
wolves to the public, to support and
facilitate wolf education programs, and
to encourage wolf ecotourism,’’ among
other activities (MN DNR 2001, p. 29–
30). Similarly, the Wisconsin and
Michigan wolf management plans
emphasize the need for long-term
cooperative efforts with private
educational and environmental groups
to develop and distribute educational
and informational materials and
programs for public use (MI DNR 1997,
p. 20; WI DNR 1999, pp. 26–27). We
fully expect organizations such as the
International Wolf Center (Ely, MN), the
Timber Wolf Alliance (Ashland, WI),
Timber Wolf Information Network
(Waupaca, WI), the Wildlife Science
Center (Forest Lake, MN), and other
organizations to continue to provide
educational materials and experiences
with wolves far into the future,
regardless of the Federal status of
wolves.
In summary, we conclude that there is
evidence showing strong public support
for current wolf population levels in the
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
WGL DPS, especially if problem wolves,
and to a lesser extent wolf numbers, are
controlled. This support is a key
component in our assessment of threats
to the WGL DPS. Notwithstanding a
small but significant societal segment
who is opposed to the current level of
wolf recovery and which may resort to
illegal actions if problem wolves and the
overall wolf population is not
adequately managed, we believe that
delisting while public support for
wolves is still strong, followed by more
intensive management of wolf
populations by the States, is the best
way to reduce the level of threat caused
by human-induced mortality. We
conclude that public attitudes towards
wolves now and in the foreseeable
future will not be threats sufficient to
cause the WGL DPS gray wolves to be
in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future in all or a significant
portion of the range within the WGL
DPS.
Summary of Our Five-Factor Analysis of
Potential Threats
As required by the Act, we considered
the five potential threat factors to assess
whether wolves are threatened or
endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of their range in the
WGL DPS and, therefore, whether the
WGL DPS should be listed as threatened
or endangered. While wolves
historically occurred over most of the
DPS, large portions of this area are no
longer significant, and the wolf
population in the WGL DPS will remain
centered in Minnesota, Michigan, and
Wisconsin.
While we recognize that gray wolves
in the WGL DPS do not occupy all
portions of their historical range,
including some disjunct but potentially
suitable areas with low road and human
density and a healthy prey base within
the WGL DPS, wolves in this DPS no
longer meet the definition of a
threatened or endangered species.
Although there may be historical habitat
within the DPS that remains
unoccupied, many of these areas are no
longer suitable. None of these historical
areas are significant portions of the
range of the WGL DPS.
We have based our determinations on
the current status of, and future threats
likely to be faced by, existing wolf
populations within the WGL DPS in the
foreseeable future.
The number of wolves in the WGL
DPS greatly exceeds the recovery
criteria (USFWS 1992, p. 24–26) for (1)
a secure wolf population in Minnesota,
and (2) a second population of 100
wolves for 5 successive years. Based on
the criteria set by the Eastern Wolf
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
Recovery Team in 1992 and reaffirmed
in 1997 and 1998 (Peterson in litt. 1997,
in litt. 1998), and endorsed by the peer
reviewers, the DPS contains sufficient
wolf numbers and distribution to ensure
their long-term survival within the DPS.
The maintenance and expansion of the
Minnesota wolf population has
maximized the preservation of the
genetic diversity that remained in the
WGL DPS when its wolves were first
protected in 1974. Furthermore, the
Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population
has even exceeded the numerical
recovery criterion for a completely
isolated population. Therefore, even if
this two-State population was to become
totally isolated and wolf immigration
from Minnesota and Ontario completely
ceased, it would still remain a viable
wolf population for the foreseeable
future, as defined by the Recovery Plan
(USFWS 1992, p. 25–26). Finally, the
wolf populations in Wisconsin and
Michigan each have separately exceeded
200 animals for 8 and 7 years
respectively, so if they each somehow
were to become isolated, they are
already above viable population levels,
and each State has committed to manage
its wolf population at or above viable
population levels. The wolf’s numeric
and distributional recovery criteria in
the WGL DPS clearly have been
exceeded in both magnitude and
duration. The wolf’s recovery in
numbers and distribution in the WGL
DPS, together with the status of the
remaining threats, indicates that the
WGL DPS of the gray wolf is not in
danger of extinction, nor likely to
become an endangered species, within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.
Post-delisting wolf protection,
management, and population and health
monitoring by the States, Tribes, and
Federal land management agencies—
especially in Minnesota Zone A,
Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2, and across the
UP of Michigan, which constitute the
significant portion of the species’
range—will ensure the continuation of
viable wolf populations above the
Federal recovery criteria for the
foreseeable future. Post-delisting threats
to wolves in Zone B in Minnesota,
Zones 3 and 4 in Wisconsin, and in the
Lower Peninsula of Michigan—all areas
that are not significant portions of the
range of the WGL DPS—will be more
substantial, and may preclude the
establishment of wolf packs in most or
all of these areas in Wisconsin and
Michigan. Similarly, the lack of
sufficient areas of suitable habitat in
those parts of North Dakota, South
Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15119
that are within the WGL DPS are
expected to preclude the establishment
of viable populations in these areas,
although dispersing wolves and packs
may temporarily occur in some of these
areas. However, these areas are not SPR
and wolf numbers in these areas will
have no impact on the continued
viability of the recovered WGL DPS.
Reasonably foreseeable threats to wolves
in all parts of the WGL DPS are not
likely to threaten wolf population
viability in the WGL DPS in the
foreseeable future.
In summary, we find that the threat of
habitat destruction or degradation or a
reduction in the range of the gray wolf;
utilization by humans; disease,
parasites, or predatory actions by other
animals or humans; regulatory measures
by State, Tribal, and Federal agencies; or
other threats will not individually or in
combination be likely to cause the WGL
DPS of the gray wolf to be in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future in
all or a significant portion of the
species’ range. Ongoing effects of
recovery efforts over the past decade,
which resulted in a significant
expansion of the occupied range of
wolves in the WGL DPS, in conjunction
with future State, Tribal, and Federal
agency wolf management across that
occupied range, will be adequate to
ensure the conservation of the SPR of
the WGL DPS. These activities will
maintain an adequate prey base,
preserve denning and rendezvous sites
and dispersal corridors, monitor
disease, restrict human take, and keep
wolf populations well above the
numerical recovery criteria established
in the Federal Recovery Plan for the
Eastern Timber Wolf (USFWS 1992, pp.
25–28).
After a thorough review of all
available information and an evaluation
of the previous five factors specified in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, as well as
consideration of the definitions of
‘‘threatened’’ and ‘‘endangered’’
contained in the Act and the reasons for
delisting as specified in 50 CFR
424.11(d), we conclude that removing
the WGL DPS from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(50 CFR 17.11) is appropriate. Gray
wolves have recovered in the WGL DPS
as a result of the reduction of threats as
described in the analysis of the five
categories of threats.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include
recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and
prohibitions against certain practices.
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
15120
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Recognition through listing encourages
and results in conservation actions by
Federal, State, and private agencies,
groups, and individuals. The Act
provides for possible land acquisition
and cooperation with the States and
requires that recovery actions be carried
out for all listed species. The final rule
removes these Federal conservation
measures for all gray wolves within the
WGL DPS.
Effects of the Rule
This rule removes the protections of
the Act for the WGL DPS by removing
the wolves in that DPS from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register,
we also identify the Northern Rocky
Mountain (NRM) DPS and remove the
gray wolves in that DPS from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,
except for the gray wolves in Wyoming,
a significant portion of the NRM DPS
range, which will continue to be listed
as an experimental population. As the
Service is taking these regulatory
actions with respect to the WGL DPS
and the NRM DPS at the same time, this
final rule includes regulatory revisions
under § 17.11(h) that reflect the removal
of the protections of the Act for both the
WGL DPS and most of the NRM DPS,
and reflect that gray wolves in
Wyoming, a significant portion of the
NRM DPS range, continue to be listed as
an experimental population. However,
only that portion of the revised gray
wolf listing in § 17.11(h) that pertains to
the WGL DPS is attributable to this final
rule.
The separate experimental population
listing in portions of Arizona, New
Mexico, and Texas continues
unchanged.
This final rule removes the special
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act
for wolves in Minnesota. These
regulations currently are found at 50
CFR 17.40(d).
Critical habitat was designated for the
gray wolf in 1978 (43 FR 9607, March
9, 1978). That rule (codified at 50 CFR
17.95(a)) identifies Isle Royale National
Park, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf
management zones 1, 2, and 3, as
delineated in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(1), as
critical habitat. Wolf management zones
1, 2, and 3 comprise approximately
25,500 sq km (9,845 sq mi) in
northeastern and north-central
Minnesota. This final rule removes the
designation of critical habitat for gray
wolves in Minnesota and on Isle Royale,
Michigan.
This notice does not apply to the
listing or protection of the red wolf (C.
rufus). Furthermore, the remaining
protections of the gray wolf under the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
Act do not extend to gray wolf-dog
hybrids.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in
the 1988 reauthorization, requires us to
implement a system, in cooperation
with the States, to monitor for not less
than 5 years the status of all species that
have recovered and been removed from
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and
17.12). The purpose of this postdelisting monitoring (PDM) is to verify
that a species delisted due to recovery
remains secure from risk of extinction
after it no longer has the protections of
the Act. To do this, PDM generally
focuses on evaluating (1) demographic
characteristics of the species, (2) threats
to the species, and (3) implementation
of legal and/or management
commitments that have been identified
as important in reducing threats to the
species or maintaining threats at
sufficiently low levels. We are to make
prompt use of the emergency listing
authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the
Act to prevent a significant risk to the
well-being of any recovered species.
Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly
requires cooperation with the States in
development and implementation of
PDM programs, but we remain
responsible for compliance with section
4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively
engaged in all phases of PDM. We also
will seek active participation of other
entities that are expected to assume
responsibilities for the species’
conservation, after delisting.
We are developing a PDM plan for the
gray wolves in the WGL DPS with the
assistance of the Eastern Gray Wolf
Recovery Team. Once completed, we
will make that document available on
our Web site (See FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section). At this
time, we anticipate the PDM program
will be a continuation of State
monitoring activities similar to those
which have been conducted by
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
DNRs in recent years. These States
comprise the core recovery areas within
the DPS, and therefore the numerical
recovery criteria in the Recovery Plan
apply only to them. These activities will
include both population monitoring and
health monitoring of individual wolves.
During the PDM period, the Service and
the Recovery Team will conduct a
review of the monitoring data and
program. We will consider various
relevant factors (including but not
limited to mortality rates, population
changes and rates of change, disease
occurrence, range expansion or
contraction) to determine if the
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
population of gray wolves within the
DPS warrants expanded monitoring,
additional research, consideration for
relisting as threatened or endangered, or
emergency listing.
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
DNRs have monitored wolves for several
decades with significant assistance from
numerous partners, including the U.S.
Forest Service, National Park Service,
USDA–APHIS–Wildlife Services, Tribal
natural resource agencies, and the
Service. To maximize comparability of
future PDM data with data obtained
before delisting, all three State DNRs
have committed to continue their
previous wolf population monitoring
methodology, or will make changes to
that methodology only if those changes
will not reduce the comparability of preand post-delisting data.
In addition to monitoring wolf
population numbers and trends, the
PDM will evaluate post-delisting
threats, in particular human-caused
mortality, disease, and implementation
of legal and management commitments.
If at any time during the monitoring
period we detect a substantial
downward change in the populations or
an increase in threats to the degree that
population viability may be threatened,
we will evaluate and change (intensify,
extend, and/or otherwise improve) the
monitoring methods, if appropriate,
and/or consider relisting the WGL DPS,
if warranted.
This monitoring program will extend
for 5 years beyond the effective delisting
date of the DPS. At the end of the 5-year
period we and the Recovery Team will
conduct another review and post the
results on our Web site. In addition to
the above considerations, the review
will determine whether the PDM
program should be terminated or
extended.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that an
Environmental Assessment or an
Environmental Impact Statement, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, need not be prepared in
connection with regulations adopted
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
Paperwork Reduction Act
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320
implement provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)
define a collection of information as the
obtaining of information by or for an
agency by means of identical questions
posed to, or identical reporting,
recordkeeping, or disclosure
requirements imposed on, 10 or more
persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR
1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ‘‘ten or more
persons’’ refers to the persons to whom
a collection of information is addressed
by the agency within any 12-month
period. For purposes of this definition,
employees of the Federal Government
are not included. The Service may not
conduct or sponsor, and you are not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
This rule does not include any
collections of information that require
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. As proposed under the
Post-delisting Monitoring section above,
gray wolf populations in the Western
Great Lakes DPS will be monitored by
the States of Michigan, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin in accordance with their gray
wolf State management plans. There
may also be additional voluntary
monitoring activities conducted by a
small number of tribes in these three
States. We do not anticipate a need to
request data or other information from
10 or more persons during any 12month period to satisfy monitoring
information needs. If it becomes
necessary to collect standardized
information from 10 or more nonFederal individuals, groups, or
organizations per year, we will first
obtain information collection approval
from OMB.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
Executive Order 13211 on regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
that significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. Executive Order
13211 requires agencies to prepare
Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. As this
final rule is not expected to significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or
use, this action is not a significant
energy action and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have
coordinated the proposed rule and this
final rule with the affected Tribes.
Throughout several years of
development of earlier related rules and
the proposed rule, we have endeavored
to consult with Native American tribes
and Native American organizations in
order to both (1) provide them with a
complete understanding of the proposed
changes, and (2) to understand their
concerns with those changes. We have
fully considered their comments during
the development of this final rule. If
requested, we will conduct additional
consultations with Native American
tribes and multitribal organizations
subsequent to this final rule in order to
facilitate the transition to State and
tribal management of gray wolves
within the WGL DPS.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this document is available upon
request from the Ft. Snelling,
Minnesota, Regional Office and is
posted on our Web site (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above).
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15121
Author
The primary author of this final rule
is Laura J. Ragan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota,
Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above).
The majority of this final rule is based
on the February 8, 2007 final rule for
which the primary author was Ronald L.
Refsnider, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota,
Regional Office).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby amend part
17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set
forth below:
■
PART 17—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Public Law
99–625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise
noted.
§ 17.11
[Amended]
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the
entry for ‘‘Wolf, gray’’ under
‘‘MAMMALS’’ in the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife to read as
follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
*
*
15122
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Species
Historic range
Common name
Vertebrate population where
endangered or threatened
*
U.S.A., conterminous (lower 48)
States, except: (1) Where listed as an experimental population below; (2) Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Michigan, eastern
North Dakota (that portion
north and east of the Missouri
River upstream to Lake
Sakakawea and east of the
centerline of Highway 83 from
Lake Sakakawea to the Canadian border), eastern South
Dakota (that portion north and
east of the Missouri River),
northern Iowa, northern Illinois, and northern Indiana
(those portions of IA, IL, and
IN north of the centerline of
Interstate Highway 80), and
northwestern Ohio (that portion north of the centerline of
Interstate Highway 80 and
west of the Maumee River at
Toledo); (3) MT, ID, WY (however, see experimental population
designation
below),
eastern WA (that portion of
WA east of the centerline of
Highway 97 and Highway 17
north of Mesa and that portion
of WA east of the centerline of
Highway 395 south of Mesa),
eastern OR (portion of OR
east of the centerline of Highway 395 and Highway 78
north of Burns Junction and
that portion of OR east of the
centerline of Highway 95
south of Burns Junction), and
north central UT (that portion
of UT east of the centerline of
Highway 84 and north of Highway 80). Mexico.
U.S.A. (portions of AZ, NM, and
TX—see § 17.84(k)).
U.S.A. (WY—see § 17.84(i) and
§ 17.84(n)).
Scientific name
Status
When listed
Critical
habitat
Special
rules
MAMMALS
*
Wolf, gray ..........
*
Canis lupus ......
*
Holarctic ...........
......do .................
......do ...............
......do ...............
Wolf, gray
[Northern
Rocky Mountain DPS].
Canis lupus ......
U.S.A. (MT, ID,
WY, eastern
WA, eastern
OR, and north
central UT).
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
*
VerDate Nov<24>2008
*
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
*
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
*
E
*
1, 6, 13, 15,
35
N/A
N/A
XN
631
N/A
XN
561, 562
N/A
17.84(k)
17.84(i).
17.84(n).
*
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
*
02APR2
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
§ 17.40
[Amended]
3. Amend § 17.40 by removing and
reserving paragraph (d).
■
§ 17.95
[Amended]
4. Amend § 17.95(a) by removing the
critical habitat entry for ‘‘Gray Wolf
(Canis lupus).’’
■
Dated: March 10, 2009.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. E9–5981 Filed 4–1–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R6–ES–2008–0008; 92220–1113–
0000; ABC Code: C6]
RIN 1018–AW37
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Final Rule To Identify the
Northern Rocky Mountain Population
of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population
Segment and To Revise the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Under the authority of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), identify a
distinct population segment (DPS) of the
gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the Northern
Rocky Mountains (NRM) of the United
States and revise the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife by removing
gray wolves within NRM DPS
boundaries, except in Wyoming. The
NRM gray wolf DPS encompasses the
eastern one-third of Washington and
Oregon, a small part of north-central
Utah, and all of Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming. Our current estimate for 2008
indicates the NRM DPS contains
approximately 1,639 wolves (491 in
Montana; 846 in Idaho; 302 in
Wyoming) in 95 breeding pairs (34 in
Montana; 39 in Idaho; 22 in Wyoming).
These numbers are about 5 times higher
than the minimum population recovery
goal and 3 times higher than the
minimum breeding pair recovery goal.
The end of 2008 will mark the ninth
consecutive year the population has
exceeded our numeric and
distributional recovery goals.
The States of Montana and Idaho have
adopted State laws, management plans,
and regulations that meet the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:49 Apr 01, 2009
Jkt 217001
requirements of the Act and will
conserve a recovered wolf population
into the foreseeable future. In our
proposed rule (72 FR 6106, February 8,
2007), we noted that removing the Act’s
protections in Wyoming was dependant
upon the State’s wolf law (W.S. 11–6–
302 et seq. and 23–1–101, et seq. in
House Bill 0213) and wolf management
plan adequately conserving Wyoming’s
portion of a recovered NRM wolf
population. In light of the July 18, 2008,
U.S. District Court order, we
reexamined Wyoming law, its
management plans and implementing
regulations, and now determine they are
not adequate regulatory mechanisms for
the purposes of the Act.
We determine that the best scientific
and commercial data available
demonstrates that (1) the NRM DPS is
not threatened or endangered
throughout ‘‘all’’ of its range (i.e., not
threatened or endangered throughout all
of the DPS); and (2) the Wyoming
portion of the range represents a
significant portion of range where the
species remains in danger of extinction
because of inadequate regulatory
mechanisms. Thus, this final rule
removes the Act’s protections
throughout the NRM DPS except for
Wyoming. Wolves in Wyoming will
continue to be regulated as a nonessential, experimental population per
50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n).
DATES: This rule becomes effective on
May 4, 2009.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available
on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov. Comments and
materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparation of
this final rule, are available for
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours, at our Montana
office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena,
Montana 59601. Call (406) 449–5225,
extension 204 to make arrangements.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward E. Bangs, Western Gray Wolf
Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, at our Helena office
(see ADDRESSES) or telephone (406) 449–
5225, extension 204. Individuals who
are hearing-impaired or speechimpaired may call the Federal Relay
Service at 1–800–877–8337 for TTY
assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Gray wolves (C. lupus) are the largest
wild members of the dog family
(Canidae). Adult gray wolves range from
18–80 kilograms (kg) (40–175 pounds
(lb)) depending upon sex and region
(Mech 1974, p. 1). In the NRM, adult
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
15123
male gray wolves average over 45 kg
(100 lb), but may weigh up to 60 kg (130
lb). Females weigh slightly less than
males. Wolves’ fur color is frequently a
grizzled gray, but it can vary from pure
white to coal black (Gipson et al. 2002,
p. 821).
Gray wolves have a circumpolar range
including North America, Europe, and
Asia. As Europeans began settling the
United States, they poisoned, trapped,
and shot wolves, causing this once
widespread species to be eradicated
from most of its range in the 48
conterminous States (Mech 1970, pp.
31–34; McIntyre 1995). Gray wolf
populations were eliminated from
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well
as adjacent southwestern Canada by the
1930s (Young and Goldman 1944, p.
414).
Wolves primarily prey on medium
and large mammals. Wolves normally
live in packs of 2 to 12 animals. In the
NRM, pack sizes average about 10
wolves in protected areas, but a few
complex packs have been substantially
bigger in some areas of Yellowstone
National Park (YNP) (Smith et al. 2006,
p. 243; Service et al. 2008, Tables 1–3).
Packs typically occupy large distinct
territories from 518 to 1,295 square
kilometers (km2) (200 to 500 square
miles (mi2)) and defend these areas from
other wolves or packs. Once a given area
is occupied by resident wolf packs, it
becomes saturated and wolf numbers
become regulated by the amount of
available prey, intra-species conflict,
other forms of mortality, and dispersal.
Dispersing wolves may cover large areas
(See Defining the Boundaries of the
NRM DPS) as they try to join other
packs or attempt to form their own pack
in unoccupied habitat (Mech and
Boitani 2003, pp. 11–17).
Typically, only the top-ranking
(‘‘alpha’’) male and female in each pack
breed and produce pups (Packard 2003,
p. 38; Smith et al. 2006, pp. 243–4;
Service et al. 2008, Tables 1–3). Females
and males typically begin breeding as 2year olds and may annually produce
young until they are over 10 years old.
Litters are typically born in April and
range from 1 to 11 pups, but average
around 5 pups (Service et al. 1989–
2007, Tables 1–3). Most years, four of
these five pups survive until winter
(Service et al. 1989–2008, Tables 1–3).
Wolves can live 13 years (Holyan et al.
2005, p. 446), but the average lifespan
in the NRM is less than 4 years (Smith
et al. 2006, p. 245). Pup production and
survival can increase when wolf density
is lower and food availability per wolf
increases (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186).
Pack social structure is very adaptable
and resilient. Breeding members can be
E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM
02APR2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 62 (Thursday, April 2, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15070-15123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5981]
[[Page 15069]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Identify
the Western Great Lakes Populations of Gray Wolves as a Distinct
Population Segment; Final Rule To Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain
Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment; and To Revise
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Final Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 15070]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R3-ES-2008-0120; 92220-1113-000; ABC Code: C6]
RIN 1018-AW41
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To
Identify the Western Great Lakes Populations of Gray Wolves as a
Distinct Population Segment and To Revise the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS)
identify the Western Great Lakes (WGL) Distinct Population Segment
(DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis lupus). The geographic extent of 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 Indiana; and the northwestern portion of Ohio.
We also revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
established under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)
by removing gray wolves within the WGL DPS. We are taking 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 WGL DPS after this revision of the
listing. This final rule removes this DPS from the lists of Threatened
and Endangered Wildlife, removes the currently designated critical
habitat for the gray wolf in Minnesota and Michigan, and removes the
current special regulations for gray wolves in Minnesota.
On April 16, 2007, three parties filed a lawsuit against the U.S.
Department of the Interior (Department) and the Service, challenging
the Service's February 8, 2007 (72 FR 6052), identification and
delisting of the WGL DPS. On September 29, 2008, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the plaintiffs
(Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, No. 1:07-CV-00677
(D.D.C.). In that ruling the court vacated and remanded the Service's
application of the February 8, 2007 (72 FR 6052), final delisting rule
for the WGL DPS of the gray wolf. On remand, the Service was directed
to provide an explanation as to how simultaneously identifying and
delisting a DPS is consistent with the Act's text, structure, policy
objectives, legislative history, and any relevant judicial
interpretations. This final rule addresses the September 29, 2008,
court ruling.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on May 4, 2009.
ADDRESSES: 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, Minnesota 55111-4056. Call 612-713-5350 to make
arrangements. The comments and materials we received during the comment
period on the proposed rule also are available for public inspection
and by appointment during normal business hours at this Regional Office
and at our Ecological Services Field Offices in Bloomington, Minnesota
(612-725-3548); New Frankin, Wisconsin (920-866-1717); and East
Lansing, Michigan (517-351-2555). Call those offices to make
arrangements.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Ragan, 612-713-5350. Direct all
questions or requests for additional information to: GRAY WOLF
QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, 1 Federal
Drive, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056. Additional information is
also available on our World Wide Web site at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired
may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY
assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves
For a discussion of the biology and ecology of gray wolves and
general recovery planning efforts, see the proposed WGL wolf rule
published on March 27, 2006, (71 FR 15266-15305) and available on our
World Wide Web site.
Recovery Criteria
The 1978 Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (Recovery Plan)
and the 1992 revised Recovery Plan (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 (Peterson 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 within the borders of Minnesota for
the foreseeable future.
Although the Recovery Plan's recovery criteria predate the
scientific field of conservation biology, the conservation principles
of representation (conserving the genetic diversity of a taxon),
resilience (the ability to withstand demographic and environmental
variation), and redundancy (sufficient populations to provide a margin
of safety) were incorporated into these criteria. 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
Plan established a planning goal of 1,250-1,400 animals for the
Minnesota wolf population (USFWS 1992, p. 28), which would increase the
likelihood of maintaining its genetic diversity over the long term.
This large Minnesota wolf population also provides resiliency to reduce
the adverse impacts of unpredictable demographic and environmental
events. Furthermore, the Recovery Plan specifies a wolf population that
is spread across about 40 percent of the State (Zones 1 through 4)
(USFWS 1992, p. 28), adding a geographic component to the resiliency of
the Minnesota wolf population.
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 second population enhances both the
resiliency and redundancy of the recovery program. The Recovery Plan
provides two options for reestablishing this second population. If it
is an isolated population, that is, located
[[Page 15071]]
more than 100 miles (160 km) 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 located within 100
miles (160 km) of a self-sustaining wolf population (for example, the
Minnesota wolf population), it would be considered viable if it
maintained a minimum of 100 wolves for at least 5 years. Such a nearby
second population would be viable at a smaller size, because it would
exchange wolves with the Minnesota population (that is, they would
function as a metapopulation), thereby bolstering the smaller second
population genetically and numerically.
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 1978 Recovery Plan and the
1992 Revised Recovery Plan, except on Isle Royale (Michigan) or within
Minnesota. The 1992 Revised Recovery Plan retained potential gray wolf
re-establishment areas in northern Wisconsin, the upper peninsula (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, pp. 56-58). 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
application of the delisting criterion for the second population to the
wolf population that had developed in northern Wisconsin and the
adjacent UP. The Recovery Team recommended that the numerical delisting
criterion for the Wisconsin-Michigan population will be achieved when 6
consecutive late-winter wolf surveys document that the population
equals or exceeds 100 wolves (excluding Isle Royale wolves) for the 5
consecutive years between the 6 surveys (Peterson in litt. 1998). This
second population is less than 200 miles from the Minnesota wolf
population.
Recovery of the Gray Wolf in the Western Great Lakes Area
Minnesota Recovery
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, p. 43, based on data
in Stenlund 1955, p. 19), 350 to 700 in 1963 (Cahalane 1964, p. 10),
750 in 1970 (Leirfallom 1970, p. 11), 736 to 950 in 1971-72 (Fuller et
al. 1992, p. 44), and 500 to 1,000 in 1973 (Mech and Rausch 1975, p
85). 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, the
Minnesota population estimates increased (see Table 1 below). Mech
estimated the population to be 1,000 to 1,200 in 1976 (USFWS 1978, pp.
4, 50-52), and Berg and Kuehn (1982, p. 11) 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; the lower number was derived by a method
comparable to the 1978-79 survey (Fuller et al. 1992, pp. 50-51).
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 5
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, pp. 1-2).
Table 1--Gray Wolf Winter Populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (Excluding Isle Royale) From 1976
Through 2006
[Note that there are several years between the first three estimates]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI & MI
Year Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1976..................................................... 1,000-1,200 ........... ........... ...........
1978-79.................................................. 1,235 ........... ........... ...........
1988-89.................................................. 1,500-1,750 31 3 34
1989-90.................................................. .............. 34 10 44
1990-91.................................................. .............. 40 17 57
1991-92.................................................. .............. 45 21 66
1992-93.................................................. .............. 40 30 70
1993-94.................................................. .............. 57 57 114
1994-95.................................................. .............. 83 80 163
1995-96.................................................. .............. 99 116 215
1996-97.................................................. .............. 148 113 261
1997-98.................................................. 2,445 180 139 319
1998-99.................................................. .............. 205 169 374
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.................................................. .............. *435 405 840
[[Page 15072]]
2005-06.................................................. .............. 465 434 899
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Previous estimate of 425 has been corrected, based on subsequent location of 5 packs missed during survey
period (Wydeven et al. 2006, pp. 9-10).
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, p. 4). 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, 5, Fuller et al.
1992, p. 51). 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, p. 28).
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 change in the State's wolf population during that period
(Erb and Benson 2004, pp. 7 and 9).
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, p. 19). 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, p. 43, from
Leirfallom 1970). Fuller et al. (1992, p. 44), 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, p. 86). 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, pp. 48-49; Berg and Benson 1999, p. 3,
5), 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, p. 5). By that time the Minnesota wolf
population was using most of the occupied and peripheral range
identified by Mech et al. (1988, p. 86). The wolf population in
Minnesota had recovered to the point that its contiguous range covered
approximately 40 percent of the State 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, p. 7).
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, p. 2, 5). 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 Recovery
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 around 1975, and the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WI DNR) began wolf population monitoring in 1979-80
and estimated a statewide population of 25 wolves at that time (Wydeven
and Wiedenhoeft 2000, pp. 151, 159). 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
2006 (Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 35).
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.
2006, pp. 4-5). 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
[[Page 15073]]
ground surveys are carefully compared to properly separate packs and to
avoid over-counting (Wydeven et al. 2006a, pp. 4-5). 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, p. 19) noted that lone wolves are estimated to compose from 2 to
29 percent of the total population in the area. 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.
From mid-September 2005 through mid-April 2006, 43 radio collars
were active on Wisconsin wolves, including 38 packs. An estimated 465
to 502 wolves in 115 packs, including 16 to 17 wolves on Native
American reservations, were in the State in early 2006, representing a
7 percent increase from 2005 (Wydeven et al. 2006, pp. 1, 6).
Wisconsin population estimates for 1985 through 2006 increased from
15 to 465-502 wolves (see Table 1 above) and from 4 to 115 packs
(Wydeven et al. 2006, pp. 1, 35). This represents an annual increase of
21 percent through 2000, and an average annual increase of 11 percent
for the most recent 6 years.
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 53-56 wolves in 14 packs in the central forest wolf
range (Zone 2 in the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan; WI DNR 1999, p.
18) and an additional 17-19 wolves in 7 packs in the marginal habitat
in Zone 3, located between Zone 1 (northern forest wolf range) and
Zones 2 and 4 (Wydeven et al. 2006, pp. 6, 33).
During the winter of 2002-03, 7 wolves were believed to be
primarily occupying Native American reservation lands in Wisconsin
(Wydeven et al. 2003, p. 9); this increased to 11 to 13 wolves in the
winter of 2004-05 (Wydeven in litt. 2005) and 16-17 in 2005-06. The
2005-06 animals consisted of 2 packs totaling 7 to 8 wolves on the Bad
River Chippewa Reservation and a pack of 4 wolves on the Lac Courtes
Oreilles Chippewa Reservation, both in northwestern Wisconsin. There
also was a single pack of three wolves on the Lac du Flambeau
Reservation and a two-wolf pack on the Menominee Reservation, in north-
central and northeastern Wisconsin, respectively (Wydeven et al. 2006,
pp. 27, 28, 33). Additional wolves have spent some time on the Red
Cliff Chippewa Reservation, the St. Croix Chippewa Reservation, and the
Ho Chunk Reservation in the last few years. 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
indications that the State's wolf population growth and geographic
expansion are beginning to level off. Mladenoff et al. (1997, p. 47)
and Wydeven et al. (1999, p. 49) 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. 1999, p. 49) resulting in a statewide
population of 600 or more wolves.
Michigan Recovery
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 Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (MI DNR) began noting single wolves at various locations in
the UP of Michigan. In 1989, a wolf pair was verified in the central
UP, and it produced pups in 1991. Since that time, wolf packs have
spread throughout the UP, with immigration occurring from Wisconsin on
the west and possibly from Ontario on the east. They now are found in
every county of the UP, with the possible exception of Keweenaw County
(Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6).
The MI DNR annually monitors the wolf population in the UP by
intensive late-winter tracking surveys that focus on each pack. The UP
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 UP (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6). 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, p. 6-7).
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, pp. 2-3, Huntzinger et al.
2005, pp. 3-6; Potvin et al. 2005, p. 1661). 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 UP as increasing from 57 wolves in 1994 to 434
in 91 packs in 2006 (see Table 1 above). Over the last 10 years the
annualized rate of increase has been about 18 percent (Beyer et al.
2006, p. 35; Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6; MI DNR
[[Page 15074]]
2006a; Roell in litt. 2006a). 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
(24.3 to 25.9 percent per year) from 1997 through 2000 and slower
growth (11.6 to 15.5 percent from 2000 through 2005 and 7.2 percent in
2006) since then. As with the Wisconsin wolves, the number of wolves in
the Michigan UP 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 UP numbers have now surpassed the Federal criterion for
an isolated wolf population of 200 animals for 6 successive late-winter
surveys (USFWS 1992, pp. 24-26).
To date, no wolf packs are known to be primarily using tribal-owned
lands in Michigan (Roell in litt. 2006b). Native American tribes in the
UP 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 UP and range widely, tribal land is likely
utilized periodically by wolves.
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 is a small and isolated wolf
population that probably has not had any contact with mainland wolf
populations since its founding pair crossed the Lake Superior ice in
the late 1940s (Peterson et al. 1998, p. 828). This wolf population
lacks sufficient genetic uniqueness (Wayne et al. 1991, pp. 47-49), and
due to the island's small size, cannot satisfy the discreteness
criterion for a separate DPS. For these same reasons it will not 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 2005-06 (Peterson and Vucetich 2006, p. 6).
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 2004). 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, p. 35). Recognizing the likelihood that
small numbers of gray wolves will eventually move into the Lower
Peninsula and form persistent packs (Potvin 2003, pp. 29-30, Gehring
and Potter 2005, p. 1242; Beyer et at. 2006, p. 35), 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 and Near 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 1994 (Collins in litt. 1998), an adult male wolf
was shot near Devil's Lake, North Dakota in 2002, another adult male
shot in Richland County in extreme southeastern North Dakota in 2003
(Fain in litt. 2006), and a vehicle-killed adult male found near
Sturgis, South Dakota, in 2006 (Larson in litt. 2006a). In contrast to
the other South Dakota wolves of the last twenty-five years, this
animal has been genetically identified as having come from the Greater
Yellowstone area (Fain in litt. 2006). See the Delineating the WGL Gray
Wolf DPS for a detailed discussion of movement of wolves.
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, and this is a
bottleneck that seriously impedes further expansion. The only exception
is the NLP of Michigan, where several studies indicate that a
persistent wolf population may develop (Gehring and Potter 2005, p.
1242; Potvin 2003, 29-30), 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 are not dependent on wolves
or wolf populations from other areas of the WGL DPS to maintain these
recovered numbers.
Previous Federal Action
On April 1, 2003, we published a final rule revising the listing
status of the gray wolf across most of the conterminous United States
(68 FR 15804). Within that rule, we identified three distinct
population segments (DPS) 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 lists of threatened and endangered wildlife 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
[[Page 15075]]
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.
On January 31, 2005, and August 19, 2005, U.S. District Courts in
Oregon and Vermont, respectively, ruled that the April 1, 2003, final
rule violated the Act (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 revisions to the gray wolf
listing. Therefore, the status of gray wolves outside of Minnesota and
outside of areas designated as nonessential experimental populations
reverted back to endangered (as had been the case prior to the 2003
reclassification). The courts also invalidated the three DPSs
identified in the April 1, 2003, rule as well as the associated special
regulations.
On March 27, 2006, we published a proposal (71 FR 15266-15305) to
identify a WGL DPS of the gray wolf, to remove the WGL DPS from the
protections of the Act, to remove designated critical habitat for the
gray wolf in Minnesota and Michigan, and to remove special regulations
for the gray wolf in Minnesota. The proposal was followed by a 90-day
comment period, during which we held four public hearings on the
proposal.
On February 8, 2007, we published a final rule identifying a WGL
DPS of the gray wolf, removing the WGL DPS from the protections of the
Act, removing designated critical habitat for the gray wolf in
Minnesota and Michigan, and removing special regulations for the gray
wolf in Minnesota (72 FR 6052).
On April 16, 2007, three parties filed a lawsuit against the U.S.
Department of the Interior (Department) and the Service, challenging
the Service's February 8, 2007 (72 FR 6052), identification and
delisting of the WGL DPS. The plaintiffs argued that the Service may
not identify a DPS within a broader pre-existing listed entity for the
purpose of delisting the DPS. Based on this argument, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia remanded and vacated the February 7,
2008, WGL DPS final rule (72 FR 6052). The court found that the Service
had made that decision based on its interpretation that the plain
meaning of the ESA authorizes the Service to identify and delist a DPS
within an already-listed entity. The court disagreed, and concluded
that the Act is ambiguous as to whether the Service has this authority.
The court accordingly remanded the final rule so that the Service can
provide a reasoned explanation of how its interpretation is consistent
with the text, structure, legislative history, judicial
interpretations, and policy objectives of the Act (Humane Society of
the United States v. Kempthorne, Civ. No. 07-0677, 2008 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 74495 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2008) (J. Friedman).
On December 11, 2008, we published a notice reinstating protections
for the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes and northern Rocky
Mountains pursuant to court-orders (73 FR 75356).
Please refer to the March 27, 2006, (71 FR 15266-15305) proposed
rule for further information on previous Federal actions.
Issues on Remand
In an Opinion dated September 29, 2008, the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia vacated the final rule (72 FR 6052)
(Feb. 8, 2007) identifying the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population
Segment of gray wolf and delisting that DPS. The Humane Society of the
United States v. Kempthorne, Civ. No. 07-0677, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
74495 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2008) (J. Friedman). Judge Friedman remanded
the matter to the Secretary to allow the agency to ``bring its
expertise and experience to bear on the question of whether the Act
permits it to use the DPS tool in the fashion it has proposed.'' Id. at
*40. Judge Friedman instructed that the agency must explain how the
agency's interpretation of the statute conforms to the text, structure,
and legislative history of the ESA; how the agency's interpretation is
consistent with judicial interpretations of the Act, if any; and how
the agency's interpretation serves the Act's policy objectives. Id. In
so doing, Judge Friedman did not find that the Service could not
utilize the DPS tool to simultaneously identify and delist a DPS.
Instead, Judge Friedman found that the record lacked an explanation on
this point to which he could defer under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and
afforded the agency an opportunity to respond.
While the Service acknowledges that the ESA is arguably ambiguous
on the ``precise question'' posed by the court, it notes that the
court's question does not accurately describe what we did in the Final
Rule. What we actually did, under the precise language of the Act, was
to determine, pursuant to section 4(a)(1), that gray wolves in the
Western Great Lakes area constituted a DPS and that the DPS was neither
endangered nor threatened, and then revised the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, pursuant to section 4(c)(1), to reflect those
determinations. Our conclusion is that we had clear authority to make
the determinations and the revisions. We did not delist a previously
unlisted species; rather, we revised the existing listing of a species
(the gray wolf in the lower 48 States) to reflect a determination that
a sub-part of that species (the Western Great Lakes DPS) was healthy
enough that it no longer needed the ESA's protections. Our authority to
make these determinations and to revise the list accordingly is found
in the precise language of the ESA. Moreover, even if that authority
was not clear, our interpretation of this authority to make
determinations under section 4(a)(1) and to revise the endangered and
threatened species list to reflect those determinations under section
4(c)(1) is reasonable and fully consistent with the ESA's text
structure, legislative history, relevant judicial interpretations, and
policy objectives.
By vacating the previous final rule and remanding the rulemaking to
the Service, the court required the Service to make a new final
determination on the March 27, 2006 proposed rule (71 FR 15266) on
which the vacated final rule was based. In that proposed rule, the
Service provided public notice of its consideration of identifying the
Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment of gray wolves and to
remove that DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. At
that time, the Service requested public comments on the proposal and
received 360 comments addressing a wide range of issues, including but
not limited to the Service's use of the DPS tool in the manner
proposed. Comments were received from 40 identifiable states, 5 foreign
countries, 19 preservation and conservation organizations, 16
agricultural and livestock organizations, 249 private individuals, and
6 Native American governments or organizations. All of these comments
were given meaningful consideration in the course of the Secretary
promulgating this final rule.
This final rule constitutes a new final determination on the March
27, 2006 proposed rule. It is also substantially similar to the vacated
final rule in form and substance, including the biological and
ecological basis for its conclusions. This final rule differs in that
it contains a section entitled ``Issues on Remand'' that represents the
Secretary's response to the issues raised by the Court, in consultation
with the Department of the Interior's Solicitor's Office. This section
of the final rule merely addresses the narrow legal issue within the
agency's expertise and experience--namely, whether the Secretary may
simultaneously identify and delist a currently listed species. The
section
[[Page 15076]]
entitled Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview
responds to the court's question regarding the agency's past practice
and use of DPSs.
Before issuing this final rule, we verified that no new scientific
data exist that would alter our previous analysis of the relevant facts
that serve as the basis for the Secretary's decision to identify the
Western Great Lakes DPS and the Secretary's conclusion that the Western
Great Lakes DPS should be removed from the list of threatened and
endangered species because it has recovered and no longer meets the
criteria for remaining on the list. Note that we did examine updated
monitoring data and the final Michigan plan and determined that this
new data merely supplements our existing record. The Service is simply
responding to the narrow legal issues raised by the Court.
Consequently, Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) does not require an additional period of public notice and
comment.
We consulted with the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior
to address the issue in Judge Friedman's opinion that the agency must
explain how our interpretation of the statute conforms to the text,
structure, and legislative history of the ESA; is consistent with
judicial interpretations of the Act, if any; and serves the Act's
policy objectives. On December 12, 2008, a formal opinion was issued by
the Solicitor, ``U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Authority Under Section
4(c)(1) of the Endangered Species Act to Revise Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Species to `Reflect Recent Determinations' '' (U.S. DOI
2008), which fully addresses these issues. The Service fully agrees
with the analysis and conclusions set out in the Solicitor's opinion.
This action is consistent with the opinion. The complete text of the
Solicitor's opinion can be found at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/.
Geographical Area of the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population
Segment
The geographical area of the WGL DPS is shown in Figure 1, below,
and is described as all of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; the
portion of North Dakota north and east of the Missouri River upstream
to Lake Sakakawea and east of the centerline of Highway 83 from Lake
Sakakawea to the Canadian border; the portion of South Dakota north and
east of the Missouri River; the portions of Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana
north of the centerline of Interstate Highway 80; and the portion of
Ohio north of the centerline of Interstate Highway 80 and west of the
Maumee River at Toledo.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 15077]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02AP09.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview
Pursuant to the Act, we consider if information is sufficient to
indicate that listing, reclassifying, or delisting any species,
subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa may be
warranted. To interpret and implement the DPS provision of the Act and
congressional guidance, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) published a policy regarding the identification of
distinct vertebrate population segments under the Act (61 FR 4722,
February 7, 1996). Under this policy, two factors are considered in a
decision regarding the potential identification of a DPS and then a
final factor is considered regarding the listing, reclassification, or
delisting of the DPS. The first two factors determine whether the
population segment is a valid DPS--(1) discreteness of the population
segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon, and (2) the
significance of the population segment to the taxon to which it
belongs. If a population meets both tests, it can be identified as a
DPS. Then the third factor, the population segment's conservation
status, is evaluated in relation to the Act's standards for listing,
delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is the DPS endangered or
threatened).
Agency's Past Practice and History of Using DPSs
Of the over 370 native vertebrate ``species'' listed under the Act,
77 are listed as less than an entire taxonomic species or subspecies
(henceforth referred to as populations) under one of several
authorities including the DPS language in the definition of
``species''. Of these 77 listed populations, 32 predate the 1996 DPS
policy (61 FR 4722); therefore, the final listing determinations for
these populations did not include formal DPS analyses per the 1996 DPS
policy. Specifically, the 77 populations encompass 51 different species
or subspecies. During the history of the Act, the Service and NMFS have
taken actions with respect
[[Page 15078]]
to populations in 98 listing, reclassification, and delisting actions.
The majority of those actions identified a classification other than a
taxonomically recognized species or subspecies at the time of listing.
In several instances, however, the agencies have identified a DPS and,
as appropriate, revised the list of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife
in a single action. For example, we (1) established a DPS of the
grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) for the Greater Yellowstone Area
and surrounding area, within the existing listing of the grizzly bear
in the lower 48 States, and removed this DPS from the List of
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (March 29, 2007; 72 FR 14865); (2)
established two DPSs of the Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus leucurus): the Douglas County DPS and the Columbia River
DPS; and removed the Douglas County DPS from the List of Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife (July 24, 2003; 68 FR 43647); (3) removed the brown
pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) in the Southeastern United States from
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and continued to
identify the brown pelican as endangered throughout the remainder of
its range (February 4, 1985; 50 FR 4938); (4) identified the American
crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in Florida as a DPS within the existing
endangered listing of the American crocodile in the United States and
reclassified the Florida DPS from endangered to threatened (March 20,
2007; 71 FR 13027); and (5) amended the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants by revising the entry for the gray whale
(Eschrichtius robustus) to remove the eastern North Pacific population
from the List while retaining the western North Pacific population as
endangered (June 16, 1994; 59 FR 31094)). We also proposed in 2000 to
identify four DPSs within the existing listing of the gray wolf in the
lower 48 States and to reclassify three of the DPSs from endangered to
threatened (July 13, 2000; 65 FR 43450). As described above under
``Previous Federal Action,'' the final rule we issued in 2003
identified three gray wolf DPSs and reclassified two of the DPSs from
endangered to threatened (April 1, 2003; 68 FR 15804). Although courts
subsequently invalidated these DPSs, they did not question the
Service's authority to identify and reclassify DPSs within a larger
pre-existing listing. Identifying and delisting the Western Great Lakes
DPS of gray wolves is consistent with the Service's past practice and
does not represent a change in agency position.
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 of the following
conditions--(1) it is markedly separated from other populations of the
same taxon 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 Act.
Markedly Separated From Other Populations of the Taxon--The western
boundary of the WGL DPS 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 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 the 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. 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.
Similar movements from the NRM wolf population into the WGL DPS are
unknown and are expected to happen infrequently. The 2006 Sturgis,
South Dakota, wolf is the closest that an NRM wolf has come to entering
the WGL DPS (Fain in litt. 2006). However, the Sturgis wolf still had
over 300 mi (500 km) to travel before it would encounter the nearest
WGL DPS wolf pack. 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 between the Western Great Lakes and the Northern Rocky
Mountains satisfies the discreteness criterion. Similarly, we feel it
is unlikely for wolves to cross the eastern boundary into the
Laurentian Mixed Habitat Province of New York, Pennsylvania, and New
England due to inhospitable conditions.
Delimited by International Boundaries with Significant Management
Differences Between the U.S. 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 28, 2006, through March 31, 2007 (Manitoba Conservation 2006a).
Trapping wolves is allowed province-wide except in and immediately
around Riding Mountain National Park (southwestern Manitoba), with a
current season running from October 14, 2006, through February 28 or
March 31, 2007 (varies with trapping zone) (Manitoba Conservation
2006b). 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 MNR
2005a, pp. 7-9). 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 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 WGL DPS boundary
satisfies both conditions that can be used to demonstrate discreteness
of a potential DPS.
[[Page 15079]]
Analysis for Significance
If we determine that a population segment is discrete, we next
consider available scientific evidence of its significance to the taxon
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
WGL wolf DPS and thus are not included in our analysis for
significance.
Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting--Wolves within the 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 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, nor do we
expect wolves from the WGL DPS to move into them due to the vast
distance between these two areas and inhospitable terrain they would
need to traverse. Therefore, WGL wolves represent the only wolf packs
in the United States occupying this province. Furthermore, WGL wolves
represent the only use by gray wolf packs 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 (``the loss of the discrete population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of the taxon'' (61 FR 4725)). 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. The recovered Western Great Lakes wolf metapopulation
is the only wolf population in the conterminous States east of the
Rocky Mountains except for the red wolves being restored along the
Atlantic Coast and currently holds about 80 percent of North American
gray wolves that occur south of Canada.
Discrete Vertebrate Population Segment Conclusion
We conclude, based on our review of the best available scientific
data, that the WGL DPS is discrete from other wolf populations as a
result of physical separation and the international border with Canada.
The DPS is significant to the taxon to which it belongs because it
contains the only populations 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 gray wolves in the conterminous
States. Therefore, we have determined that this population segment of
wolves satisfies the discreteness and significance criteria required to
identify it as a DPS. The evaluation of the appropriate conservation
status for the WGL DPS is found below.
Delineating the WGL Gray Wolf DPS
In contrast to a species or a subspecies, a DPS is a biological
population that is delineated by a boundary that is based on something
other than established taxonomic distinctions. Therefore, the starting
point for delineating a DPS is the biological population or
metapopulation, and a geographical delineation of the DPS must
reasonably represent the population/metapopulation and its biological
characteristics.
To delineate the boundary of the WGL DPS, we considered the current
distribution of wolves in the Midwest and the characteristic movements
of those wolves and of gray wolves elsewhere. We examined the available
scientific data on long-distance movements, including long-distance
movements followed by return movements to the vicinity of the natal
pack. We concluded that wolf behavior and the nature of wolf
populations require that we include within the area of the DPS some
subset of known long-distance movement locations. However, as described
below, wolf biology and common sense argue against the inclusion within
the DPS boundary of all known or potential long-distance movements.
This analysis resulted in a WGL DPS boundary that is shown in
Figure 1. As discussed below, this DPS has been delineated to include
the core recovered wolf population plus a wolf movement zone around the
core wolf populations. This geographic delineation is not intended to
include all areas to which wolves have moved from the Great Lakes
population. Rather, it includes the area currently occupied by wolf
packs in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; 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 Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan wolves
occasionally move but where persistent packs are not expected to be
established because suitable habitat is rare and exists only as small
patches. The area surrounding the core wolf populations includes the
locations of most known dispersers from the core populations,
especially the shorter and medium-distance movements from which wolves
are most likely to return to the core areas and contribute to the
recovered wolf population.
The WGL areas that are regularly occupied by wolf packs are well
documented in Minnesota (Erb and Benson 2004, p. 12, fig. 3), Wisconsin
(Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 33, fig. 1), and the UP of Michigan
(Huntzinger et al. 2005, pp. 25-27, figs. 4-6). Wolves have
successfully colonized most, perhaps all, suitable habitat in
Minnesota. Minnesota data from the winter of 2003-04 indicate that wolf
numbers and density either have continued to increase slowly or have
stabilized since 1997-98, and there was no expansion of occupied range
in the State (Erb and Benson 2004, p. 7). Wisconsin wolves now occupy
most habitat areas believed to have a high probability of wolf
occurrence except for some areas of northeastern Wisconsin, and the
State's wolf population continues to annually increase in numbers and,
to a lesser degree, in area (Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 33). The UP of
Michigan has wolf packs throughout, although the current population
remains well below the estimated biological carrying capacity
(Mladenoff et al. 1997, pp. 25-27, and
[[Page 15080]]
figs. 5 & 7) and will likely continue to increase in numbers in the UP
for at least several more years.
When delineating the WGL DPS
