Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife for the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus, 26086-26145 [2011-9557]
Download as PDF
26086
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2011–0029;
92220–1113–000; ABC Code: C6]
RIN 1018–AX57
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Proposed Rule To Revise
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife for the Gray Wolf (Canis
lupus) in the Eastern United States,
Initiation of Status Reviews for the
Gray Wolf and for the Eastern Wolf
(Canis lycaon)
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule, initiation of
status reviews.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) are
re-evaluating the listing of the
Minnesota population of gray wolves
(Canis lupus) and propose to revise it to
conform to current statutory and policy
requirements. We propose to identify
the Minnesota population as a Western
Great Lakes (WGL) Distinct Population
Segment (DPS) of the gray wolf and to
remove this DPS from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
We propose these actions because the
best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the WGL DPS
does not meet the definitions of
threatened or endangered under the Act.
This proposed rule, if made final,
would remove the currently designated
critical habitat for the gray wolf in
Minnesota and Michigan and the
current special regulations for gray
wolves in Minnesota. We also propose
to revise the range of the gray wolf (the
species C. lupus) by removing all or
parts of 29 eastern states that we now
recognize were not part of the historical
range of the gray wolf. New information
indicates that these areas should not
have been included in the original
listing of the gray wolf.
In this proposed rule, we recognize
recent taxonomic information indicating
that the gray wolf subspecies Canis
lupus lycaon should be elevated to the
full species C. lycaon. Given that a
complete status review of this newly
recognized species has never been
conducted, we are initiating a
rangewide review of the conservation
status of C. lycaon in the United States
and Canada. This rule also constitutes
the initiation of our five-year review of
the status of gray wolves under section
4(c)(2) of the Act, as well as the
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
initiation of status reviews specific to
gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest
and Mexican wolves in the Southwest
United States and Mexico.
DATES: Comment submission: We will
accept comments received or
postmarked on or before July 5, 2011.
Public hearings: We will hold two
public hearings on this proposed rule
scheduled on May 18, 2011 and on June
8, 2011. Informational meetings will be
held from 6 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., followed
by the public hearings from 7:30 p.m. to
9 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You
may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Enter
Keyword or ID box, enter FWS–R3–ES–
2011–0029, which is the docket number
for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search
panel at the top of the screen, under the
Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rules link to locate this
document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’
By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or
hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R3–ES–2011–
0029; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
Public hearings: We have scheduled
an informational meeting followed by a
public hearing in Ashland, Wisconsin,
on May 18, 2011, at the Northern Great
Lakes Center, 29270 County Highway G.
We have scheduled an informational
meeting followed by a public hearing in
Augusta, Maine, on June 8, 2011, at the
Augusta Civic Center, 16 Cony Street.
See the Public Hearings section below
for more details.
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 Web site at https://
www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf. Individuals
who are hearing-impaired or speechimpaired may call the Federal Relay
Service at 1–800–877–8337 for TTY
assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Public Comments
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposal will be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, comments, new information,
or suggestions from the public, other
concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any
other interested party concerning this
proposed rule are hereby solicited. In
particular, we are seeking targeted
information and comments on our
national wolf strategy and our proposed
revision of the Minnesota listing; see
items (1)-(2) below. Also, as part of this
proposed rule we are announcing
initiation of a 5-year status review for C.
lupus in the conterminous United States
and Mexico; initiation of status reviews
specific to, respectively, gray wolves in
the Pacific Northwest and in the
Southwest United States and Mexico;
and initiation of a status review for C.
lycaon throughout its range in the
United States and Canada. For these
status reviews to be complete and based
on the best available scientific and
commercial information, we request
information on items (9)–(11) below
from governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, and any other
interested parties.
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant information concerning
our analysis of the current gray wolf
listing and the adequacy of our national
wolf strategy, with particular respect to
our recommended gray wolf listing
units (i.e., taxonomic or population
units);
(2) Information that forms the basis
for revising the currently listed
Minnesota group of gray wolves under
section 4(c) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), with particular
respect to the factors in section 4(a) of
the Act, which are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any
current or likely future threat, or lack
thereof, to wolves in the WGL DPS;
(4) Additional information concerning
the range, distribution, population size,
population trends, and threats with
respect to wolves in the WGL DPS;
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(5) Current or planned activities in the
WGL DPS and their possible impacts on
the wolves and their habitat;
(6) Information concerning the
adequacy of the recovery criteria
described in the 1992 Recovery Plan for
the Eastern Timber Wolf;
(7) The extent and adequacy of
Federal, state, and Tribal protection and
management that would be provided to
wolves in the WGL DPS as delisted
species; and
(8) The proposed geographic
boundaries of the WGL DPS, and
scientific and legal supporting
information for alternative boundaries
that might result in a larger or smaller
DPS, including information on the
discreteness and significance of the
proposed DPS.
(9) New information concerning the
biology and conservation of the gray
wolf in the conterminous United States
and Mexico that may be informative to
the 5-year status review of Canis lupus,
with particular attention to the listing
units described under (1) above,
including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range
including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
(e) Historical, current, and projected
levels of suitable gray wolf habitat;
(f) Past, ongoing, and emerging threats
to extant gray wolf populations, their
habitat, or both; and
(g) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for the gray wolf, its habitat,
or both.
(10) Information concerning the status
of the gray wolf in the Pacific Northwest
United States and the gray wolf
subspecies baileyi (Mexican wolf) in the
Southwest United States and Mexico,
including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range
including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
(e) Historical, current, and projected
levels of suitable habitat;
(f) Past, ongoing, and emerging threats
to these populations, their habitat, or
both; and
(g) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for these populations, their
habitat, or both.
(11) Information concerning the
biology, range, and population trends of
Canis lycaon, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range
including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
(e) Historical, current, and projected
levels of suitable habitat;
(f) Past, ongoing, and emerging threats
to extant populations, their habitat, or
both;
(g) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for the species, its habitat, or
both; and
(h) The potential role that any portion
of the historical range of the C. lycaon
in the United States may play in the
persistence and viability of the species.
You may submit your comments and
materials by one of the methods listed
in ADDRESSES. We will not accept
comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an
address not listed in ADDRESSES.
Comments must be submitted to http:
//www.regulations.gov before midnight
(Eastern Daylight Time) on the date
specified in DATES. Finally, we will not
consider hand-delivered comments that
we do not receive, or mailed comments
that are not postmarked, by the date
specified in DATES.
We will post your entire comment—
including your personal identifying
information—on https://
www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information, such
as your street address, phone number, or
e-mail address, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold
this information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS–R3–ES–2011–0029, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the following Ecological
Services offices:
• Twin Cities, Minnesota Ecological
Services Field Office, 4101 American
Blvd. E., Bloomington, MN; 612–725–
3548.
• Green Bay, Wisconsin Ecological
Services Field Office, 2661 Scott Tower
Dr., New Franken, WI; 920–866–1717.
• East Lansing, Michigan Ecological
Services Field Office, 2651 Coolidge
Road, Suite 101, East Lansing, MI; 517–
351–2555.
• New England Ecological Services
Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 70 Commercial St., Suite 300,
Concord, NH; 603–223–2541.
Public Hearings
We have scheduled an informational
meeting followed by a public hearing in
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26087
Ashland, Wisconsin, on May 18, 2011,
at the Northern Great Lakes Center,
29270 County Highway G. The
informational meeting will be held from
6 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., followed by a public
hearing from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.
A second informational meeting
followed by a public hearing will be
held in Augusta, Maine, on June 8,
2011, at the Augusta Civic Center, 16
Cony Street. The informational meeting
will be held from 6 p.m. to 7:15 p.m.,
followed by a public hearing from 7:30
p.m. to 9 p.m.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy,
‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered
Species Act Activities,’’ which was
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we will seek the expert opinion
of at least three appropriate
independent specialists regarding
scientific data and interpretations
contained in this proposed rule. The
purpose of such review is to ensure that
our decisions are based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analysis.
We will send copies of this proposed
rule to the peer reviewers immediately
following publication in the Federal
Register.
Background
National Overview
Below we provide an overview of our
proposed national approach to recovery
of wolves in the conterminous United
States and Mexico. This overview
provides the context for our proposed
actions for wolves in the eastern United
States. In this overview, we discuss the
listing history for the gray wolf, evaluate
the current gray wolf listing, present the
structured decision-making process we
have used to date to formulate our
national wolf strategy, and describe the
strategy itself.
Gray Wolf Listing History
Here we present a brief overview of
previous Federal actions relating to the
listing of gray wolves and the recovery
plans that have been developed
pursuant to these listing actions.
Additional Federal actions for western
Great Lakes wolves are discussed in
Previous Federal Actions for WGL
Wolves below.
Gray wolves were originally listed as
subspecies or as regional populations of
subspecies in the conterminous United
States and Mexico. In 1967, we listed
the eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus
lycaon) in the Great Lakes region (32 FR
4001, March 11, 1967), and in 1973 we
listed C. l. irremotus in the northern
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26088
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Rocky Mountains (38 FR 14678, June 4,
1973). Both listings were promulgated
under the Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1969; subsequently,
on January 4, 1974, these subspecies
were listed under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (39 FR 1171). We
listed a third gray wolf subspecies, the
Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi) as
endangered on April 28, 1976 (41 FR
17740), in the southwestern United
States and Mexico. On June 14, 1976 (41
FR 24064), we listed the Texas gray wolf
subspecies (C. l. monstrabilis) as
endangered in Texas and Mexico.
In 1978, we published a rule (43 FR
9607, March 9, 1978) reclassifying the
gray wolf as an endangered population
at the species level (C. lupus)
throughout the conterminous 48 States
and Mexico, except for the Minnesota
gray wolf population, which was
classified as threatened. At that time, we
considered the Minnesota group of gray
wolves to be a listable entity under the
Act, and we considered the gray wolf
group in Mexico and the 48
conterminous States other than
Minnesota to be another listable entity
(43 FR 9607, 9610, respectively, March
9, 1978). This reclassification was
undertaken because of uncertainty about
the taxonomic validity of some of the
previously listed subspecies and
because we recognized that wolf
populations were historically
connected, and that subspecies
boundaries were thus malleable.
However, the 1978 rule also stated
that ‘‘biological subspecies would
continue to be maintained and dealt
with as separate entities’’ (43 FR 9609),
and offered ‘‘the firmest assurance that
[the Service] will continue to recognize
valid biological subspecies for purposes
of its research and conservation
programs’’ (43 FR 9610, March 9, 1978).
Accordingly, recovery plans were
developed for the wolf populations in
the following regions of the United
States: the northern Rocky Mountains in
1980, revised in 1987; the Great Lakes
in 1978, revised in 1992; and the
Southwest in 1982, the revision of
which is now underway.
More detail on previous Federal
actions for the Southwest and northern
Rocky Mountains wolves is provided,
respectively, within the 90-day finding
for Mexican wolves (75 FR 46894) and
in various notices and rulemakings for
the management of northern Rocky
Mountains wolves (59 FR 60252,
November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60266,
November 22, 1994; 68 FR 15804, April
1, 2003; 68 FR 15879, April 1, 2003; 70
FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 71 FR 6634,
February 8, 2006; 71 FR 43410, August
1, 2006; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
did so to a limited extent, primarily at
somewhat higher elevations (Nowak
1995). The southeastern and midAtlantic States were generally
recognized as being within the historical
range of the red wolf (Canis rufus), and
Evaluation of the 1978 Gray Wolf
it is not known how much range overlap
Listing
historically occurred between the two
The Service now considers the 1978
Canis species. Morphological work by
Canis lupus listing rule at 43 FR 9607
Nowak (2000, 2002, 2003) supported
to be in need of revision. This need has
extending the historical range of the red
been identified based on our review of
wolf into southern New England or even
the best available taxonomic
farther northward, indicating either that
information, which indicates that C.
the historical range of the gray wolf in
lupus historically did not occupy large
the eastern United States was more
portions of the eastern United States
limited than previously believed, or that
and on our reconsideration of the listing the respective ranges of several wolf
in light of current statutory and policy
species expanded and contracted in the
requirements under the Act. These
eastern and northeastern United States,
considerations are discussed in turn
intermingling in post-glacial times along
below.
contact zones.
The results of recent molecular
Taxonomy and Historical Ranges of
genetic analyses (e.g., Wilson et al.
Wolves in the United States
2000, Wilson et al. 2003, Wheeldon and
Our review of the best available
White 2009, Wilson et al. 2009, Fain et
taxonomic information indicates that
al. 2010, Wheeldon et al. 2010) and
Canis lupus did not occupy large
morphometric studies (e.g., Nowak
portions of the eastern United States:
1995, 2000, 2002, 2003) explain some of
i.e., the northeastern United States was
the past difficulties in establishing the
occupied by the eastern wolf (C.
gray wolf’s range in the eastern United
lycaon), now considered a separate
States. These studies show that the midspecies of Canis rather than a subspecies Atlantic and southeastern United States
of lupus, and the southeastern United
historically were occupied by the red
States was occupied by the red wolf
wolf (C. rufus), and that New England
(Canis rufus) rather than the gray wolf.
and portions of the upper Midwest
Our review of North American wolf
(eastern and western Great Lakes
taxonomy also suggests that changes in
regions) historically were occupied by
listing classification are warranted in
C. lycaon; they also indicate that the
other portions of the country.
gray wolf (C. lupus) did not occur in the
At the time the gray wolf was listed
eastern United States.
in 1978, and until the molecular
Based on these recent studies, we
genetics studies of the last few years, the view the historical range of the gray
range of the gray wolf prior to European wolf as the central and western United
settlement was generally believed to
States, including portions of the western
include most of North America. The
Great Lakes region, the Great Plains,
only areas that were believed to have
portions of the Rocky Mountains, the
lacked gray wolf populations were the
Intermountain West, the Pacific
coastal and interior portions of
Northwest, and portions of the
California, the arid deserts and
Southwest. All or parts of 29 southern
mountaintops of the western United
and eastern States (Maine,
States, and parts of the eastern and
Massachusetts, Connecticut, New
southeastern United States (Young and
Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Goldman 1944, Hall 1981, Mech 1974,
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
and Nowak 1995). We note, however,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
that some authorities have questioned
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
the reported historical absence of gray
Florida, Ohio (the part outside WGL
wolves in parts of California (Carbyn in
DPS), West Virginia, Kentucky,
litt. 2000, Mech in litt. 2000).
Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi,
Furthermore, we note long-held
Louisiana, Texas (east of Interstate
differences of opinion regarding the
Highway 35), Oklahoma (east of
precise boundary of the gray wolf’s
Interstate Highway 35 and southeast of
historical range in the eastern and
Interstate Highway 44 north of
southeastern United States. Some
Oklahoma City), Arkansas, Missouri
researchers regarded Georgia’s
(southeast of Interstate Highway 44 and
southeastern corner as the southern
southeast of Interstate Highway 70 east
extent of gray wolf range (Young and
of St. Louis), Indiana (the part outside
Goldman 1944, Mech 1974); others
WGL DPS), and Illinois (the part outside
believed gray wolves did not extend
WGL DPS)) were not within the gray
into the Southeast at all (Hall 1981) or
wolf’s historical range.
73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR
15123, April 2, 2009) . Further detail on
previous Federal actions related to the
WGL DPS is provided in Previous
Federal Actions for WGL Wolves below.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
In sum, we now recognize three wolf
species with ranges in the conterminous
United States: Canis lupus, Canis
lycaon, and Canis rufus. The ranges of
C. lupus and C. lycaon overlap in the
western Great Lakes region, as discussed
in Taxonomy of Wolves in the Western
Great Lakes Region below; however, in
the eastern United States, the historical
range of C. lupus is considered to fall
outside the historical ranges of C. lycaon
and C. rufus.
Conformance With the Act’s Definition
of Species
Given the assurances we provided in
the 1978 C. lupus listing that we would
continue to treat gray wolf subspecies as
separate entities for conservation
purposes (as noted in Gray Wolf Listing
History, above), we identified a need to
reconsider the listing in light of current
statutory and policy standards regarding
the Act’s definition of species. The Act
provides for listing at various taxonomic
and subtaxonomic levels through its
definition of ‘‘species’’ in section 3(16):
The term species includes any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants,
and any distinct population segment of
any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature (16
U.S.C. 1532(16) (italics added). As a
matter of procedure, then, the Service
determines whether it is most
appropriate to list an entity as a full
species, a subspecies, or a DPS of either
a species or subspecies. The gray wolf
has a Holarctic range; the current listing
encompasses the United States-Mexico
segment of the population and consists,
in turn, of multiple entities.
The specific provision for listing
distinct population segments of
vertebrates was enacted through the
1978 Amendments to the Act (Pub. L.
95–362, November 10, 1978); these
amendments replaced the ability to list
‘‘populations’’ with the ability to list
‘‘distinct population segments’’ and treat
them as species under the Act. To
interpret and implement the 1978 DPS
amendment, the Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service
jointly published the Policy Regarding
the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
Population Segments Under the
Endangered Species Act (DPS policy)
(61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), setting
policy standards for designating
populations as ‘‘distinct.’’
The March 1978 gray wolf listing
predated the November 1978
amendments to the Act. Although the
1978 rule lists two C. lupus entities, i.e.,
the endangered and threatened entities
described above, these listings were not
predicated upon a formal DPS analysis
and do not comport with current policy
standards. Nonetheless, subsequent
recovery plans and all gray wolf
rulemakings since 1996 have focused on
units reflective of the evident intent of
the 1978 rule to manage and recover
gray wolves as ‘‘separate entities’’ (43 FR
9609), i.e., subspecies or populations.
This proposed rule and our proposed
National Wolf Strategy, below,
constitute an effort to bring the 1978
listing in line, insofar as possible, with
the Act’s requirements and current
policy standards.
Structured Decision-Making for Wolves
In 2008, the Service embarked on a
structured decision-making process as a
means of developing a more integrated
and comprehensive strategy for gray
wolf conservation in the lower 48 States
and Mexico. The overall intent of the
process was to identify appropriate wolf
entities (i.e., listing units) for full status
review, anticipating that such review
would lead to either confirmation or
revision of the existing gray wolf listing.
We aimed to identify a coherent set of
listing units based on best available
scientific and commercial information,
conformance with existing regulatory
and policy requirements, and
fundamental wolf management
objectives.
We first conducted several iterations
of the process in an internal Service
effort to develop a viable framework for
considering the scientific and policy
questions that drive decision-making for
wolves. The resulting framework
incorporated decision analysis
principles and techniques for crafting
alternative listing units and then
assessing the relative performance of
each alternative in terms of achieving
management objectives.
Management of wolves is shared
among the Service, States, and Tribes.
Thus, following our development of a
satisfactory decision-making framework,
representatives from several States
involved with gray wolf conservation
joined us to further explore alternative
units that could qualify for future status
review (Tribal representatives declined
to participate). After acquainting state
participants with the decision-making
framework, we convened a State-Federal
workshop in August 2010 to generate
and assess alternative taxonomic and
population units at various scales and in
various configurations, including the
1978 listing as the status quo
alternative.
Workshop participants also explored
the different values that drive wolf
decision-making; these values were
expressed as the following fundamental
management objectives: (1) Promote and
sustain wolf recovery; (2) comply with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26089
the requirements of the Act; (3)
minimize the regulatory burden on
States, Tribes, and the general public;
(4) facilitate State and Tribal
management of wolves; (5) minimize
wolf-human conflicts; and (6) promote
public acceptance of wolf listing and
recovery actions.
Workshop outcomes provided
important input to our continuing effort
to formulate a comprehensive vision of
wolf conservation. Based on further
Service deliberations, this
comprehensive vision has evolved into
the proposed national wolf strategy
discussed below. It is important to note
that this strategy is a broad outline, the
components of which are in various
stages of execution.
National Wolf Strategy
The Service’s national wolf strategy is
intended to: (1) Lay out a cohesive and
coherent approach to addressing wolf
conservation needs, including
protection and management, in
accordance with the Act’s statutory
framework; (2) ensure that actions taken
for one wolf population do not cause
unintended consequences for other
populations; and (3) be explicit about
the role of historical range in the
conservation of extant wolf populations.
The strategy is based on three
precepts. First, in order to qualify for
any type of listing or delisting action,
wolf entities must conform to the Act’s
definition of ‘‘species,’’ whether as
taxonomic species or subspecies or as
distinct population segments. Second,
the strategy promotes the continued
representation in this country of all
substantially unique genetic lineages
found historically in the lower 48
States. Third, wolf conservation under
the Act is concerned with reducing
extinction risks to imperiled entities;
the strategy thus focuses on
conservation of the four extant gray wolf
entities identified through the
structured decision-making process and
being considered for section 4 actions:
(1) The western Great Lakes population,
(2) the northern Rocky Mountains
(NRM) population, (3) gray wolves in
the Pacific Northwest, and (4) the
Southwestern population of Mexican
wolves.
Various reviews and listing actions
are underway for these gray wolf
populations. The WGL DPS is proposed
for delisting in the proposed rule being
published in today’s Federal Register.
With regard to the NRM gray wolf
population, Congress is considering
legislation that would direct us to
reissue our 2009 final rule (74 FR 15123,
April 2, 2009), that delisted the NRM
DPS in the States of Idaho and Montana,
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26090
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and in portions of Oregon, Washington,
and Utah. This rule retained ESA
protections of wolves in Wyoming as
non-essential experimental. If passed,
we would publish a separate notice in
the Federal Register. Negotiations
regarding potential future post-delisting
wolf management in Wyoming are
ongoing.
The biological and conservation status
of wolves in the Pacific Northwest (we
are considering this to be the area west
of the NRM gray wolf population,
including portions of Oregon,
Washington, northern California, and
western Nevada) is being assessed to
determine their appropriate listing
classification. When this review is
completed, we will evaluate a potential
Pacific Northwest DPS in accordance
with our DPS policy and will reclassify
this population as appropriate through
an additional rulemaking process. The
status of the Southwestern population
(i.e., Mexican wolves within their
historical range) is being reviewed
pursuant to our 90-day finding on two
listing petitions (75 FR 46894, August 4,
2010). We anticipate that the
Southwestern population will be
proposed for listing as either the
subspecies C. l. baileyi or as a DPS of
C. lupus; in the meantime, recovery
planning will continue to proceed for
these wolves.
As separate actions move forward for
the NRM, Pacific Northwest, and
Southwest, wolves in these regions will
retain their current classification as
endangered, except where delisted and
where currently listed as non-essential
experimental populations (see 50 CFR
17.84(k)). We plan to move forward with
a rulemaking to replace the remainder of
the 1978 listing with more targeted
regional units, as appropriate,
concurrently with publication of the
final rule for the WGL DPS.
It is likely that revision of the 1978
gray wolf listing into finer-scale
taxonomic or population units will
result in removal of the Act’s
protections in areas of the historical C.
lupus range, such as the Great Plains
States and areas of the western States,
that do not support extant wolf
populations and do not play a role in
the recovery of any of the four gray wolf
entities. Although some of these areas
are within the species’ historical range,
these areas lack sufficient suitable
habitat for wolf pack persistence. Thus,
we believe recovery in these areas is
both unrealistic and unnecessary. We
note, however, that such areas would
not necessarily be precluded from wolf
conservation efforts under other
authorities, e.g., Tribes, States, and
Federal land management agencies.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Our national wolf strategy also
addresses the two other wolf taxa that
fall within the range described for Canis
lupus in the 1978 listing, C. lycaon and
C. rufus. With regard to Canis lycaon,
we are announcing a rangewide status
review of this species, which occurs in
Canada and the western Great Lakes
region of the United States. The
historical range of C. lycaon also
extends into the northeastern United
States, which the 1978 listing
inaccurately treated as part of the range
of C. lupus. The role of the Northeast
region in conservation of C. lycaon will
be considered in the rangewide review,
which will look at the status of extant
populations in terms of uniqueness,
demography, and extinction risks. A
determination as to whether to proceed
with any C. lycaon listing action—and,
if listing is warranted, whether or not to
include the northeastern United States
in the listed range—will depend on the
results of the status review. Notification
of our intentions with regard to C.
lycaon will be provided in conjunction
with publication of the final rule for the
WGL DPS. Meanwhile, we propose to
revise the range of the gray wolf (the
species C. lupus) by removing all or
parts of 29 eastern states that we now
recognize were not part of the historical
range of the gray wolf. New information
indicates that these areas should not
have been included in the original
listing of the gray wolf. These States are
specified under Taxonomy and
Historical Ranges of Wolves in the
United States, above.
Finally, with regard to Canis rufus, we
propose to remove the southeastern
states included in the 1978 gray wolf
listing from the List due to error,
because we now recognize were not part
of the historical range of the gray wolf.
These states instead constitute the range
of Canis rufus; see Taxonomy and
Historical Ranges of Wolves in the
United States, above. Red wolves
currently are listed as endangered where
found (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967);
this listing will be retained and recovery
efforts for red wolves will continue as
warranted (Red Wolf Recovery and
Species Survival Plan; Service 1990).
Five-Year Review of Gray Wolves
Under section 4(c)(2) of the Act, we
have a duty to review listed species’
status every 5 years and determine
whether a change in listing status is
appropriate. We announce initiation of
the 5-year review for the gray wolf in
this rule and seek new information as
requested in Public Comments above.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Western Great Lakes Wolves
Previous Federal Actions for WGL
Wolves
The eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus
lycaon) was listed as endangered in
Minnesota and Michigan in the first list
of species that were protected under the
1973 Act, published in May 1974 (USDI
1974). On March 9, 1978, we published
a rule (43 FR 9607) reclassifying the
gray wolf at the species level (Canis
lupus) as endangered throughout the
conterminous 48 States and Mexico,
except for the Minnesota population,
which we classified to threatened. The
separate subspecies listings, including
C. l. lycaon, thus were subsumed into
the listings for the gray wolf in
Minnesota and the gray wolf in the rest
of the conterminous United States and
Mexico. In that 1978 rule, we also
identified Isle Royale National Park,
Michigan, and Minnesota wolf
management zones 1, 2, and 3, as
critical habitat. We also promulgated
special regulations under section 4(d) of
the Act for operating a wolf
management program in Minnesota at
that time. The depredation control
portion of the special regulation was
later modified (50 FR 50793; December
12, 1985); these special regulations are
found in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(2).
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 DPSs for the gray wolf (see Gray
Wolf Listing History, above), including
an Eastern DPS, which was reclassified
from endangered to threatened, except
where already classified as threatened.
In addition, we established a second
section 4(d) rule that applied provisions
similar to those previously in effect in
Minnesota to most of the Eastern DPS.
The special rule was codified in 50 CFR
17.40(o).
U.S. District Court rulings in Oregon
and Vermont on January 31, 2005, and
August 19, 2005, respectively,
invalidated the April 1, 2003, final rule.
Consequently, the status of gray wolves
outside of Minnesota reverted back to
endangered status, 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
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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, the Service
issued a rule that identified and delisted
the WGL DPS of the gray wolf (Canis
lupus) (72 FR 6052). Three parties
challenged this rule (Humane Society of
the United States v. Kempthorne, 579 F.
Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008)), and on
September 29, 2008, the court ruled in
favor of the plaintiffs and vacated the
rule and remanded it to the Service. 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.
The court’s primary question was
whether the Service has the authority to
identify a DPS within a larger alreadylisted entity and, in the same decision,
determine the DPS does not warrant the
Act’s protections even though the other
populations of the species retain the old
listing status. Our authority to make
these determinations and to revise the
list accordingly is a reasonable
interpretation of the language of the Act,
and our ability to do so is an important
component of the Service’s program for
the conservation of threatened and
endangered species.
Our authority to revise the existing
listing of a species (the gray wolf in
Minnesota and the gray wolf in the
lower 48 States and Mexico, excluding
Minnesota) to identify a Western Great
Lakes DPS and determine that it is
healthy enough that it no longer needs
the Act’s protections is found in the
precise language of the Act. Moreover,
even if that authority were 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
Act’s text, structure, legislative history,
relevant judicial interpretations, and
policy objectives.
We consulted with the Solicitor of the
Department of the Interior to address the
issue in the court’s opinion. 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). The Service fully agrees with
the analysis and conclusions set out in
the Solicitor’s opinion. This proposed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
action is consistent with the opinion.
The complete text of the Solicitor’s
opinion can be found at https://
www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/.
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).
On April 2, 2009, we published a final
rule identifying the western Great Lakes
populations of gray wolves as a DPS and
revising the list of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife by removing the
DPS from that list (74 FR 15070). We
did not seek additional public comment
on the 2009 final rule. On June 15, 2009,
five parties filed a complaint against the
Department and the Service alleging
that we violated the Act, the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
and the court’s remand order by
publishing the 2009 final rule (74 FR
15070). On July 2, 2009, pursuant to a
settlement agreement between the
parties, the court issued an order
remanding and vacating the 2009 final
rule.
On March 1, 2000, we received a
petition from Mr. Lawrence Krak of
Gilman, Wisconsin, and on June 28,
2000, we received a petition from the
Minnesota Conservation Federation. Mr.
Krak’s petition requested the delisting of
gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin,
and Michigan. The Minnesota
Conservation Federation requested the
delisting of gray wolves in a Western
Great Lakes DPS. Because the data
reviews resulting from the processing of
these petitions would be a subset of the
review begun by our July 13, 2000,
proposal (65 FR 43450) to revise the
current listing of the wolf across most of
the conterminous United States, we did
not initiate separate reviews in response
to those two petitions. While we
addressed these petitions in our
February 8, 2007, final rule (72 FR
6052), this rule was vacated by the
subsequent District Court ruling. While
we view our actions on these petitions
as final upon publication of the Federal
Register determinations, we
nevertheless restate our 90-day findings
that the action requested by each of the
petitions may be warranted, as well as
our 12-month finding that the action
requested by each petition is warranted.
On March 15, 2010, we received a
petition from the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources requesting that the
gray wolf in Minnesota be removed from
the List of Endangered or Threatened
Wildlife under the Act. Likewise, on
April 26, 2010, we received a petition
from the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources requesting that the
gray wolf in Minnesota and Wisconsin
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26091
be delisted. On April 26, 2010, we
received a petition from the Sportsmen’s
Alliance, representing five other
organizations, requesting that gray
wolves in the Great Lakes area be
delisted. On June 17, 2010, we received
a petition from Safari Club
International, Safari Club International
Foundation and the National Rifle
Association of America requesting that
wolves of the western Great Lakes be
delisted. In response to those four
petitions, on September 14, 2010, we
published a 90-day finding determining
that the petitions presented substantial
information that delisting may be
warranted and reinitiated a full status
review. Therefore, this delisting
proposal constitutes our 12-month
finding that the action requested by
each petition is warranted.
In response to a separate petition, on
June 10, 2010, we made a 90-day finding
that there was no evidence of any
breeding population of wolves to
support the requested listing of a DPS of
the gray wolf in New England (75 FR
32869).
Species Concepts
As noted in Conformance with the
Act’s Definition of Species above, the
Act defines ‘‘species’’ as including any
species or subspecies of fish or wildlife
or plants, and any distinct vertebrate
population segment of fish or wildlife
that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). It has not been uncommon in
the years since the Act was passed for
significant controversy to arise over the
propriety of recognizing various groups
of organisms as eligible for protection
under the Act. Our implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.11) require us
to use standard taxonomic distinctions
(such as species and subspecies) when
they are available, clearly defined, and
generally accepted. In determining that
a taxonomic entity qualifies as a species
or subspecies we carefully evaluate the
best available taxonomic data to
determine whether we have sufficient
information to conclude that a
taxonomic entity qualifies as a species
under the Act.
In identifying species, there is not a
single set of criteria, and, therefore, no
single species concept that is accepted
by all taxonomists. In 1942, Ernst Mayr
identified five different species concepts
(Mayr 1942), and many more have been
recognized since then (Wilkins 2006;
2003; Mayden 1997, pp. 381–384).
Many of these species concepts can be
associated with one of two major classes
of concepts or approaches. The first is
the biological species concept (BSC).
This concept is based on reproductive
relationships among populations. The
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26092
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ability to interbreed and realize gene
flow between two populations is the
indication that they belong to the same
species. The concept is most commonly
associated with Mayr (1963), but has
antecedents during the development of
evolutionary biology in the 20th
century. The second major class of
concepts is the phylogenetic species
concept (PSC). Under this group of
concepts, species are identified by their
genealogical (lineages) or phylogenetic
(evolutionary) relationships and
diagnosability. The many variations of
these concepts and others are reviewed
by Wiley (1981), Avise (2004), and
Coyne and Orr (2004).
There is, likewise, no scientific
consensus on what constitutes a
subspecies, and some authorities
(Wilson and Brown 1953) have
questioned the utility of the subspecies
level of classification. Following is a
description of various subspecies
criteria that have been proposed and
applied in the taxonomic literature.
Because some criteria are more stringent
than others, a putative, or generally
accepted, subspecies may meet the
criteria and be recognized following one
concept, but found to be invalid under
a more stringent concept. Nowak (1995,
p. 394) discussed the standards he used
when he revised the subspecies of Canis
lupus: ‘‘My investigation largely
disregarded such questions [concerning
use of very localized characters] and
concentrated on general trends in
measurable size and proportion that
could be evaluated on a continent-wide
or worldwide basis. Substantive
statistical breaks in such trends, as
discussed above, were taken as evidence
of taxonomic division.’’ In The
Mammals of North America, Hall (1981,
p. viii) included the following in his
‘‘Criteria for Species versus Subspecies.’’
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
If crossbreeding occurs in nature at a place
or places where the geographic ranges of two
kinds of mammals meet, the two kinds are to
be treated as subspecies of one species. If no
crossbreeding occurs, the two kinds are to be
regarded as two distinct, full species.
Mayr (1963, glossary) defined
subspecies as, ‘‘an aggregate of local
populations of a species inhabiting a
geographic subdivision of the range of
the species, and differing taxonomically
from other populations of the species.’’
He further explains ‘‘differing
taxonomically’’ as differing ‘‘by
diagnostic morphological characters’’
(Mayr 1963, p. 348). Mayr (1969, p. 190)
also describes a quantitative method for
determining whether populations differ
taxonomically: ‘‘A so-called 75-percent
rule is widely adopted. According to
this, a population is recognized as a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
valid subspecies if 75 percent of the
individuals differ from ‘‘all’’ (97 percent)
of the individuals of a previously
recognized subspecies. At the point of
intersection between the two curves
where this is true, about 90 percent of
population A will be different from
about 90 percent of the individuals of
population B (to supply a symmetrical
solution)’’.
Patten and Unitt (2002, p. 27) provide
another definition of subspecies as
‘‘diagnosable clusters of populations of
biological species occupying distinct
geographic ranges.’’ They do not require
that diagnosability be absolute, but
advocate 90 percent separation as a
more stringent criterion than the 75percent rule.
Avise (2004, p. 362) attempted to
incorporate phylogenetic information
within a biological species concept in
providing the following guidance on
recognizing subspecies: ‘‘Within such
units [=species], ‘‘subspecies’’
warranting formal recognition could
then be conceptualized as groups of
actually or potentially interbreeding
populations (normally mostly allopatric)
that are genealogically highly distinctive
from, but reproductively compatible
with, other such groups. Importantly,
the empirical evidence for genealogical
distinction must come, in principle,
from concordant genetic partitions
across multiple, independent,
genetically based molecular (or
phenotypic; Wilson and Brown 1953)
traits.’’
A common feature of all of the above
definitions is that they recognize that
subspecies are groups of populations,
and most recognize that subspecies can
be variable and overlap, to some degree,
in distinguishing characters.
Taxonomists do not assign an
individual to one subspecies or another;
instead individuals are assigned a
specific taxonomic classification based
on the population in which they exist.
The existence of multiple concepts of
species and subspecies is not the only
complicating factor in the debate
surrounding the classification of
organisms; it is further complicated by
the way organisms occur in the natural
world. Taxonomists are determined to
categorize natural organisms into
specific groups and identify and name
those groups, while also striving to
understand the evolutionary processes
that give rise to these specific groups
(Hey 2001, pp. 328–329). When viewed
on the ground, a particular organism
may appear to clearly fit into one group
or another, but when their evolutionary
history is viewed, these groups are
revealed as changeable and without
clear boundaries. In the reverse,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
individuals may appear different (that is
be morphometrically distinct) but in fact
be of the same taxon (that is, genetically
similar). In many situations, it is
difficult to determine where one species
ends and another begins. This is
especially true in wide-ranging species
and in the zones where multiple forms
(for example, where either two species
or two subspecies) contact each other or
meet, which is the situation with wolves
in the WGL region. Ultimately, species
are evolving, dynamic populations, and
at times are difficult to categorize.
Nevertheless, Congress directs that the
Service classify populations as species,
subspecies, and DPSs, despite the
difficulty and complexity of various
taxonomic concepts.
Taxonomy of Wolves in the Western
Great Lakes Region
The taxonomic status of the wolves in
the western Great Lakes region has long
been debated. They have been
considered a subspecies of gray wolf,
Canis lupus lycaon (Goldman 1944),
Nowak 1995, 2002, 2003); a Canis lupus
population that has been influenced by
interbreeding with coyotes (Lehman et
al. 1991); members of a full species,
Canis lycaon (or eastern wolf) that is
separate from Canis lupus (Wilson et al.
2000, Baker et al. 2003); possibly the
same species as the red wolf, C. rufus
(Wilson et al. 2000); the result of
hybridization between C. rufus and C.
lupus (Nowak 2002, 2003, 2009); and,
most recently, as a mixed population of
C. lupus, C. lycaon, and their
intercrosses (for example, Wheeldon
and White 2009, Fain et al. 2010,
Wheeldon et al. 2010). These varying
interpretations of the taxonomic status
of western Great Lakes wolves are
summarized, respectively, below.
Wolves in Michigan, Wisconsin, and
eastern Minnesota were considered by
Goldman (1944, p. 437 and Figure 14)
to be within the range of the subspecies
Canis lupus lycaon. Goldman based his
classification on variation in body size
and proportions, and in pelage (coat)
color. According to Goldman, this was
the subspecies of gray wolf historically
found across a wide range east of the
Mississippi River in the United States
and in southeastern Canada. Wolves
immediately to the west of the
Mississippi River were considered to be
part of the subspecies Canis lupus
nubilus. This taxonomic interpretation
was followed by Hall and Kelson (1959,
p. 849) and Hall (1981, p. 932).
Nowak’s (1995, p. 396; 2003, p. 243)
revision of the subspecies taxonomy
reduced the range of C. l. lycaon to
southern Ontario and Quebec and
northern portions of New York,
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Nowak’s
classification was primarily based on
statistical analysis of measurements of
skull features. He considered gray
wolves that historically occupied
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota to
be within the range of C. l. nubilus.
Based on analysis of additional
specimens, Nowak (2002, p. 119; 2003;
2009, p. 238) continued to recognize
western Great Lakes wolves as C. l.
nubilus, but noted that historical
specimens from the Upper Peninsula
(UP) of Michigan were somewhat
transitional between the two subspecies.
Based on a study of DNA variation in
North American wolves, Wilson et al.
(2000, p. 2165) proposed that the
taxonomic standing of eastern wolves be
restored to full species as Canis lycaon.
They found that eastern wolves were
divergent from Canis lupus in both
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and
autosomal microsatellite DNA
composition. They considered the
geographic range of C. lycaon as
extending west across the Great Lakes
region to Minnesota and Manitoba.
Leonard and Wayne (2008, pp. 2–3)
have reported on maternally inherited
mtDNA sequence haplotypes (DNA
sequences or groups of alleles of
different genes on a single chromosome
that are inherited together as a single
unit) from historical (‘‘prerecovery’’)
wolves from Ontario, Quebec, Michigan,
and Wisconsin compared with the
recent population of the area. Their
interpretation of these results is that the
6 unique haplotypes) identified in 15
historical individuals indicate that the
pre-recovery population was ‘‘an
endemic American wolf,’’ which they
call ‘‘the Great Lakes wolf’’ (p. 1).
However, only the two haplotypes most
common in the historical sample still
occur in the modern wolf population of
the western Great Lakes area. Leonard
and Wayne (2007) conclude that the
modern population does not contain the
diversity of Great Lakes wolf haplotypes
found in the prerecovery population
and that the current population is
primarily a mixture of Canis lupus and
coyote hybrids, with minor influence
from the endemic Great Lakes wolf (p.
3).
¨
Koblmuller et al. (2009) examined
wolves from the western Great Lakes
region using three types of genetic
markers: mtDNA; Y-chromosome
haplotypes based on microsatellite DNA
loci on the Y-chromosome, which is a
paternally-inherited marker; and
autosomal microsatellite DNA, which
provides information on recent and
ongoing interactions among populations
rather than evolutionary lineage
information. The historical sample from
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Minnesota was found to exhibit a third
Great Lakes wolf mtDNA haplotype that
is common in the modern population.
However, the Y-chromosome haplotypes
identified in the historical sample were
more similar to those of western gray
wolves, suggesting that interbreeding
between Great Lakes wolves and
western gray wolves had taken place
before 1910, the year of collection.
¨
Koblmuller et al. (2009) conclude
that, despite what they consider both
ancient and recent incidences of
interbreeding with coyotes and western
gray wolves, Great Lakes wolves remain
morphologically distinct and represent a
‘‘distinct taxon’’ of gray wolf (Canis
lupus) that is adapted to the region.
They do not, however, conclude that
this taxon is differentiated enough to be
recognized as a species separate from
gray wolves, as proposed by Wilson et
al. (2000).
Several recent studies conclude that
the eastern wolf is a unique species and
should be recognized as C. lycaon
(Wheeldon and White 2009; Wilson et
al. 2009; Fain et al. 2010, p. 15;
Wheeldon et al. 2010). Wheeldon and
White (2009, pp. 3–4) state that both the
present-day and pre-recovery wolf
populations in the western Great Lakes
region are genetically similar and that
both were derived from hybridization
between C. lupus and the eastern wolf,
C. lycaon. Fain et al. (2010, p. 10)
recognize C. lycaon as a unique species
of North American wolf, and based on
mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplotypes
and autosomal microsatellite markers,
they establish that the population of
wolves in the western Great Lakes
region comprise C. lupus, C. lycaon, and
¨
their hybrids. Contrary to Koblmuller et
al. (2009), Fain et al. (2010, p. 14) found
no evidence of interbreeding with
coyotes. Furthermore, they conclude
that the western Great Lakes States were
included in the historical range of C.
lycaon and that hybridization between
the two species ‘‘predates significant
human intervention’’ (Fain et al. 2010,
pp. 13–14).
Wheeldon et al. (2010, p. 2) used
multiple genetic markers to clarify the
taxonomic status of Canis species in the
western Great Lakes region of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and
western Ontario. They conclude that the
current western Great Lakes wolf
population is ‘‘composed of gray-eastern
wolf hybrids that probably resulted from
historic hybridization between the
parental species’’ (Wheeldon et al. 2010,
p. 10), and that the appropriate
taxonomic designation for the western
Great Lakes hybrid wolves is C. lupus ×
lycaon, replacing Nowak’s (2009) wolf
subspecies designation of C. lupus
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26093
lycaon. We note, however, that a name
in the form of C. lupus × lycaon has no
standing as an available species name
under the rules of zoological
nomenclature (ICZN 1999).
It is clear from the studies discussed
above that the taxonomic classification
of wolves in the western Great Lakes
region is one that has been, and will
continue to be, of great debate in the
scientific community. Most researchers,
however, appear to agree that there is a
unique and genetically identifiable form
of wolf that occupies the western Great
Lakes region, and that this form has
hybridized with Canis lupus, whose
origins were from elsewhere in North
America. Researchers differ in whether
this unique form of wolf should be
recognized as a species (Wilson et al.
2000; Fain et al. 2010, p. 15; Wheeldon
et al. 2010), a subspecies (Nowak 1995),
or a distinct taxon or ecotype but
without applying a formal scientific
¨
name to that form (Koblmuller et al.
2009). In choosing among these three
alternatives, we find that the large
divergence of both mtDNA and Ychromosome haplotypes between Great
Lakes wolves and C. lupus is greater
than that found between subspecies of
Canis lupus and favors recognition of
the eastern wolf as a species. Currently,
the best available scientific information
supports recognition of the eastern wolf,
C. lycaon, as a species (rather than, as
previous believed, as a subspecies of
gray wolf), and establishes that this
species has intercrossed with C. lupus
in the western Great Lakes region to
constitute a population composed of C.
lupus, C. lycaon, and their hybrids
(Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 1; Fain
et al. 2010, p. 14; Mech et al. 2010;
Wheeldon et al. 2010).
The existence of two wolf species in
the western Great Lakes region was not
known or suspected in 1978, when the
Service replaced the listings of four
subspecies of gray wolf, including C.
lupus lycaon, with the listing of all
Canis lupus and Canis lupus subspecies
in the conterminous United States and
Mexico as endangered, except for the
Minnesota population, which was listed
as threatened (USFWS 1978). Since that
time, increasingly powerful genetic
techniques for the characterization of
populations have been developed and
applied to wild populations, including
wolves. These advances have shown
that hybridization between species is
much more prevalent than was
appreciated in 1978 (Schwenk et al.
2011); thus the detection of
hybridization in western Great Lakes
wolves is not unique among mammalian
species.
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26094
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Nowak’s (1995, 2002, 2003) exclusion
of the western Great Lakes region from
C. l. lycaon was likely influenced by his
inclusion of both C. lupus and C. lycaon
in his western Great Lakes sample. In
any event, the various genetic
investigations of western Great Lakes
wolves clearly show a distribution of
eastern wolf (C. lycaon) genetic markers
throughout the region.
We do not accept the proposal of
Wilson et al. (2000) that C. lycaon and
C. rufus (red wolf) are the same species.
Their conclusion was based on red wolf
and C. lycaon occurring on the same
branch of a phylogenetic network
representing mtDNA differences
(Wilson et al. 2000, Figure 5A). This
relationship has not been found in
subsequent studies (Wilson et al. 2003;
Leonard and Wayne 2008, p. 2; Fain et
al. 2010, p. 9), which placed the red
wolf and C. lycaon on different branches
separated by intervening coyote
lineages. This suggests that the red wolf
and C. lycaon may have evolved
independently from common ancestors
with modern coyotes, but does not
support uniting them as a single species.
Genetic Composition of Wolves in the
Western Great Lakes Region
Estimates of the genetic composition
of the wolves of the western Great Lakes
region with respect to the two species
(C. lupus and C. lycaon) are based on
the frequencies of different paternal (Ychromosome) and maternal (mtDNA)
markers specific to the each species in
samples of wolves from the region. For
mtDNA, 66 percent of sampled wolves
had C. lycaon haplotypes (Fain et al.
2010, p. 13; Wheeldon et al. 2010). For
Y-chromosome haplotypes, 54 percent
(Wheeldon et al. 2010) or 50 percent
(Fain et al. 2010, p. 7) of sampled
wolves had haplotypes of C. lycaon.
Male wolves carry both paternal and
maternal markers. Of male wolves
sampled by Fain et al. (2010, p. 12), 41
percent had both maternal and paternal
haplotypes of C. lycaon, and 13 percent
had both maternal and paternal
haplotypes of C. lupus. Based on a larger
sample that also included some wolves
from western Ontario, Wheeldon et al.
(2010) reported 42 percent of the
sampled male wolves had both maternal
and paternal haplotypes of C. lycaon
and 21 percent had both maternal and
paternal haplotypes of C. lupus.
Maternal and paternal haplotypes were
mixed with respect to the two species
for the remaining wolves in both
studies.
Although it is clear that C. lycaon and
C. lupus have hybridized in the western
Great Lakes region, same-species
combinations of paternal and maternal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
markers in male wolves are more
common than expected by random
mating (Wheeldon et al. 2010). This
suggests that there is some constraint on
complete hybridization between the two
species and that complete blending of
the two components of the population is
not inevitable. The limited number of
historical specimens from the western
Great Lakes region that have been
genetically characterized all have
mtDNA indicative of C. lycaon (Leonard
and Wayne 2008, pp. 2–3; Wheeldon
and White 2009, p. 1), but four of these
from the early 20th century also had C.
lupus Y-chromosome haplotypes, which
indicates that hybridization had
occurred by that time. The opportunity
for hybridization between C. lycaon,
which belongs to a North American
lineage, and C. lupus, which evolved in
Eurasia, has existed since C. lupus
entered North America about 500,000
´
years ago (Kurten and Anderson 1980),
yet a predominantly C. lycaon
population of wolves still persists in the
western Great Lakes region.
Wolf-Coyote Relationships
For a discussion on interpretations of
wolf-coyote relationships in the western
Great Lakes, see the discussion under
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence in this proposed rule.
Procedural Aspects of Proposal
Applying to the Gray Wolf (C. lupus)
When the Service revised the
endangered species list in 1978 to
include the species Canis lupus in the
lower 48 States and Mexico, regulatory
protections were applied to all gray
wolves in the lower 48 States, including
all subspecies of gray wolves, which
were subsumed at that time into C.
lupus. That rule classified the
Minnesota gray wolf population as a
threatened ‘‘species’’ and gray wolves
elsewhere in the lower 48 States and
Mexico as another ‘‘species’’ with
endangered status. The best scientific
information available supports the
existence of distinct taxa and
populations within the C. lupus listing
and changes our understanding of North
American wolf taxonomy. With regard
to the WGL wolf population, current
scientific data indicate that Canis
lycaon, which was understood in 1978
to be a subspecies of C. lupus, should
be recognized as a full species, and that
C. lycaon and C. lupus both occur, and
to some extent, interbreed in the
western Great Lakes area (see Taxonomy
of Wolves in the Western Great Lakes
Region).
The existence of this new information
does not by itself change the regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
status of the gray wolf (C. lupus) under
the Act—such changes must be made
through rulemaking. This proposed rule
recognizes the taxonomic changes and
the improved status of the WGL gray
wolf populations and proposes those
appropriate and necessary
administrative changes for the gray wolf
in the WGL and portions of the eastern
United States.
Based on our current understanding
of wolf systematics, we recognize that
not all individual wolves in the WGL
region are in fact, gray wolves, Canis
lupus. Within this rule we are proposing
changes to the listing for C. lupus and
are initiating a status review for C.
lycaon. These two actions combined
will address all wolves in the WGL
region.
The procedural aspects of this
proposed rule (e.g., the revision of the
1978 listing of the group of gray wolves
in Minnesota as a ‘‘species’’ to a DPS and
the delisting of that DPS) refer to the
gray wolf (C. lupus), because that is the
named entity currently on the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Our proposed action here is to establish
the existence of a WGL distinct
population segment of C. lupus and to
determine that the DPS is neither
endangered nor threatened, despite its
proximity to a closely related species, C.
lycaon—a species whose status we will
evaluate for possible protection under
the Act in the near future.
Biology and Ecology of Wolves in the
Western Great Lakes
Gray wolves are the largest wild
members of the Canidae, or dog family,
with adults ranging from 18 to 80
kilograms (kg) (40 to 175 pounds (lb))
depending upon sex and subspecies
(Mech 1974). The average weight of
male wolves in Wisconsin is 35 kg (77
lb) and ranges from 26 to 46 kg (57 to
102 lb), while females average 28 kg (62
lb) and range from 21 to 34 kg (46 to 75
lb) (Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WI DNR) 1999). Wolves’ fur
color is frequently a grizzled gray, but
it can vary from pure white to coal
black. Wolves may appear similar to
coyotes (Canis latrans) and some
domestic dog breeds (such as the
German shepherd or Siberian husky) (C.
lupus familiaris). Wolves’ longer legs,
larger feet, wider head and snout, and
straight tail distinguish them from both
coyotes and dogs.
Wolves primarily are predators of
medium and large mammals. Wild prey
species in North America include whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and
mule deer (O. hemionus), moose (Alces
alces), elk (Cervus elaphus), woodland
caribou (Rangifer caribou) and barren
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ground caribou (R. arcticus), bison
(Bison bison), muskox (Ovibos
moschatus), bighorn sheep (Ovis
canadensis) and Dall sheep (O. dalli),
mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus),
beaver (Castor canadensis), snowshoe
hare (Lepus americanus), and muskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus), with small
mammals, birds, and large invertebrates
sometimes being taken (Chavez and
Gese 2005, Mech 1974, Stebler 1944, WI
DNR 1999, Huntzinger et al. 2005). In
the WGL DPS, during the last 25 years,
wolves have also killed domestic
animals including horses (Equus
caballus), cattle (Bos taurus), sheep
(Ovis aries), goats (Capra hircus), llamas
(Lama glama), pigs (Sus scrofa), geese
(Anser sp.), ducks (Anas sp.), turkeys
(Meleagris gallopavo), chickens (Gallus
sp.), guinea fowl (Numida meleagris),
pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), dogs,
cats (Felis catus), and captive whitetailed deer (Paul 2004, 2005; Wydeven
1998; Wydeven et al. 2001; Wydeven
and Wiedenhoeft 1999, 2000, 2001,
2005).
Wolves are social animals, normally
living in packs of 2 to 12 wolves. Winter
pack size in Michigan’s Upper
Peninsula (UP) averaged from 2.7 to 4.6
wolves during the 1995 through 2005
period and ranged from 2 to 14 wolves
per pack (Huntzinger et al. 2005). Pack
size in Wisconsin is similar, averaging
3.8 to 4.1 wolves per pack, and ranging
from 2 to 11 wolves in winter 2004–05
(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005). In
Minnesota the average pack size found
in the 1988–89, 1997–98, and 2003–04
winter surveys was higher—5.55, 5.4,
and 5.3 wolves per pack, respectively
(Erb and Benson 2004).
Packs are primarily family groups
consisting of a breeding pair, their pups
from the current year, offspring from
one or two previous years, and
occasionally an unrelated wolf. Packs
typically occupy, and defend from other
packs and individual wolves, a territory
of 20 to 214 square (sq) miles (mi) (50
to 550 sq kilometers (km)). Midwest
wolf packs tend to occupy territories on
the lower end of this size range.
Michigan Upper Peninsula territories
averaged 103 sq mi (267 sq km in 2000–
01 (Drummer et al. 2002), Wisconsin
territories 37 sq mi (96 sq km) in 2004–
05 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005),
and Minnesota territory size averaged 39
sq mi (102 sq km) in 2003–04 (Erb and
Benson 2004). Normally, only the topranking (‘‘alpha’’) male and female in
each pack breed and produce pups.
Litters are born from early April into
May; they range from 1 to 11 pups, but
generally include 4 to 6 pups (Michigan
Department of Natural Resources (MI
DNR) 1997; USFWS 1992; USFWS et al.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
2001). Normally a pack has a single
litter annually, but the production of 2
or 3 litters in one year has been
routinely documented in Yellowstone
National Park (USFWS et al. 2002;
Smith et al. 2005).
Yearling wolves frequently disperse
from their natal packs, although some
remain with their natal pack. Adult
wolves and pups older than 5 months
also may disperse but at much lower
frequencies (Fuller 1989). Dispersers
may range over large areas as lone
animals after leaving their natal pack or
they may locate suitable unoccupied
habitat and a member of the opposite
sex and begin their own pack. These
dispersal movements allow a wolf
population to quickly expand and
colonize areas of suitable habitat that
are nearby or even those that are
isolated by a broad area of unsuitable
habitat. Additional details on
extraterritorial movements are found in
Delineating the Boundaries of the
Proposed WGL Gray Wolf DPS, below.
Recovery of Western Great Lakes
Wolves
Recovery Criteria
Recovery plans are not regulatory
documents and are instead intended to
provide guidance to the Service, States,
and other partners on methods of
minimizing threats to listed species and
achieving recovery. These documents
include, among other elements required
under section 4(f) of the Act, criteria for
determining when a species can be
delisted. There are many paths to
accomplishing recovery of a species; in
fact, recovery of a species is a dynamic
process requiring adaptive management
that may, or may not, strictly adhere to
the guidance provided in a recovery
plan.
We use recovery criteria in concert
with evidence that threats have been
minimized sufficiently and populations
have achieved long-term viability to
judge when a species can be reclassified
from endangered to threatened or
delisted. Recovery plans, including
recovery criteria, are subject to change
based upon new information and are
revised accordingly and when
practicable. In a similar sense,
implementation of planned actions is
subject to changing information and
availability of resources. We have taken
these considerations into account in the
following discussion.
The 1978 Recovery Plan (hereafter
Recovery Plan) and the 1992 Revised
Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber
Wolf (hereafter Revised Recovery Plan)
contain the same two recovery criteria.
The first recovery criterion states that
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26095
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 recovery 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 wolves within
the borders of Minnesota for the
foreseeable future.
The Recovery Plan for the Eastern
Timber Wolf was based on the best
available information on wolf taxonomy
at the time of its original publication
and subsequent revision. As discussed
above in Taxonomy of Wolves in the
Western Great Lakes Region, since the
publication of those plans, several
studies have produced conflicting
results regarding the taxonomic identity
of the wolf that historically occupied
the eastern States. Currently, the Service
subscribes to the view that what was
formerly recognized as the subspecies C.
lupus lycaon should be recognized as a
unique species, C. lycaon. Regardless of
its taxonomic identity, however, this
recovery program has always focused on
recovering the wolf population that
survived in, and has expanded outward
from, northeastern Minnesota. Thus, the
Plans guide our analysis of recovery of
the wolves in the western Great Lakes
area.
Although the recovery criteria
identified in the Recovery Plan 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 in terms of
representation and resilience, because
the remaining genetic diversity of
wolves in the eastern United States
(other than red wolves) was carried by
the several hundred wolves that
survived in Minnesota 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 the
remnant Minnesota population has
maintained and maximized the
representation of that genetic diversity
among wolves in the WGL. Although
the Revised Recovery Plan did not
establish a specific numerical criterion
for the Minnesota wolf population, it
did identify, for planning purposes
only, a population goal of 1,251–1,400
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26096
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
animals for that Minnesota population
(USFWS 1992, p. 28). A population of
this size 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
Revised Recovery Plan specifies a wolf
population that is spread across about
40 percent of Minnesota (Zones 1
through 4) (USFWS 1992, p. 28), adding
a geographic component to the
resiliency of the Minnesota wolf
population.
The second recovery 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
(USFWS 1992, pp. 24–26). The
reestablished population enhances both
the resiliency and redundancy of the
WGL metapopulation.
The Recovery Plan provides two
options for reestablishing this second
population. If it is an isolated
population, that is, located more than
100 mi (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. Late-winter estimates are made
at a time when most winter mortality
has already occurred and before the
birth of pups, thus, the count is made
at the annual low point of the
population. Alternatively, if the second
population is located within 100 mi
(160 km) of a self-sustaining wolf
population (for example, the Minnesota
wolf population), it should be
maintained at a minimum of 100 wolves
for at least 5 years, based on late-winter
population estimates, to be considered
viable. A nearby second population
would be considered viable at a smaller
size because it would be geographically
close enough to exchange wolves with
the Minnesota population (that is, they
would function as a metapopulation),
thereby bolstering the smaller second
population both genetically and
numerically.
The original Recovery Plan did not
specify where in the eastern United
States the second population should be
re-established. Therefore, the second
population could have been established
anywhere within the triangular
Minnesota–Maine–Florida area covered
by the Recovery Plan and the Revised
Recovery Plan, except on Isle Royale
(Michigan) or within Minnesota. The
Revised Recovery Plan identified
potential gray wolf reestablishment
areas in northern Wisconsin, the UP of
Michigan, the Adirondack Forest
Preserve of New York, a small area in
eastern Maine, and a larger area of
northwestern Maine and adjacent
northern New Hampshire (USFWS
1992, pp. 56–58). Neither the 1978 nor
the 1992 recovery criteria suggest that
the restoration of the gray wolf
throughout all or most of what was
thought to be 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 recovery criterion for the second
population to the wolf population that
had developed in northern Wisconsin
and the adjacent UP of Michigan. This
second population is less than 100 mi
(160 km) from the Minnesota wolf
population. The Recovery Team
recommended that the numerical
recovery criterion for the Wisconsin–
Michigan population be considered met
when 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 first and last surveys
(Peterson in litt. 1998).
Recovery Trends for Wolves in the
Western Great Lakes Region
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 wolves in
1950–53 (Fuller et al. 1992, p. 43, based
on data in Stenlund 1955, p. 19), 350 to
700 wolves in 1963 (Cahalane 1964, p.
10), 750 wolves in 1970 (Leirfallom
1970, p. 11), 736 to 950 wolves in 1971–
72 (Fuller et al. 1992, p. 44), and 500 to
1,000 wolves in 1973 (Mech and Rausch
1975, p. 85). Although these estimates
were based on 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 gray wolf was listed as
endangered under the Act in 1974, the
Minnesota population estimates
increased (see table 1 below). Mech
estimated the population to be 1,000 to
1,200 wolves 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 Minnesota. 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, the MN
DNR repeated a statewide wolf
population and distribution survey,
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—MINIMUM WINTER WOLF POPULATIONS IN MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, AND MICHIGAN (EXCLUDING ISLE ROYALE)
FROM 1976 THROUGH 2010. (NOTE THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL YEARS BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE ESTIMATES. MINNESOTA DOES NOT CONDUCT ANNUAL SURVEYS.)
Number of wolves
Year
Minnesota
1976 .................................................................................................................
1978–79 ...........................................................................................................
1988–89 ...........................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
1,000–1,200
1,235
1,500–1,750
Sfmt 4702
Wisconsin
Michigan
Wisconsin and
Michigan total
........................
........................
31
........................
........................
3
........................
........................
34
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26097
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—MINIMUM WINTER WOLF POPULATIONS IN MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, AND MICHIGAN (EXCLUDING ISLE ROYALE)
FROM 1976 THROUGH 2010. (NOTE THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL YEARS BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE ESTIMATES. MINNESOTA DOES NOT CONDUCT ANNUAL SURVEYS.)—Continued
Number of wolves
Year
Minnesota
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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 ...........................................................................................................
2005–06 ...........................................................................................................
2006–07 ...........................................................................................................
2007–08 ...........................................................................................................
2008–09 ...........................................................................................................
2009–10 ...........................................................................................................
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 approximately 3
percent, and it increased to between 4
and 5 percent in the next decade (Berg
and Benson 1999, p. 5; Fuller et al.
1992, p. 51). As of the 1998 survey, the
number of Minnesota wolves had
reached approximately twice the
number specified in the recovery
planning goal for Minnesota (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 methodology similar to the
previous surveys. That survey
concluded that an estimated 3,020
wolves in 485 packs occurred in
Minnesota (90 percent confidence
interval for this estimate is 2,301 to
3,708 wolves) (Erb and Benson 2004,
pp. 7, 9). The MN DNR conducted its
most recent survey of wolf population
and range during the winter of 2007–08.
That survey concluded that an
estimated 2,921 wolves in 503 packs
occurred in Minnesota (90 percent
confidence interval for this estimate is
2,192 to 3,525 wolves). The results of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
2,445
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
3,020
........................
........................
........................
2,921
........................
........................
the past three surveys suggest that the
wolf population has been numerically
stable over the past 10 or more years
(Erb 2008, p. 6).
As wolves increased in abundance in
Minnesota, they also expanded their
distribution. During 1948–53, the
primary wolf range was estimated at
11,954 sq mi (31,080 sq km) (Stenlund
1955, p. 19). A 1970 questionnaire
survey in Minnesota 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
encompassed 14,038 sq mi (36,500 sq
km) during the winter of 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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Wisconsin
Sfmt 4702
34
40
45
40
57
83
99
148
180
205
248
257
327
335
373
435
467
546
549
637
690
Michigan
10
17
21
30
57
80
116
113
139
169
216
249
278
321
360
405
434
509
520
577
557
Wisconsin and
Michigan total
44
57
66
70
114
163
215
261
319
374
464
506
604
656
733
840
899
1,055
1,069
1,214
1,247
Benson 1999, p. 5). By that time the
Minnesota wolf population was using
most of the available primary and
peripheral range identified by Mech et
al. (1988, p. 86). The wolf population in
Minnesota had increased in abundance
and distribution 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). The results of the
2007–08 survey also indicated that wolf
range in Minnesota remained
‘‘essentially unchanged’’ since 2004 (Erb
2008, not paginated).
Although the 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 20-mile (32-km) long
standardized survey routes in northern
Minnesota. In 2009, wolves were
detected on 71 percent of the 58 routes
surveyed, and the resulting indices of
abundance and distribution were not
appreciably different from recent years
(Erb 2009, not paginated).
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26098
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Summary for Minnesota
The Minnesota wolf population has
increased from an estimated 1,000
individuals in 1976 to nearly 3,000
today and the estimated wolf range in
the State has expanded by
approximately 225 percent (from
approximately 15,000 sq mi (24,100 sq
km) to approximately 34,000 sq mi
(54,700 sq km)) since 1970. Over the
past 10–12 years, the population size
and range have remained stable, as most
of the primary and peripheral habitat
has been occupied. Based on the current
abundance and distribution of the
Minnesota wolf population, we believe
its continued survival is ensured, and it
achieves the first recovery criterion of
the Revised Recovery Plan.
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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
through 1978. Although individual
wolves and an occasional wolf pair were
reported from 1960 through 1975, (Thiel
1978, Thiel 1993), there was no
documentation of wolf reproduction
occurring in Wisconsin, and the wolves
that were reported may have been
dispersing animals from Minnesota.
Wolves are believed to have
reestablished breeding packs in
Wisconsin in the winter of 1975–76.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WI DNR) began wolf
population monitoring in 1979–80,
estimating a statewide population of 25
wolves at that time (Wydeven and
Wiedenhoeft 2000, pp. 151, 159;
Wydeven et al. 2009c, pp. 93–97). This
population remained relatively stable
for several years, and then declined 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 2010,
when 690 wolves were counted
(Wydeven et al. 2010, Figure 3).
Since 1979, WI DNR has intensively
surveyed its wolf population on an
annual basis using a combination of
aerial, ground, and satellite radio
telemetry complemented by snow
tracking and wolf sign surveys
(Wydeven et al. 2006a, pp. 4–5;
Wydeven et al. 2009c, pp. 90–91).
Wolves are trapped from May through
September and fitted with radio collars,
with a goal of having at least one radio
collared wolf in approximately 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 radiocollared wolf. Tracking is done by
assigning survey blocks to trained
trackers, who then drive snow-covered
roads in their blocks and follow all wolf
tracks they encounter. Snowmobiles are
used to locate wolf tracks in more
remote areas with few roads. The results
of the aerial and ground surveys are
carefully compared to properly separate
packs and to avoid over-counting
(Wydeven et al. 2006a, pp. 4–5). The
estimated number of wolves in each
pack is 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. Wisconsin DNR surveys have
estimated 2–15 percent of the winter
population as loners (Wydeven et al.
2009c, p. 96). These surveys, however,
are focused on heavily forested portions
of northern and central Wisconsin;
therefore, dispersing wolves traveling
other portions of the State are less likely
to be detected, and often such wolves
are only documented after vehicle
collisions or accidental shootings.
Broader use of trail cameras by members
of the public is improving the WI DNR’s
ability to detect lone wolves across the
State.
As previously stated, population
estimates are made at the low point of
the annual wolf population cycle. 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 Revised Recovery
Plan, which established numerical
criteria to be measured with data
obtained by late-winter surveys. Based
on these considerations, an estimated
690 to 733 wolves in 181 packs,
including 35 wolves on Native
American reservations, were in
Wisconsin in early 2010, representing
an 8 percent increase from 2009
(Wydeven et al. 2010, pp. 12–13).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
In the winter of 1994–95, wolves were
first documented in Jackson County,
Wisconsin, well to the south of the area
occupied by other Wisconsin wolf packs
in the northern part of the State (Thiel
et al. 2009, pp. 109–110). The number
of wolves in this central Wisconsin area
has dramatically increased since that
time. During the winter of 2009–10,
there were 100–106 wolves in 25 packs
in the central forest wolf range (Zone 2
in the Wisconsin Wolf Management
Plan; Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 5) and an
additional 46 to 48 wolves in 12 or 13
packs in the marginal habitat in Zone 3,
located between Zone 1 (northern forest
wolf range) and Zones 2 and 4
(Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 5).
During the winter of 2004–05, 11 to
13 wolves were believed to be primarily
occupying Native American reservation
lands in Wisconsin (Wydeven in litt.
2005); this increased to 16 to 17 in
2005–06, 17 to 19 in 2007–08 (Wydeven
and Wiedenhoeft 2008, Summary),
approximately 27 in 2008–2009
(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2008, p. 1),
and approximately 35 in 2009–10
(Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 1). The 2009–
10 survey consisted of 3 packs totaling
10–11 wolves on the Bad River
Chippewa Reservation and a pack of 2
wolves on the Lac Courtes Oreilles
Chippewa Reservation, both in
northwestern Wisconsin. There also
were two packs of five wolves each on
the Lac du Flambeau Reservation in
north-central Wisconsin. A pack of four
wolves and three pairs occurred on the
Menominee Reservation and a threewolf pack occurred on the Stockbridge
Reservation, both in northeastern
Wisconsin (Wydeven et al. 2010, Table
6). A pack of four to five wolves spent
time on portions of the Red Cliff
Chippewa Reservation along the Lake
Superior shoreline. Wolf packs also
used scattered lands of the St. Croix
Chippewa in northwest Wisconsin, the
Ho Chunk Nation in central Wisconsin,
and Potawatomi in northeast Wisconsin.
The Tribal land of the Ho-Chunk, St.
Croix Chippewa, and Potawatomi are
composed mostly of scattered parcels of
land, and are not likely to provide
significant amounts of wolf habitat.
About 90 percent of packs in northern
Wisconsin Zone 1, and northern
portions of Zone 3 are located in ceded
territory where Chippewa Bands have
retained hunting and gathering rights.
In 2002, wolf numbers in Wisconsin
alone surpassed the 1992 Revised
Recovery Plan criterion for a second
population within 100 miles of the
Minnesota population (100 wolves for a
minimum of 5 consecutive years
(USFWS 1992, p. 4)). Furthermore, in
2004, Wisconsin wolf numbers
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
exceeded the 1992 recovery criterion of
200 animals for 6 successive late-winter
surveys for an isolated wolf population
(USFWS 1992, p. 4). Wisconsin
population estimates for 1985 to 2010
increased from 15 to 690 wolves (see
table 1 above) and from 4 to 181 packs
(Wydeven et al. 2010, figure 3). This
represents an annual population
increase of 21 percent through 2000,
and an average annual increase of 6
percent for the most recent 6 years. The
slower rates of increase since 2000 are
an indication that the State’s wolf
population growth and geographic
expansion are beginning to level off.
Michigan Recovery
Except for Isle Royale, wolves were
extirpated from Michigan as a
reproducing species long before they
were listed as endangered under the Act
in 1974. Prior to 1989, the last known
breeding population of wild Michigan
wolves outside Isle Royale 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. Wolf recovery in Michigan
began with the documentation of three
wolves traveling together and making
territorial marks in the central UP
during the fall of 1988; and the
subsequent birth of pups in this territory
during spring 1989 (Beyer et al. 2009,
p. 73). 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. Wolves now are found in
every county of the UP, with the
possible exception of Keweenaw County
(Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6; Roell 2009,
pers. comm.).
The MI DNR annually monitors the
wolf population in the UP by
conducting a winter survey. Roads and
trails are searched intensively and
extensively for wolf tracks and other
wolf sign using trucks and snowmobiles
(Potvin et al. 2005). Complete surveys
conducted from 1999 to 2006 provided
an opportunity to evaluate multiple
sampling approaches (MI DNR 2008).
Based on these evaluations, it was
determined that a geographically
stratified sampling protocol produced
unbiased, precise estimates of wolf
abundance (Potvin et al. 2005;
Drummer, unpublished data). The
sampling protocol implemented in 2007
allows trackers to spend more time in
smaller areas (MI DNR 2008).
The UP is divided into 21 survey
units from which a stratified random
sample is drawn, covering roughly 50
percent of the UP every year (MI DNR
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
2008). Pack locations are derived from
previous surveys, citizen reports, and
extensive ground and aerial tracking of
radio-collared wolves. During the winter
of 2009–10, 557 wolves in 109 packs
were resident in the UP (MI DNR in litt.
2010, Table 1). Surveys along the border
of adjacent survey units 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 four to six 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 lone
wolves, thus underestimating the actual
population.
Based on annual surveys in late
winter, estimates of wolves in the UP
increased from 57 wolves in 1994 to 557
in late winter 2009–10 (see table 1
above). Over the last 10 years, the
annualized rate of increase has been
about 12 percent (MI DNR in litt. 2010,
table 1). This rate has varied from year
to year, but there appear to be two
distinct phases of population growth,
with relatively rapid growth (25.8
percent average) from 1995 through
2000 and slower growth (10.1 percent
average) from 2001 through 2010. In
2005, the number of wolves in the
Michigan population alone surpassed
the recovery criterion for an isolated
wolf population of 200 animals for 6
successive late-winter surveys, as
specified in the Revised Recovery Plan
(USFWS 1992, pp. 24–26).
To date, no wolf packs are known to
be primarily using Tribal-owned lands
in Michigan (Roell 2011, pers. comm.).
Native American Tribes in the UP of
Michigan own small, scattered parcels
of land relative to the size of wolf pack
territories. Thus, no one Tribal property
would likely support a wolf pack.
However, as wolves occur in all
counties in the UP and are wideranging, Tribal land is likely used
periodically by wolves.
In October 2004, a coyote trapper
mistakenly captured and killed a wolf in
Presque Isle County in the northern
Lower Peninsula (LP) of Michigan. This
was the first verification of a wolf in the
northern LP in at least 65 years (Roell
et al. 2010, p. 4). This wolf had been
trapped and radio-collared by the MI
DNR the previous year (2003) while it
was a member of an eastern UP pack.
Since 2004, Michigan has surveyed the
northern LP to determine whether
wolves had successfully colonized the
area. From 2005 through 2007, the
survey had two components: A
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26099
prioritized area search and a targeted
area search based on citizen reports of
wolves or wolf sign. USDA–Wildlife
Services, Little Traverse Bay Band of
Odawa Indians, and Central Michigan
University worked cooperatively on the
surveys. Nine units ranging in size from
200–400 sq mi (322–644 sq km) were
surveyed; however, no wolf sign was
found (Roell et al. 2010, p. 4). Beginning
in 2008, a targeted search approach was
used. The MI DNR issued a press release
asking citizens to report any wolves or
wolf sign; again, no wolves were
detected in winters of 2008–10 (Roell et
al. 2009, p. 5; Roell 2010, pers. comm.).
In the summer of 2009, video images
of single wolves were recorded in two
of the three northern LP counties
nearest to the UP (Roell et al. 2010, p.
4). The videos, taken in Emmet County
in May 19, 2009, and Presque Isle
County in July 27, 2009, may have been
of the same animal (Roell 2009, pers.
comm.). In 2010, USDA Wildlife
Services and MI DNR staff confirmed a
single breeding pair with three pups in
Cheboygan County in the northern LP
(MI DNR 2010). This is the first time a
wolf pack has been verified in the LP
since the early 1900s. In 2008, the DNR
recognized the likelihood that small
numbers of wolves would eventually
move into the northern LP and form
persistent packs (Potvin 2003, pp. 29–
30; Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1242;
Beyer et al. 2006, p. 35), and revised its
Wolf Management Plan in part to
incorporate provisions for wolf
management in the northern LP (MI
DNR 2008a, p. 46).
The wolf population of Isle Royale
National Park, Michigan, is not
considered to be an important factor in
the recovery of wolves in the WGL. The
Park population is small and isolated
and lacks genetic uniqueness (Wayne et
al. 1991, pp. 47–49). In addition, this
island population 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). For
genetic reasons and constraints on
expansion due to the island’s small size,
this wolf population does not contribute
significantly towards meeting numerical
recovery criteria; however, 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 19 wolves in the
winter of 2009–2010 (Vucetich and
Peterson 2010, p. 5).
Summary for Wisconsin and Michigan
The two-State wolf population,
excluding Isle Royale wolves, has
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26100
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 recovery criterion of the
1992 Revised Recovery Plan for a
nonisolated wolf population, since
1999. Furthermore, the two-State
population has exceeded the recovery
criterion for an isolated second
population since 2001.
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Other Areas In and Near the Proposed
Western Great Lakes DPS
No surveys have been conducted to
document the number of wolves present
in North Dakota or South Dakota, but an
increasing number of wolves has
apparently been detected in the eastern
portions of these States. The eastern
boundaries of North Dakota and South
Dakota are approximately 19 and 81 mi
(30 and 130 km), respectively, from
occupied habitat in Minnesota.
Biologists who are familiar with wolves
in these States, however, generally agree
that the wolves found there are
primarily lone dispersers, although
there were reports of pups being seen in
the Turtle Mountains of North Dakota,
in 1994 (Collins in litt. 1998).
Other records include an adult male
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. 2006). In contrast
to the other South Dakota wolves of the
last 25 years, the animal found near
Sturgis was genetically identified as
having come from the Greater
Yellowstone area (Fain in litt. 2006).
Most recently, a wolf was shot in
Roberts County, South Dakota in
January 2009 (reportedly running with
two or three other wolves) (Prieksat in
litt. 2009), and another wolf was found
dead in a foothold trap that was set as
part of an ongoing USDA Wildlife
Service’s coyote control operation in
southeastern Eddy County, North
Dakota (Bicknell in litt. 2009). See
Delineating the Boundaries of the
Proposed WGL Gray Wolf DPS in this
proposed rule 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 primary range
into peripheral areas where wolves are
extremely sparse or absent. Unless they
return to the primary range and join or
start a pack there, they are unlikely to
contribute to long-term maintenance of
WGL wolf populations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Although it is possible for these
dispersers to encounter and mate with
a mature wolf outside the primary
range, the lack of large expanses of
unfragmented habitat make it unlikely
that wolf packs will persist in these
peripheral areas; lack of contiguous
habitat is expected to seriously impede
further expansion. The only exception is
the northern LP of Michigan, where
several studies indicate that a persistent
wolf population may develop (Gehring
and Potter 2005, p. 1242; Potvin 2003,
pp. 29–30), albeit dependent on
occasional to frequent immigration of
UP wolves. Despite the constraints on
further expansion described here,
however, current wolf populations in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP of
Michigan have already greatly exceeded
the recovery levels defined in the 1992
Revised Recovery Plan, and
maintenance of these numbers is not
contingent on recruitment of wolves
from areas outside the primary range
that has been established for the WGL.
Summary of Wolf Recovery in the
Western Great Lakes Region
Wolves in the proposed WGL DPS
greatly exceed the recovery criteria
(USFWS 1992, pp. 24–26) for (1) a
secure wolf population in Minnesota,
and (2) a second population outside
Minnesota and Isle Royale consisting of
100 wolves for 5 successive years. Based
on the criteria set by the Eastern Wolf
Recovery Team in 1992 and reaffirmed
in 1997 and 1998 (Peterson in litt. 1997,
in litt. 1998), the proposed 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
proposed WGL DPS when its wolves
were first protected in 1974.
Furthermore, the Wisconsin–Michigan
wolf population has exceeded the
numerical recovery criterion even for a
completely isolated second population.
Therefore, even in the unlikely event
that 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
Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992,
pp. 25–26). Finally, each of the wolf
populations in Wisconsin and Michigan
has exceeded 200 animals for 11 and 10
years, respectively, so if either were
somehow to become isolated, they
would remain viable, and each State has
committed to manage its wolf
population at or above viable
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
population levels. The wolf’s numeric
and distributional recovery criteria in
the WGL have been met.
Have the Wolves of the Western Great
Lakes Region Been Restored?
Leonard and Wayne (2008, p. 3) have
stated that Great Lakes wolves have not
been restored based on absence of
certain historical mtDNA haplotypes
from the current population, an
estimated historical population size far
greater than the current population size,
and the admixture of coyote and
western wolf haplotypes in the current
population.
The spatial representativeness of both
the historical and recent samples
reported by Leonard and Wayne (2008)
has been questioned by Mech (2009).
For example, 16 recent but no historical
samples from Minnesota were included
in the study. Leonard and Wayne (2009)
responded that they did not believe that
genetic differences were likely to be
pronounced at the geographic scale
discussed by Mech and Paul (2008) and
Mech (2009).
The current population of wolves in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan is
derived from expansion of the remnant
population in northeastern Minnesota
(Fain et al. 2010, p. 12), which was
likely to have included both C. lupus
and C. lycaon (Mech and Frenzel 1971;
Mech 2010, p. 135), and in the case of
UP Michigan, with possible
contributions from C. lycaon from
southern Ontario (Fain et al. 2010, p.
12).
Subsequent studies with larger
samples of the current wolf population
find, despite acknowledged influence of
western wolves, the current population
is generally representative of the
historical population (Fain et al. 2010,
p. 14; Wheeldon et al. 2010).
¨
Koblmuller et al. (2009, pp. 10–11)
found ‘‘comparatively slight’’
differentiation at autosomal
microsatellite DNA loci between
historical and current Great Lakes
wolves. Wheeldon and White (2009, p.
4) present microsatellite DNA evidence
that the hybridization processes noted
by Leonard and Wayne (2008) were
taking place over a century ago, so that
the current population is comparable to
the historical population with respect to
admixture. Hybridization between
eastern wolves and western wolves in
the western Great Lakes region occurred
prior to significant human effects on
population size or habitat (Fain et al.
2010, p. 14). According to Fain et al.
(2010, p. 14), the current population of
wolves in the western Great Lakes
‘‘represents an ancient component of the
northeast ecosystem and have been
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
established throughout the region for
thousands of years.’’
The loss of mtDNA haplotypes found
in historical but not the current western
Great Lakes wolf population reported by
Leonard and Wayne (2008, pp. 2–3) and
the loss of allelic diversity (Fain et al.
2010, p. 11), indicate that a genetic
bottleneck occurred when wolves were
nearly extirpated from the western Great
Lakes region and the period of slow
recovery that immediately followed.
Despite these ‘‘founder effects’’ on the
genetic composition of the western
Great Lakes population, various
measures of genetic diversity remain
comparable to other wolf populations
¨
(Koblmuller et al. 2009; Fain et al. 2010,
p. 12; Wheeldon et al. 2010), at least
partially owing to contributions from
western wolves (C. lupus).
Wolves in the WGL region display a
healthy level of heterozygosity (Fain et
al. 2010, p. 12), and show no evidence
of genetic bottlenecks (Koblmuller et al.
2009, p. 1). Schwartz and Vucetich
(2009, p. 2) have stated that ‘‘By all
accounts, the return of wolves to the
Great Lakes region has been successful
* * * they are doing superbly—both in
terms of population viability and
ecological function.’’ Cronin and Mech
(2009, p. 2) state, ‘‘We suggest that
wolves in the [W]GL region can simply
be called a wolf population with mixed
ancestry.’’ They further state that, ‘‘It is
generally acknowledged that the Great
Lakes wolf population is fit, with
abundant genetic variation’’ (Cronin and
Mech 2009, p. 2).
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
Policy Overview
Pursuant to the Act, we consider
whether 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 (Policy Regarding the
Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
Population Segments Under the
Endangered Species Act, 61 FR 4722,
February 7, 1996) (hereafter DPS
Policy). Under the DPS policy, two
factors are considered in a decision
regarding the potential identification of
a 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
identified as a DPS. Then a third factor,
the DPS’s conservation status, is
evaluated in relation to the Act’s
standards for listing, delisting, or
reclassification, meaning that we
undertake an analysis to determine
whether the DPS is endangered or
threatened or does not meet the criteria
for listing. All three steps are necessary
components of a complete DPS analysis.
Past Practice and History of Using DPSs
As of February 1, 2011, of the 392
native vertebrate listings, 85 are listed as
less than an entire taxonomic species or
subspecies (henceforth referred to in
this discussion as populations) under
one of several authorities, including the
‘‘distinct population segment’’ language
in the Act’s definition of species
(section 3(16)). Thirty-three of these 85
populations, which span 52 different
taxa, predate the 1996 DPS Policy; as
such, the final listing determinations for
these populations did not include
formal policy-based analyses or
expressly designate the listed entity as
a DPS. In several instances, however,
the Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) have
established a DPS and revised the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
in a single action, as shown in the
following examples.
In February 1985, the Service delisted
the brown pelican (Pelecanus
occidentalis) in the southeastern United
States and continued to identify it as
endangered throughout the remainder of
its range (50 FR 4938). In June 1994,
NMFS revised 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 (59 FR 31094). In July 2003,
the Service established two DPSs of the
Columbian white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus leucurus)—the
Douglas County DPS and the Columbia
River DPS—and delisted only the
Douglas County DPS, while listing the
Columbia River DPS (68 FR 43647). In
March 2007, the Service established a
DPS of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos
horribilis) for the Greater Yellowstone
Area and surrounding area within the
existing grizzly bear listing in the lower
48 States, and delisted this DPS (72 FR
14865). Also in March 2007, the Service
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 (71 FR
13027). Revising and delisting the WGL
DPS of wolves is consistent with the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26101
Service’s past practice and does not
represent a change in agency position.
Proposed Western Great Lakes Distinct
Population Segment
In 1978, based on what was at that
time the ‘‘best available biological data,’’
the Service stated that there were two
‘‘species’’ of gray wolves in the
conterminous United States: ‘‘For
purposes of this rulemaking, the gray
wolf (Canis lupus) group in Mexico and
the 48 conterminous States of the
United States, other than Minnesota, is
being considered as one ‘‘species,’’ and
the gray wolf group in Minnesota is
being considered as another ‘‘species.’’
(43 FR 9607, 9610, March 9, 1978). The
Service then assigned a different status
under the Act to each of those two
‘‘species,’’ finding the Minnesota gray
wolf ‘‘species’’ to be threatened, while
the other gray wolf ‘‘species’’ (the 48
conterminous States, except Minnesota,
and in Mexico) to be endangered. The
1978 rule referred to the Minnesota
listing as the listing of a ‘‘species’’ when,
clearly, based on the information
available at that time, the Minnesota
wolves did not taxonomically constitute
a separate species of wolf. Therefore, the
1978 listing either effectively
established a Minnesota DPS or listed
an entity in a portion of its broader
range.
The DPS Policy (61 FR 4725, February
7, 1996) expressly provides for
reexamining pre-policy DPS listings:
‘‘Any DPS of a vertebrate taxon that was
listed prior to implementation of this
policy will be reevaluated on a case-bycase basis as recommendations are made
to change the listing status for that
distinct population segment. The
appropriate application of the policy
will also be considered in the 5-year
reviews of the status of listed species
required by section 4(c)(2) of the Act.’’
Based on this provision, we are, within
this proposed rule, (1) recognizing that
a Minnesota DPS was established in
1978, (2) reevaluating that DPS listing,
and (3) proposing to revise that DPS to
meet the criteria in the DPS policy and
to reflect the ‘‘best available biological
data.’’
A gray wolf DPS that includes only
Minnesota does not meet the criteria in
the DPS policy because it is not discrete
‘‘* * * in relation to the remainder of
the species to which it belongs’’ (61 FR
4725, February 7, 1996). The Minnesota
wolf population has expanded beyond
State boundaries and is connected to the
wolf population in Wisconsin and
Michigan, as evidenced by frequent
movements of wolves among the States
(Van Deelen 2009, p. 140; Treves at al.
2009, pp. 192–195) and genetic analyses
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26102
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
Distinct Population Segment Analysis
Analysis for Discreteness
Under the 1996 DPS Policy (61 FR
4722), 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
The geographical area of the proposed
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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
mechanisms exist that are significant in
light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
Markedly Separated from Other
Populations of the Same Taxon—The
western boundaries of the proposed
WGL DPS are approximately 400 mi
(644 km) from the nearest known gray
wolf packs in Wyoming and Montana.
The distance between those western
packs and the nearest packs within the
proposed WGL DPS is nearly 600 mi
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
EP05MY11.124
Geographical Area of the Proposed
Western Great Lakes DPS
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
that demonstrate the Wisconsin and
Michigan wolves are mostly from the
same genetic mix as Minnesota wolves
(Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 4; Fain
et al. 2010). Therefore, we are proposing
to revise the boundaries of the
Minnesota DPS to meet the criteria in
the DPS policy as discussed under the
Distinct Population Segment Analysis,
below.
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(966 km). The area between Minnesota
packs and northern Rocky Mountain
(NRM) 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 populations of gray wolves to
the south or east of the proposed WGL
DPS within the United States.
As discussed in the previous section,
wolves are known to disperse over vast
distances, but straight line documented
dispersals of 400 mi (644 km) or more
are very rare. Although we cannot rule
out the possibility of a WGL wolf
traveling 600 mi (966 km) 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 proposed 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
proposed WGL DPS (Fain in litt. 2006);
however, the Sturgis wolf would still
have had to travel over 300 mi (500 km)
before encountering the nearest wolf
pack in the proposed WGL DPS. 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 WGL DPS and the northern Rocky
Mountains satisfies the discreteness
criterion.
Delimited by International Boundaries
with Significant Management
Differences—The DPS policy allows us
to use international borders to delineate
the boundaries of a DPS if there are
differences in control of exploitation,
conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms between the countries. The
border between the United States and
Canada has been used as the northern
boundary of the listed entity since gray
wolves were reclassified in the lower 48
States and Mexico in 1978. There
remain significant cross-border
differences in exploitation,
management, conservation status, and
regulatory mechanisms. About 52,000 to
60,000 wolves occur in Canada, where
suitable habitat is abundant (Boitani
2003, p. 322). Because of this
abundance, wolves in Canada are not
protected by Federal laws and are only
minimally protected in most Canadian
provinces (Pletscher et al. 1991, p. 546).
In the United States, unlike Canada,
Federal protection and intensive
management has been necessary to
recover the wolf (Carbyn 1983).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
In general, Canadian gray wolf
populations are sufficiently large and
healthy so that 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 last
year’s season running from August 31,
2009, through March 31, 2010
(Manitoba Conservation 2009a).
Trapping wolves is allowed provincewide, except in and immediately around
Riding Mountain National Park
(southwestern Manitoba), with last
year’s season running from October 14,
2008, through February 28 or March 31,
2009 (varies with trapping zone)
(Manitoba Conservation 2009b).
The Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources estimates there are 8,850
wolves in the province, based on prey
composition and abundance,
topography, and climate and 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
proposed WGL DPS, wolf hunting and
trapping is permitted year round
(Ontario MNR 2005c). If delisted,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
would carefully monitor and manage
wolves to retain populations at or above
the recovery goal (see Factor D).
Therefore, even though biologically the
WGL wolf population is simply a wellconnected southern extension of wolves
in Canada, we will continue to use the
United States-Canada border to mark the
northern boundary of the DPS due to the
difference in control of exploitation,
conservation status, and regulatory
mechanisms between the two countries.
Conclusion—We find, based on our
analysis of the best available scientific
information, that the proposed WGL
DPS is markedly separated from other
United States populations of gray
wolves and difference in control of
exploitation, conservation status, and
regulatory mechanisms justifies
discreteness between United States and
Canadian wolf populations. Therefore,
the proposed WGL DPS meets the
criterion for discreteness under the DPS
policy.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26103
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. Factor 2 applies to the
proposed WGL DPS and is included in
our analysis for significance. Factors 1,
3, and 4 do not apply to the proposed
WGL DPS and thus are not included in
our analysis for significance.
Significant Gap in the Range of the
Taxon—Wolves once lived throughout
most of North America. Wolves have
been extirpated from most of the
southern portions of their historical
North American range. The successful
restoration of a viable wolf
metapopulation to large parts of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
has filled a significant gap in the
holarctic range of gray wolves in the
United States, and it provides an
important extension of the range of gray
wolves in North America. The loss of
the WGL wolf population would,
therefore, represent a significant gap in
the species’ holarctic range in that the
WGL wolf population is the only wolf
population in the conterminous States
east of the Rocky Mountains, except for
the red wolves (a different species)
being restored along the Atlantic Coast,
and currently holds about 40 percent of
North American gray wolves known to
occur south of Canada.
Finding—We find, based on our
analysis of the best available scientific
information, that the proposed WGL
DPS is significant to the taxon to which
it belongs because its loss would result
in a significant gap in the range of the
taxon. Therefore, the proposed WGL
DPS meets the criterion for significance
under the DPS policy.
Discrete Vertebrate Population Segment
Conclusion
We propose, based on our review of
the best available scientific data, that
the WGL DPS is discrete from other gray
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26104
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
wolf populations as a result of physical
separation from other gray wolf
populations in the United States and the
international border with Canada. The
DPS is significant to the taxon to which
it belongs because it contains a wolf
metapopulation that fills a large gap in
the historical range of the taxon in the
conterminous States. Therefore, we have
determined that this population
segment of wolves satisfies the
discreteness and significance criteria
required for a DPS. The evaluation of
the appropriate conservation status for
the proposed WGL DPS is found below.
Delineating the Boundaries of the
Proposed 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 or
metapopulation and its biological
characteristics and recovery needs.
To delineate the boundary of the
proposed WGL DPS, we considered the
current distribution of wolves in the
Midwest and the characteristic
movements of those wolves and of
wolves elsewhere. We examined the
best available scientific data on longdistance movements, including longdistance 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 longdistance movement locations. However,
as explained below, wolf biology and
common sense argue against including
all known or potential long-distance
movements within the DPS’s
boundaries.
The analysis detailed below resulted
in the proposed boundaries of the WGL
DPS that are shown in figure 1. 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 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
wolf population. Therefore, the DPS
encompasses the current range of the
population, which is considered to be
viable, including the primary range and
the peripheral range.
The WGL areas that are regularly
occupied by wolf packs are well
documented in Minnesota (Erb and
Benson 2004, p. 12, fig. 3; Erb and Don
Carlos 2009, pp. 57–60), Wisconsin
(Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 33, fig. 1;
Wydeven et al. 2009c, pp. 93–98), and
the UP of Michigan (Huntzinger et al.
2005, pp. 25–27, figs. 4–6; Beyer et al.
2009, pp. 73–75). Wolves have
successfully colonized most, perhaps
all, suitable habitat in Minnesota.
Minnesota data from the winter of
2007–08 indicate that wolf numbers and
density have stabilized since 1997–98,
and there was no expansion of occupied
range in the State (Erb 2008, pp. 5–7).
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 and
Wiedenhoeft 2009, p. 2). The UP of
Michigan has wolf packs throughout the
peninsula. In the last 22 years, the wolf
population in the UP has grown every
year except 1997 and 2010 (Roell 2010,
pers. comm.). Over the past 5 years, the
average annual growth has been about 7
percent. While the population trend
continues to increase, the rate of
increase has slowed, consistent with
any population expanding into and then
filling available habitat. The population
may continue to grow or remain steady;
however, a small or even negative
growth rate may occur any year and
should be considered a natural
fluctuation seen in any wildlife
population.
When delineating the proposed 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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 movement by a 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, pp. 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 to 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 mi (475 km) west of his
original capture location in the eastern
UP (Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 4). A
north-central Wisconsin yearling female
wolf traveled a similar distance (298 mi,
480 km) 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
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—In December
2002, a Marshall County (Illinois) wolf
likely dispersed from the Wisconsin
wolf population, nearly 200 mi (322 km)
to the north (Great Lakes Directory
2003). The Randolph County (Indiana)
wolf had traveled a minimum distance
of at least 428 mi (689 km) to get around
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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; Treves
et al. 2009, p. 194). 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 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 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 mi (644 km).
The wolf from the Greater
Yellowstone area that was killed by a
vehicle on Interstate 90 near Sturgis,
South Dakota, 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.
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 MinnesotaWisconsin-Michigan wolf population, as
determined by genetic analysis
(Anschutz in litt. 2003, Fain in litt.
2006). The nearest Minnesota wolf pack
is nearly 350 mi (563 km) from this
location.
Other notable extra-territorial
movements—The extra-territorial
movements of several wolves were
radio-tracked in sufficient detail to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
2,640 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 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 wolf
movements of over 200 mi (320 km)
straight-line distance have been
documented on numerous occasions,
while shorter distance movements are
more frequent. Movements of 300 mi
(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 2,640 mi (4,251 km) before it reversed
direction, as determined by its satellitetracked collar. This wolf ultimately
returned to a spot only 24 mi (40 km)
from its natal territory (Merrill and
Mech 2000, p. 430). Although much
longer movements have been
documented, including some by
midwestern wolves, return movements
to the vicinity of natal territories have
not been documented for extraterritorial movements beyond 300 mi
(480 km).
Based on these extra-territorial
movement data, we conclude that
affiliation with the midwestern wolf
population is diminished and
essentially lost when dispersal takes a
Midwest wolf a distance of 250 to 300
mi (400 to 480 km) beyond the outer
edge of the areas that are continuously
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26105
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, pose a partial barrier to
wolf movements (Blanco et al. 2005, p.
320). The 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
WGL 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
WGL wolf population, supporting our
belief that the boundary should not be
designed to include the locations of all
known dispersers.
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Section 4 of the Act and its
implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing
species, reclassifying species, or
removing species from listed status.
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26106
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as
including any species or subspecies of
fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct vertebrate population segment
of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the
‘‘species’’ is identified, we then evaluate
whether that species may be endangered
or threatened because of one or more of
the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act. We must consider
these same five factors in delisting a
species. We may delist a species
according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best
available scientific and commercial data
indicate that the species is neither
endangered nor threatened because (1)
the species is extinct, (2) the species has
recovered and is no longer endangered
or threatened, or (3) the original
scientific data used at the time the
species was classified were in error.
A recovered species is one that no
longer meets the Act’s definition of
threatened or endangered. The analysis
for a delisting due to recovery must be
based on the five factors outlined in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act. This analysis
must include an evaluation of threats
that existed at the time of listing, those
that currently exist, and those that could
potentially affect the species once the
protections of the Act are removed.
In the context of the Act, the term
‘‘threatened species’’ means any species
or subspecies or, for vertebrates, Distinct
Population Segment (DPS) that is likely
to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range. The
term ‘‘endangered species’’ means any
species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. The Act does not define the
term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ For the
purpose of this proposal, we define the
‘‘foreseeable future’’ to be the extent to
which, given the amount and substance
of available data, we can anticipate
events or effects, or reliably extrapolate
threat trends that relate to the status of
the WGL DPS. For the proposed 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
proposed WGL DPS. The length of time
over which this shift occurred, and the
ensuing stability in those attitudes,
gives 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 commitment will continue.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
When evaluating the available
information, with respect to foreseeable
future, we take into account reduced
confidence as we forecast further into
the future. As explained previously, our
analysis of the factors affecting the WGL
DPS refer to the gray wolf (C. lupus),
because that is the named entity
currently on the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (see Procedural
Aspects of Proposal Applying to the
Gray Wolf above).
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
A common misconception is that
wolves inhabit only remote 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. However, the
primary reason wolves survived in those
areas was not because of habitat
conditions, but, rather, because remote
areas were 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, for instance, 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Suitable Habitat Within the Proposed
Western Great Lakes 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, density
of agricultural lands, 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, p. 769–770; Wydeven et al.
2001a, pp. 110–113; Erb and Benson
2004, p. 2; Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 1661–
1668; Mladenoff et al. 2009, pp. 132–
135).
To a large extent, road density has
been adopted as the best predictor of
habitat suitability in the Midwest due to
the connection between roads and
human-related 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 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
people 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 people per sq km
are suitable if they have road densities
up to 0.7 km per sq km (Erb and Benson
2004, Table 1).
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
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
a greater likelihood that wolves in such
an area will encounter humans,
domestic animals, and various human
activities. These encounters may result
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, pp. 282,
291). Based on mortality data from
radio-collared 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 as
‘‘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 and,
therefore, less-suitable areas (Mech
1989, pp. 387–388; Wydeven et al.
2001a, p. 112). The predictive ability of
this model was questioned (Mech
2006a, 2006b) and responded to
(Mladenoff et al. 2006), and an updated
analysis of Wisconsin pack locations
and habitat has been completed
(Mladenoff et al. 2009). This new model
maintains that road density is still an
important indicator of suitable wolf
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
habitat; however, lack of agricultural
land is also a strong predictor of habitat
wolves occupy.
It appears that essentially all suitable
habitat in Minnesota is now occupied,
range expansion has slowed or possibly
ceased, and the wolf population within
the State has stabilized (Erb and Benson
2004, p. 7; Erb and Don Carlos 2009, pp.
57, 60). This suitable habitat closely
matches the areas designated as Wolf
Management Zones 1 through 4 in the
Revised 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 2008–09 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 northcentral forest; pack densities are lower,
but increasing, in the northeastern
corner of the State (Wydeven and
Wiedenhoeft 2009, Figure 1).
Michigan wolf surveys in winter
2009–10 continue to show wolf pairs or
packs (defined by Michigan DNR as two
or more wolves traveling together) in
every UP county except Keweenaw
County (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6;
Roell 2011, pers. comm.), which
probably lacks a suitable ungulate prey
base during winter months (Potvin et al.
2005, p. 1665).
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
northern LP 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; a graduate
thesis estimates that 110–480 wolves
could exist in the northern LP (Potvin
2003, p. 39). The northern LP 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 several documented occurrences of
wolves in the northern LP, but until
2010, there had been no indication of
persistence beyond several months.
Prior to those occurrences, the last
recorded wolf in the LP was in 1910.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26107
In the first instance a radio-collared
female wolf from the eastern 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 northern LP county. Follow-up
winter surveys by the DNR in early 2005
failed to find additional wolf tracks in
the northern LP (Huntzinger et al. 2005,
p. 7); additional surveys conducted in
2006–10 also failed to find evidence of
continued northern LP wolf presence
(Roell et al. 2009, p. 5; Roell 2010, pers.
comm.). A video of a single wolf was
taken near Mackinac City in Cheboygan
County in May 2009, and another trailcamera video-recorded a wolf in
Presque Isle County in July 2009. These
two sightings may have been the same
animal (Roell 2009, pers. comm.). In
2010, USDA Wildlife Services and MI
DNR staff confirmed a single breeding
pair with pups in Cheboygan County in
the northern LP (MI DNR 2010).
These northern LP 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 northern LP
population. The Gehring and Potter
study (2005, p. 1239) predicted 850 sq
mi (2,198 sq km) of suitable habitat
(areas with greater than a 50 percent
probability of wolf occupancy) in the
northern LP. Potvin (2003, p. 21), 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
northern LP. Gehring and Potter (2005,
p. 1239) exclude from their calculations
those northern LP low-road-density
patches that are less than 19 sq mi (50
sq km), while Potvin (2003, pp. 10–15)
does not limit habitat patch size in his
calculations. Both of these area
estimates are well below the minimum
area described in the Revised 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 Revised
Recovery Plan, the Service has
concluded that suitable habitat for
wolves in the proposed WGL DPS can
be determined by considering four
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26108
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
factors: Road density, human density,
prey base, and size. An adequate prey
base is an absolute requirement, but in
much of the proposed 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
individual wolf packs can be relatively
small, packs are not likely to persist as
a viable population if they occupy a
small isolated island of otherwise
unsuitable habitat. The 1992 Revised
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).
Based on the information discussed
above, we conclude that Minnesota
Wolf Management Zone A (Federal Wolf
Management Zones 1–4, Figure 2),
Wisconsin Wolf Zones 1 and 2 (Figure
3), and the UP of Michigan contain a
sufficient amount of 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.
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
proposed WGL DPS. There are five
national forests in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan (Superior,
Chippewa, Chequamegon-Nicolet,
Ottawa, and Hiawatha National Forests)
with wolf packs that exclusively or
partially reside on them. Their wolf
populations range from approximately
484 on the Superior National Forest in
northeastern Minnesota, to an estimated
182 on the UP’s Ottawa National Forest,
164 on the Chequamegon–Nicolet
National Forest in northeastern
Wisconsin, and another estimated 49 on
the Hiawatha National Forest in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
eastern UP (Delphey 2009, pers. comm.;
Eklund 2009, pers. comm.; Roell 2011,
pers. comm., Wydeven 2011, pers.
comm.).
Voyageurs National Park, along
Minnesota’s northern border, has a land
base of nearly 340 sq mi (882 sq km).
As of the last survey in 2008, there were
31 to 46 wolves within 7 to 9 packs that
exclusively or partially reside within
the park, and at least 5 packs are located
wholly inside the Park boundaries
(Ethier et al. 2008, p. 5). The 2008
estimates fall within the range of wolf
estimates for the Park from the 1990s
(Gogan et al. 2004) and early 2000s (Fox
et al. 2001, pp. 6–7).
Within the boundaries of the
proposed 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. Although in 1999
mange and illegal shootings reduced
them to a single pack of five wolves and
a separate lone wolf, since 2001, 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 an adjacent
State-owned wildlife management area
(Huschle in litt. 2005).
Data collected by Agassiz NWR staff
during winter wolf sign surveys
conducted in cooperation with the MN
DNR during both the winters of 2007–
08 and 2008–09 support the above wolf
totals. Winter track data from 2007–08
suggest that one pack on Agassiz had a
minimum size of five and one had a
minimum size of six. The following
winter’s survey information suggested a
minimum pack size of five for both
packs (Knutson 2009, pers. comm.).
Two packs of wolves that currently
include about eight and five members,
respectively, use Tamarac NWR and the
territory of a third occurs partly on the
Refuge (Brininger 2009, pers. comm.).
The size of the one pack using Rice Lake
NWR, in Minnesota, has been reported
at six to nine in previous years; in 2009
a maximum of three wolves were
confirmed on the Refuge (McDowell
2009, pers. comm.), although total pack
size may be greater.
Other single or paired wolves pass
through the Refuge frequently (Stefanski
2004, pers. comm.; McDowell in litt.
2005). Seney NWR has three packs,
representing 8–10 wolves, which
partially reside on the Refuge (Roell
2010, pers. comm.). In 2010, two packs
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of six wolves each and at least one loner
were detected on Necedah NWR
(Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 41). Over the
past 10 years, Sherburne and Crane
Meadows NWR Complex 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 mi (24 km) of Crane Meadows NWR
at Camp Ripley Military Installation and
30 mi (48 km) north of Sherburne NWR
at Mille Lacs State Wildlife Management
Area (Berkley 2009, pers. comm.).
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 sq mi (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 DNR to incorporate the
effects of future development ‘‘into longterm 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 sq mi (13,805 sq
km) of land in Minnesota’s wolf range.
The 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
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 (1.96 million hectares) of Stateadministered 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 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 wolves
would complement measures the MN
DNR described in its State wolf plan
(MN DNR 2001, pp. 26–27). If the
Service ultimately delists the DPS as
proposed, the Service will review
certification evaluation reports issued
by FSC to assess MN DNR’s ongoing
efforts in this area as part of its postdelisting monitoring.
Counties manage approximately 3,860
sq mi (9,997 sq km) 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 second largest deer harvest
occurred in 2006, and approximately
one-half of the Minnesota deer harvest
is in the Forest Zone, which
encompasses most of the occupied wolf
range in the State (MN DNR 2009, Table
1).
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 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 5,812 sq mi (15,053 sq
km). The 1999 Wisconsin wolf plan
listed land ownership of primary and
secondary wolf habitat (Wydeven et al.
1999, p. 48). In 2006, Sickley (2006,
pers. comm.) provided an update of the
data with more accurate land ownership
data. That data show that about 55
percent of primary habitat was in public
land including, Federal, State, or county
ownership, and 7 percent was on Tribal
land. County lands, mostly county
forests, comprised 29 percent of the
primary habitat, and Federal lands
mostly the Chequamegon–Nicolet
National Forest, included another 17
percent.
Most Tribal land (7 percent of primary
habitat), while not public land, will
likely remain as suitable deer and wolf
habitat for the foreseeable future. State
forest ownership protects 10 percent.
Private industrial forest lands
comprised another 10 percent of the
primary habitat, although some of these
lands have been subdivided for second
or vacation home sites, reducing this
acreage in recent years. The remaining
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26109
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 WI DNR (10 to 50 percent
probability of occupancy by wolf packs;
Wydeven et al. 1999, pp. 47–48) were
somewhat more developed or
fragmented habitats and were less well
protected overall, because only 43
percent were in public ownership and 5
percent were in Native American
reservations. Public land that
maintained secure habitat included
county (17 percent) and national (18
percent) forests ownership protecting
the largest segments, and State land
protected 7 percent. Private industrial
forest ownership provided protection to
5 percent, and the remaining 47 percent
was 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 or
management for sustainable timber
production. Over half of the secondary
habitat is similarly protected. Portions
of the primary habitat in northeastern
Wisconsin remained sparsely populated
with wolf packs until recently, but are
filling in lately (Wydeven et al. 2010,
Fig. 2, p. 66), although still allowing for
some continuing wolf population
expansion. In general, 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
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26110
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 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
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 (0.8 million hectares) of large-tract
industrial forest lands and another 1.9
million acres (0.8 million hectares) of
smaller private forest land are enrolled
in the Commercial Forest Act (CFA).
These 3.7 million acres (1.5 million
hectares) 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 provides suitable habitat and
prey for wolf populations. Therefore, a
minimum of nearly three-quarters of the
UP should continue to be suitable for
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; as
well as the relatively small areas of
unoccupied potentially suitable habitat,
will not contribute to the viability of
wolves in the proposed 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 proposed 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 will not adversely
impact the recovered wolf
metapopulation in the DPS.
Prey
Wolf density is heavily dependent on
prey availability (for example, expressed
as ungulate biomass, Fuller et al. 2003,
pp. 170–171), but prey availability is not
likely to threaten wolves in the
proposed WGL DPS. Conservation of
primary wolf prey in the proposed 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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 five largest deer harvests
have occurred in the last 6 years, with
a deer harvest averaging 241,000 deer
over the last 5 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 (Cornicelli 2008, pp.
208–209). 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, lack of prey availability is not
likely to pose a threat to wolves in the
foreseeable future in the State.
The deer populations in Wisconsin
and the UP of Michigan declined
somewhat from historically high levels
in recent years. Wisconsin’s preseason
deer population has exceeded 1 million
animals since 1984 (WI DNR undated a;
Rolley 2007, p. 6; Rolley 2008, p. 6), and
hunter harvest has exceeded 400,000
deer in 10 of the last 12 years (WI DNR
2010, p.57). Across northern Wisconsin
wolf range (Zone 1), winter deer density
in northern deer management units
averaged from 22–30 deer per sq mi
(8.5–11.6 deer per sq km) between
2001–07, but declined to 17–18 deer per
sq mi (6.6–6.9 deer per sq km) in 2009
and 2010. In Central Forest wolf range
(Zone 2), winter deer density in deer
management units averaged 29–50 deer
per sq mi (11.2–19.3 deer per sq km)
from 2001 to 2007, and was 35 deer per
sq mi (13.5 deer per sq km) in 2009, and
26 deer per sq mi (10.0 deer per sq km)
in 2010 (WI DNR data).
Michigan’s 2009 October forecast for
the deer population was approximately
1.8 million deer, with about 312,800
residing in the UP; the 2010 estimates
projected a slightly higher UP deer
population (Doepker 2010, pers. comm.;
Rudolph 2010, pers. comm.). Because of
severe winter conditions (persistent,
deep snow) in the UP, deer populations
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
can change dramatically from year to
year. Recently (2010) the MI DNR
finalized a new deer management plan,
to address ecological, social, and
regulatory shifts. An objective of this
plan is to manage deer at the
appropriate scale, considering impacts
of deer on the landscape and on other
species, in addition to population size
(MI DNR 2010, p. 20). Additionally, the
Michigan wolf management plan
addresses maintaining a sustainable
population of wolf prey (MI DNR 2008,
p. 36). 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 proposed
WGL DPS currently occupies all the
suitable habitat area identified for
recovery in the Midwest in the 1978
Recovery Plan and 1992 Revised
Recovery Plan and most of the
potentially suitable habitat in the WGL
DPS. Viable wolf populations are
unlikely to develop and persist in
unsuitable habitat and the small
fragmented areas of suitable habitat
away from these core areas. Although
they may have been historical habitat,
many of these areas are no longer
suitable for wolves and they have not
been considered necessary for the
recovery of the proposed DPS.
The wolf population in the proposed
WGL DPS exceeds its numerical,
temporal, and distributional goals for
recovery. The amount of habitat likely
to support a delisted wolf population is
considered to be adequate for
maintaining the WGL population at or
above recovery levels for the foreseeable
future. Because much important wolf
habitat in the DPS is in public
ownership, the States will likely
continue to manage for high ungulate
populations, and the States, Tribes, and
Federal land management agencies will
adequately regulate human-caused
mortality of wolves and wolf prey. This
will allow these States to easily support
a recovered and viable wolf
metapopulation into the foreseeable
future. We conclude that wolves within
this proposed 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 uses
for scientific or educational purposes
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
are not likely to increase substantially
following delisting of the proposed
WGL 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 wolves have
been legally killed or removed from the
wild in any of the nine States included
in the proposed 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 illegal commercial
trafficking in wolf pelts or parts and
illegal capture of wolves for commercial
breeding purposes happens rarely. State
wolf management plans for Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan help ensure
that wolves will not be killed for
commercial or recreational purposes for
many years following the proposed
Federal delisting, so these forms of
mortality will not likely emerge as new
threats upon delisting. See Factor D for
a detailed discussion of State wolf
management plans, and for applicable
regulations in States without wolf
management plans.
We do not expect the use of wolves
for scientific purposes to increase in
proportion to total wolf numbers in the
proposed WGL DPS after delisting.
While listed, the intentional or
incidental killing, or capture and
permanent confinement, of endangered
or threatened 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 proposed WGL DPS,
these animals were either taken from the
Minnesota wolf population during longterm research activities (about 15
wolves) or were accidental takings as a
result of research activities in Wisconsin
(5 to 6 mortalities and 1 long-term
confinement) and in Michigan (4
mortalities) (Berg in litt. 1998; Mech in
litt. 1998; Roell in litt. 2004; Roell in
litt. 2005a; Roell 2011, pers. comm.;
Wydeven 2009, pers. comm.).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26111
2001, p. 19). Similarly, Wisconsin and
Michigan DNRs plan to continue to trap
wolves for radio-collaring, examination,
and health monitoring for the
foreseeable future (WI DNR 1999, pp.
19–21; MI DNR 2008a, pp. 31–32; 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
radio-telemetry-related injuries or
mortalities will not increase
significantly above the level observed to
date in proportion to wolf abundance;
adverse effects to wolves associated
with such activities have been minimal
and would not constitute a threat to
wolves in the proposed 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 in the proposed DPS for the
foreseeable future.
See Factor E for a discussion of
Taking of Wolves by Native Americans
for Certain 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 States
in the proposed WGL DPS 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 proposed WGL DPS. The potential
limited commercial and recreational
harvest that may occur in the DPS will
be regulated by State and/or Tribal
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 wolves in the proposed WGL
DPS to be in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future in all or a significant
portion of the range within the proposed
WGL DPS.
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26112
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
C. Disease or Predation.
Disease
Many diseases and parasites have
been reported for the 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 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 wolf
exposure to CPV peaked at 95 percent
for a group of Minnesota wolves livetrapped 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 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 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
suggests that CPV reduced 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 on an inverse
relationship between pup numbers in
summer captures and seroprevalence of
CPV antibodies in summer-captured
adult wolves (Mech et al. 2008, pp. 827–
830).
In a more recent study, Mech and
Goyal (2010) looked more specifically at
CPV influence on the Superior National
Forest population by evaluating five 7year periods to determine when CPV
had its greatest effects. They found the
strongest effect on wolf pup survival
was from 1981 to 1993, and that after
that time, little effect was seen despite
the continued seroprevalence of CPV
antibodies (Mech and Goyal 2010, pp.
6–7). They conclude that after CPV
became endemic in the population, the
population developed immunity and
was able to withstand severe effects
from the disease (Mech and Goyal 2010,
p. 7). The observed population effects in
the Superior National Forest population
are consistent with results for studies in
smaller, isolated populations in
Wisconsin and on Isle Royale, Michigan
(Wydeven et al. 1995; Peterson et al.
1998), but indicate that CPV also had
only a temporary population effect in a
larger population.
The WI DNR and the WI DNR Wildlife
Health, in conjunction with the U.S.
Geological Survey National Wildlife
Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin,
(formerly the National Wildlife Health
Laboratory) have 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 mid-1980s 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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ranging from 60 to 100 percent among
wild wolves handled from 2001 through
mid-2006. 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,
pp. 11–12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12
Table 5; 2005, pp. 19–20 Table 4; 2006,
pp. 23–25 Table 4; 2009, Table 2;
Wydeven et al. 2007, pp. 12–14; 2008,
pp. 19–21). 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 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 2004 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 long-
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
term 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
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 (WI DNR 1999, p. 61).
Mange continues to occur on wolves
in Wisconsin. From 2003 through 2007,
25 percent of live-trapped wolves
showed signs of mange, but that
declined to 11 percent of wolves
handled in 2009 and 2010. 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). Data from those closely monitored
radio-collared wolves show that mange
mortality ranged from 22 percent of
deaths in 2006 and 12 percent in 2007
to 21 percent of deaths in 2008
(Wydeven in litt. 2009), 15 percent in
2009 (Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 13), and
6 percent in 2010 (Wydeven et al. 2011,
p. 2).
Mange mortality does appear to be
stabilizing or perhaps declining in
Wisconsin. Not all mangy wolves
succumb; other observations showed
that some mangy wolves are able to
survive the winter (Wydeven et al.
2001b, p. 14). Mange has been detected
in Wisconsin wolves every year since
1991 when 45 to 52 wolves occurred in
the State, and may have slowed the
growth of the wolf population in the
early 1990s (Wydeven et al. 2009c), but
despite its constant presence as an
occasional mortality factor, the wolf
population grew to its present (2010)
level of 690 or more wolves.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
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
limiting factor for 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).
Disease monitoring in Wisconsin has
identified a second form of mange in the
wild wolf population—demodectic
mange (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft
2008, p. 8). Demodectic mange mites are
relatively common in domestic dogs,
where symptoms are often minor. The
WI DNR is closely monitoring wolf pups
and examining all dead wolves to
determine if this becomes a significant
new cause of wolf mortality.
Seven 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) 1999–2009, mangeinduced hypothermia killed 18 radiocollared Michigan wolves, representing
15 percent of the total mortality during
those years. Since 2004, 11 radiocollared wolves are known to have died
from mange in the State (Roell 2010,
pers. comm.). 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). 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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26113
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 and may currently infect less than
10 percent of the State’s wolves. Of the
407 wolves trapped by Wildlife Services
during 2006–08 in response to
depredation complaints, 52 (13 percent)
exhibited signs of mange (Hart 2009,
pers. comm.); the proportion of wolves
with signs of mange decreased from 17
percent in 2006 to 10 percent in 2008.
During the previous 3-year period
(2003–05), the proportion of trapped
wolves with signs of mange was also
about 13 percent, suggesting that mange
has not increased in prevalence among
wolves in Minnesota since 2003. The
incidence of mange among wolves
targeted by Wildlife Services is likely
not representative of the prevalence of
the disease in the statewide wolf
population; wolves targeted for
depredation control appear to be more
likely to carry the disease (Hart 2009,
pers. comm.).
In a separate study, mortality data
from 12 years (1994–05) of monitoring
radio-collared wolves in 7 to 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.
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
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26114
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
(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
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
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,
pp. 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 2005, unpublished data)
and 27 percent of the diagnosed
mortalities of radio-collared wolves in
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Wisconsin from October 1979 through
December 2009 (Wydeven et al. 2010, p.
45). In recent years (2006–10), disease
has been the cause of death for 14
percent (10 of 70 dead wolves) of the
diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared
wolves in Wisconsin and 3 to 7 percent
of all wolves (radio-collared and not
collared) found dead in the State (72 to
94 wolves). During that time period,
disease was the cause of death of 12
percent (5 of 43) of the diagnosed
mortalities of radio-collared wolves in
Michigan, and of 3 percent (6 of 199) of
the total known wolf mortalities in
Minnesota.
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
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 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 the Michigan DNR will continue to
monitor the prevalence and impact of
disease on wolf health following Federal
delisting (MI DNR 2008, pp. 32, 40–42).
Similarly, the Wisconsin Wolf
Management Plan states that as long as
the wolf is State-listed as a threatened
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 livetrapped 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 or tissue physiology work
conducted by the MN DNR and the U.S.
Geological Survey. The 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 proposed WGL
DPS, but outside Minnesota, Wisconsin,
and Michigan, we lack data on the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
incidence of diseases or parasites in
transient wolves. However, the
boundary of the proposed WGL DPS 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
Minnesota–Wisconsin–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 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 metapopulation 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 mid1980s 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 12 years, and it
is recognized as a continuing issue.
Despite these and other diseases and
parasites, the overall trend for wolf
populations in the proposed WGL DPS
continues to be upward. Wolf
management plans for Minnesota,
Michigan, and Wisconsin include
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26115
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 continued population
growth or the maintenance of viable
wolf populations in the DPS. Delisting
of wolves in the proposed 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
wolves in the proposed WGL DPS to be
likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future in all or a significant
portion of the range within the proposed
WGL DPS.
Natural Predation
No wild animals habitually prey on
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
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, 7 (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).
Among radio-collared wolves dying
from known causes between October
1979 and December 2009, overall rate of
intraspecific strife was similar at 17 of
151 mortalities or 11 percent (Wydeven
et al. 2010, p. 45). Gogan et al. (2004,
p. 7) studied 31 radio-collared wolves in
northern Minnesota from 1987 to 1991
and found that 4 (13 percent) were
killed by other wolves, representing 29
percent of the total mortality of radiocollared wolves. Intra-specific strife
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26116
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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
DelGiudice data (in litt. 2005) show a 17
percent mortality rate from other wolves
in another study area in north-central
Minnesota from 1994 to 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 with which the species has
evolved and it should not pose a threat
to wolf populations in the proposed
WGL DPS if this DPS is delisted.
Human Predation
Because our concern about human
predation is its overall effect on wolf
mortality, the following discussion
addresses the major human causes of
wolf mortality, including illegal killing,
depredation control, and vehicle
collisions.
Humans have functioned as highly
effective predators of the 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.
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 (for example,
wolves are hit by vehicles, mistaken for
coyotes and shot, or caught in traps set
for other animals); some of these
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 56
percent of the diagnosed deaths of
radio-collared wolves from October
1979 through December 2009 (Wydeven
et al. 2010, p. 45). Thirty-four percent of
the diagnosed mortalities, and 62
percent of the human-caused
mortalities, were from illegal killing
(mainly shootings). Another 9 percent of
all the diagnosed mortalities (15 percent
of the human-caused mortalities)
resulted from vehicle collisions. (These
percentages and those in the following
paragraphs exclude seven radio-collared
Wisconsin wolves that were killed in
depredation control actions by USDA–
APHIS—Wildlife Services. The wolf
depredation control programs in the
Midwest are discussed separately under
Depredation Control, below.) Data from
2006 through 2010 (68 diagnosed
mortalities of radio-collared wolves)
show the mortality percentages for
disease to be slightly lower and illegal
kills to be similar, with 14 percent of the
mortalities resulting from mange or
disease and 35 percent from being
illegally killed. The mortality
percentage for vehicle collisions during
this time period remained constant (13
percent) (Wydeven et al. 2007, p. 10;
and Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2008,
Summary). Most recently for 2010,
mortality data from actively monitored
wolves show that of wolves that died,
38 percent were killed illegally (all
shootings); 12 percent were euthanized
for human safety concerns; 6 percent of
the deaths were disease related; 6
percent died from apparent old age, 6
percent from intraspecific strife, and 12
percent from vehicle collisions; and the
causes for 19 percent of the deaths were
unknown (Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 2).
During the periods that wolves were
Federally delisted (from March 2007
through September 2008 and from April
through early July 2009), 92 wolves
were killed for depredation control,
including 8 legally shot by private
landowners (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft
2008, p. 8; Wydeven et al. 2009b, p. 6;
Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 13).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
through June 1992 period, only 1 of 27
(4 percent) known mortalities was from
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); and from
2005 through 2009, 126 of 459 (27
percent) known mortalities were from
that cause (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft
2005, p. 20; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft
2006, p. 20; Wydeven et al. 2007a, p. 7;
Wydeven et al. 2007b, p. 10; Wydeven
and Wiedenhoeft 2008, p. 7; Wydeven et
al. 2009a, pp. 19–21; Wydeven and
Wiedenhoeft 2009, Table 3; Wydeven et
al. 2010, Table 7).
A comparison over time for diagnosed
mortalities of radio-collared Wisconsin
wolves shows that 18 of 57 (32 percent)
were illegally killed from October 1979
through 1998, while 12 of 42 (29
percent) were illegally killed from 2002
through 2004 and 24 of 72 (33 percent)
were illegally killed from 2005 to March
2007 (WI 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; Wydeven et al.
2006a, p. 6; 2006b, p. 8; 2007, pp. 6–7;
2008a, p. 10). In 2006, prior to the
Federal delisting the following year, 17
of 72 wolves found dead in the state
were killed illegally. Among nine radiocollared wolves that had died in 2006,
six (67 percent) were illegally killed. In
2007, after Federal delisting, 10 of 90
dead wolves found in the State were
illegally killed, and 3 (19 percent) of the
radio-collared wolves found dead were
illegally killed. In 2008, 14 of 94 dead
wolves found in Wisconsin were
illegally killed, and 4 (28 percent) of 14
radio-collared wolves found dead were
illegal kills. In 2009, when wolves were
again Federally listed for most of the
year, 20 of the 72 dead wolves found in
Wisconsin were illegally killed, and 8
(62 percent) of 13 radio-collared wolves
found dead were illegal kills. In 2010,
when wolves continued to be Federally
listed, 14 of 72 dead wolves were
illegally killed, and 6 (38 percent) of 16
radio-collared wolves were illegally
killed.
Thus the number of known illegally
killed wolves declined slightly from 17
in 2006, to 10 in 2007 and 14 in 2008,
increased to 20 in 2009, and declined to
14 in 2010. Among radio-collared
wolves found dead, illegal killing
represented 67 percent of all mortality
in 2006, 19 percent in 2007, 23 percent
in 2008, 62 percent in 2009, and 38
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
percent in 2010 (Wydeven et al. 2010,
p. 13; Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 2).
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,
three 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, eight 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 six guilty pleas,
with three cases remaining open.
Data collected from radio-collared
wolves from the 1999 to 2009 bioyears
(mid-April to mid-April) show that
human-caused mortalities still account
for the majority of the wolf mortalities
(66 percent) in Michigan. Deaths from
vehicular collisions were about 18
percent of total mortality (27 percent of
the human-caused mortality) and
showed no trend over this 11-year
period. Deaths from illegal killing
constituted 39 percent of all mortalities
(60 percent of the human-caused
mortality) over the period. From 1999
through 2001, illegal killings were 31
percent of the mortalities, but this
increased to 42 percent during the 2002
through 2004 bioyears and to 40 percent
during bioyears 2005 through 2010
(Roell 2010, pers. comm.).
Most Michigan residents place a high
priority on wolf management actions
that address public concerns for human
safety (Beyer et al. 2006). Quick and
professional responses to wolf conflicts
have been important for wolf recovery
(Ruid et al. 2009, p. 280). In most cases,
people can take simple, sensible
measures to avoid those situations and
protect themselves against harm. Other
cases may warrant higher levels of
concern and professional assistance.
Michigan DNR solved most wolf-human
conflicts using nonlethal methods (Roell
2010, pers. comm.). However, in a few
incidents lethal control was warranted
and carried out under Federal
regulations (50 CFR 17.21, which allows
the take of an endangered species when
there is a ‘‘demonstrable but
nonimmediate threat’’ to protect human
safety, or to euthanize a sick or injured
wolf, but only if it is not reasonably
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
possible to translocate the animal alive),
or while wolves were not Federally
protected (Roell 2010 et al., p. 9). Since
2004 the Michigan DNR and USDA–
Wildlife Services have killed 13 animals
(12 involving human safety and 1 sick
wolf) under the authority of this
regulation (Roell 2010 et al., p. 9). Two
others were killed for human safety
concerns while wolves were Federally
delisted (Roell 2010, pers. comm.).
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 (DelGiudice
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 1987–91 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 nearly 35-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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26117
1992 (Licht and Fritts 1994, pp. 76–77).
Seven 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 wolves in North Dakota is
increasing. From 1993 to 1998, 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 to 2003,
residents of North Dakota reported 16
wolf sightings or depredation incidents
to USDA–APHIS–Wildlife Services, and
9 of these incidents were verified.
Additionally, one North Dakota wolf
sighting was confirmed in early 2004,
two wolf depredation incidents were
verified north of Garrison in late 2005,
and one wolf was found dead in Eddy
County in 2009. 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 were 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 in
accidental deaths would be unaffected
by a removal of wolves in the proposed
WGL DPS from the protections of the
Act.
In those areas of the proposed WGL
DPS that are beyond the areas currently
occupied by wolf packs in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan, we expect
that human-caused wolf mortality in the
form of vehicle collisions, shooting, and
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26118
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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
likely to continue as a threat to wolves
in these areas for several reasons.
Especially outside of Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan, 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 (for
example, depredation control) and
illegal human-caused 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
wolf mortality does not threaten the
continued viability of the wolf
population in these three States, or in
the proposed WGL DPS.
Human Predation Summary
The high reproductive potential of
wolves allows wolf populations to
withstand relatively high mortality
rates, including human-caused
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
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 (for example, 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
or low birth rates that warrant corrective
action by the management agencies (see
Regulatory Mechanisms in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan, below). The
goals of all three State wolf management
plans are to maintain wolf populations
well above the numbers recommended
in the Recovery Plan for the Eastern
Timber Wolf to ensure long-term 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 proposed
WGL DPS are delisted, as long as other
mortality factors do not increase
significantly and monitoring is adequate
to document, and if necessary
counteract (see Post-Delisting
Monitoring, below), the effects of
excessive human-caused mortality
should that occur, the Minnesota–
Wisconsin–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. Therefore, we conclude that
predation, including all forms of
human-caused mortality, will not be a
sufficient future threat to cause wolves
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
in the proposed WGL DPS to be likely
to become endangered in the foreseeable
future in all or a significant portion of
the range within the proposed WGL
DPS.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms is one of five factors that,
under the Endangered Species Act (Act),
may result in a determination as to
whether a species should be listed or
not. In analyzing whether the existing
regulatory mechanisms are adequate,
the Service reviews relevant Federal,
state, and Tribal laws, plans,
regulations, Memorandum of
Understandings, Cooperative
Agreements and other such factors that
influence conservation of the species in
question, including analyzing the extent
those mechanism can be relied upon.
Other examples include State
governmental actions enforced under a
State statute or constitution, or Federal
action under statute.
Strongest weight is given to statutes
and their implementing regulations, and
management direction that stems from
those laws and regulations. Some other
agreements are more voluntary in
nature; in those cases we analyze the
specific facts to determine the extent to
which it can be relied on in the future,
including how it addresses threats to the
species. We consider all pertinent
information, including the efforts and
conservation practices of State
governments, whether or not these are
enforceable by law. Regulatory
mechanisms, if they exist, may preclude
the need for listing if such mechanisms
are judged to adequately address the
threat to the species such that listing is
not warranted. Conversely, threats on
the landscape are exacerbated when not
addressed by existing regulatory
mechanisms, or when the existing
mechanisms are not adequate (or not
adequately implemented or enforced).
The following sections discuss the
adequacy of regulatory mechanisms that
would be implemented if the WGL DPS
were delisted, that is, removed from the
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife. For the reasons described in
the following section, the Service has
determined that, if delisted, adequate
regulatory mechanisms would be in
place to ensure that this DPS of 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
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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 (NRB) 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 NRB 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. It 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 relied heavily on
those guiding principles as it drafted a
new wolf management plan. The
Roundtable was 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. 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). Based on those
Roundtable recommendations, a revised
Michigan Wolf Management Plan was
completed in July 2008 (MI DNR 2008a).
The complete text of the Wisconsin,
Michigan, and Minnesota wolf plans
can be found on our Web site (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26119
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 the
proposed 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 Recovery Plan for the Eastern
Timber Wolf, whereas Zone B
constitutes Zone 5 in that 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 (see Postdelisting Depredation Control in
Minnesota below).
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26120
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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 plans to continue to monitor
wolves in Minnesota to determine
whether such intervention is necessary.
The MN DNR plans to conduct another
statewide population survey in the
winter of 2012–13 and at subsequent 5year 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
2008) to help ascertain annual trends in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
wolf population or range (MN DNR
2001, pp. 18–19). The agency is
currently evaluating alternatives to its
current methodology with the potential
to improve the efficiency and accuracy
of its statewide population estimates
(Stark 2009a, pers. comm.).
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, discouraging
new road access in some areas, and
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
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
for livestock losses has increased 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 to
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 if this proposed
delisting is finalized.
The likelihood of illegal take
increases in relation to road density and
human population density, but
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
EP05MY11.125
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
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. Minnesota DNR
has designated three conservation
officers who are stationed in the State’s
wolf range as the lead officers for
implementing the wolf management
plan (MN DNR 2001, pp. 29, 32; Stark
2009a, pers. comm.).
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
5 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 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 planning goal
of 1,251 to 1,400 wolves for the State in
the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS
1992, p. 28), therefore, implementing
such management measures under that
requirement would ensure the wolf’s
continued survival in Minnesota.
Depredation Control in Minnesota—
Although 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
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 2004, pers. comm.).
During the period 1980–2009, the
Federal Minnesota wolf depredation
control program euthanized from 20 (in
1982) to 216 (in 1997) 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, 152 (6.7 percent) from 1995 to
1999, and 128 wolves (4.2 percent) from
2000 to 2005. During 2006–10 an
average of 157 wolves were killed each
year—approximately 5.4 percent of
wolves in the State (Erb 2008; USDA–
Wildlife Services 2010, p. 3). 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). Following the
return of wolves in Minnesota to the list
of threatened species in 2009, 195 and
192 wolves were killed in 2009 and
2010, respectively, in response to
depredation of domestic animals in
Minnesota. This is the highest 22-year
consecutive total since authorization to
control depredating wolves was allowed
by special regulation under section 4(d)
of the Act while wolves were Federally
listed.
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 and 2007–08
estimates (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
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26121
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.
An authorized investigator must
confirm that wolves were responsible
for the depredation. The Minnesota
statute also requires MDA to
periodically update its Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to
incorporate new practices that it finds
would reduce wolf depredation
(Minnesota Statutes 2010, Section 3.737,
subdivision 5).
Post-delisting Depredation Control in
Minnesota—If the WGL DPS is delisted,
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
above, the Federal planning goal is
1,251–1,400 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 the
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
(specific number to be determined on a
case-by-case basis) within a 1-mile
radius of the depredation site
(depredation control area) for up to 60
days. In contrast, in Zone B, predator
controllers may take wolves (specific
number to be determined on a case-bycase basis) 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 5 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
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26122
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 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 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 any
time 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 wolf on their land or within 1 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 2 to 4 reported incidents
per year, mostly of wolves killing dogs,
although Wildlife Services received one
livestock depredation complaint in
Zone 1 in 2008 (Hart pers. comm. 2009),
and some dog kills in this zone probably
go unreported. In 2009, there was one
probable and one verified depredation
of a dog near Ely, Minnesota, and in
2010 Wildlife Services confirmed three
dogs killed by wolves in Zone 1 (USDA–
Wildlife Services 2009, p. 3; USDA–
Wildlife Services 2010, p. 3). 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
number of depredating wolves being
killed there after delisting.
The final change in Zone A is the
ability for owners or 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
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. While wolves were
under State management in 2007–08,
landowners in Zone B shot six wolves
under this authority. One additional
wolf was trapped and euthanized in
Zone B by a State certified predator
controller in 2009 (Stark 2009b, pers.
comm.).
The limitation of this broad take
authority to Zone B is fully consistent
with the Recovery Plan for the Eastern
Timber Wolf’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 Recovery Plan for the Eastern
Timber Wolf envisioned that the
Minnesota numerical planning 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.
Accordingly, there is no need to
maintain significant protection for
wolves in Zone B in order to maintain
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
a Minnesota wolf population that
continues to satisfy the Federal recovery
criteria after Federal delisting.
This expansion of depredation control
activities will not threaten the
continued survival of wolves in the
State or the long-term viability of the
wolf population in Zone A, the large
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 response to verified
wolf depredation in Zone A played a
key role in the team’s evaluation
(Peterson in litt. 2001). While wolves
were under State management in 2007
and 2008, the number of wolves killed
for depredation control (133 wolves in
2007 and 143 wolves in 2008) remained
consistent with those killed under the
special regulation under section 4(d) of
the Act while wolves were Federally
listed (105, in 2004; 134, in 2005; and
122, in 2006).
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, well above the
planning goal of 1,251 to 1,400 wolves
that the Revised Recovery Plan
identifies as sufficient to ensure the
wolf’s continued survival in Minnesota
(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, while
still maintaining connections to those
other populations. We support this
approach and believe it provides strong
assurances that the wolf in both States
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
will remain a viable component of the
proposed 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 State’s
wolf population, with approximately 6
percent of the Wisconsin wolves in
Zones 3 and 4 (Wydeven and
Wiedenhoeft 2009, Table 1). 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. 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,
after the population exceeded that level
for 5 years.
The Wisconsin Plan further
recommends that the State manage for a
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
Recently the WI DNR began work on
updating the State’s wolf management
plan, which may include increasing the
State management goal (Wydeven and
Wiedenhoeft 2009, p. 3).
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
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. Protection of pack
rendezvous sites, however, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26123
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).
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-round
prohibition on tree harvest within 330
feet (100 m) of den sites, and seasonal
restrictions to reduce disturbance
within one-half mile of dens, will be WI
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\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26124
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
monitoring that would occur upon
delisting, Wisconsin and Michigan
DNRs are seeking an effective, yet costefficient, 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 and 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
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
independent field testing of the
Minnesota method several years ago and
found that method to be unsuitable for
both States’ lower wolf population
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 any
Federal delisting, but the State will not
replace its traditional radio tracking/
snow tracking surveys during the 5 year
post-delisting monitoring period
(Wydeven in litt. 2006b). The 2006
update to the Wisconsin Wolf
Management Plan has not changed the
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
EP05MY11.126
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 an 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 to 2002.
Depredation incidents increased to 23
cases (including 50 domestic animals
killed and 4 injured) in 2003, 35 cases
(53 domestic animals killed, 3 injured,
and 6 missing) in 2004, and to 45 cases
(53 domestic animals killed and 11
injured) in 2005 (Wydeven and
Wiedenhoeft 2004a, pp. 2–3, 7–8 Table
3; Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 7; Wydeven
et al. 2006b, p. 7). From 2005 to 2008,
depredation incidents continued to
increase, with 52 cases (92 domestic
animals killed (includes 50 chickens)
and 16 injured) in 2006, 60 cases (51
domestic animals killed, 18 injured, and
14 missing) in 2007, and 57 cases (67
domestic animals killed and 10 injured)
in 2008 (Wydeven et al. 2007a, p. 7;
Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2008, pp. 8,
25–32; Wydeven et al. 2009a, p. 6).
Similar levels of depredations
continued to occur in 2009, with 55
cases (65 domestic animals killed and
11 injured), but increased again to 81
cases (99 domestic animals killed and
20 injured) in 2010 (Wydeven et al.
2010, pp. 9–10; Wydeven et al. 2011, p.
3).
The number of farms experiencing
wolf depredations has increased from 5
farms in 2000, to 28–32 farms from 2007
to 2009, and to 47 farms in 2010, a
nearly ten-fold increase in the number
of farms experiencing depredations
during the last decade. The number of
counties with wolf depredations on
farms also grew during that time period
from 5 to 17 counties, indicating that
wolf depredation problems on farms are
continuing to expand (Wydeven in litt.
2009; Wydeven et al. 2009a, p. 23;
Wydeven et al. 2011, p.3). Between
1995 and 2002, an average of 7 percent
of packs in Wisconsin were involved in
livestock depredations (Wydeven et al.
2004, p.36), and between 2002 and
2010, an average of 13 percent (from 7
to 17) of the State’s packs were involved
in livestock depredation (WI DNR data).
More aggressive lethal controls possible
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
in 2007 and 2008 through State
management following a temporary
period of Federal delisting appear to
have started to stabilize levels of
livestock depredation in 2007–09, but
loss of those control methods allowed
major increases in levels of depredation
in 2010.
A significant portion of depredation
incidents in Wisconsin involve attacks
on dogs, primarily those engaged in bear
hunting activities or dogs being trained
in the field for hunting. In most cases,
these have been hunting dogs that were
being used for, or being trained for,
hunting bears, bobcats, coyotes, and
snowshoe hare (Ruid et al. 2009, pp.
285–286). 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. Between 1986
and 2010, 206 dogs were killed and 80
were injured by wolves in Wisconsin
(WI DNR data files and summary of wolf
survey reports). Generally about 90
percent of dogs killed were hunting
hounds and about 50 percent of dogs
injured were pet dogs attacked near
homes (Ruid et al. 2009).
More than 80 percent of the dog kills
occurred since 2001, with an average of
17.2 dogs killed annually (range 6 to 25
dogs killed per year), and 6.8 injured
each year (range 1 to 14 dogs) during the
period 2001–10 (WI DNR files). Data on
recent depredations in 2009 and 2010
show a continued increase in wolf
attacks on dogs, with 23 dogs killed and
11 injured by 20 wolf packs (12 percent
of Wisconsin packs) in 2009, and 24
dogs killed and 14 injured by 21 wolf
packs in 2010 (Wydeven et al. 2010, pp.
51–52; Wydeven et al. 2011 p.3). While
the WI DNR compensates dog owners
for mortalities and injuries to their dogs,
the 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 2008, p. 5) and provides maps and
advice to hunters on the WI DNR Web
site (see https://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/
land/er/mammals/wolf/dogdepred.htm).
In 2010, 14 wolf attacks on dogs had
occurred near homes, which was the
highest level seen of this type of
depredation (Wydeven et al. 2011, p.3).
Post-delisting Depredation Control in
Wisconsin—Following the proposed
Federal delisting, wolf depredation
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26125
control in Wisconsin will be carried out
according to the 2006 Updated
Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan (WI
DNR 2006a, pp. 19–23), Guidelines for
Conducting Depredation Control on
Wolves in Wisconsin Following Federal
Delisting (WI DNR 2008), and any Tribal
wolf management plans or guidelines
that may be developed 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
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,
translocating 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 noninjurious behavior
modification materials, such as flashing
lights, noise makers, temporary fencing,
and fladry (a string of flags used to
contain or exclude wild animals).
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 $2,500 for dogs)
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 $68,907.88
(2007) to $203,943.51 (2010). From 1985
through December 24, 2010, the WI DNR
had spent $1,083,162.62 on
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26126
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
reimbursement for damage caused by
wolves in the State, with 82 percent of
that total spent since 2000 (https://
dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/mammals/wolf/
pdfs/wolf_damage_payments_2010.pdf).
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,
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 nonlethal
methods of behavior modification are
judged to be ineffective, wolves will be
shot or trapped and euthanized by
Wildlife Services or DNR personnel.
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 the proposed 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, based on the size of
the pack causing the local depredations
(WI DNR 2008, p. 8). Such permits
would be issued to: (1) Landowners
with verified permits on their property
within the last 2 years; (2) landowners
within 1 mile of properties with verified
wolf depredations during the calendar
year; (3) landowners with vulnerable
livestock within WI DNR-designated
proactive control areas; (4) landowners
with human safety concerns on their
property, and (5) landowners with
verified harassment of livestock on their
property (WI DNR 2008, p. 8). Limit on
number of wolves to control will be
based on estimated number of wolves in
the pack causing depredation problems.
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,’’ the incident must be
reported to a conservation warden
within 24 hours and the landowners are
required to turn any dead wolves over
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
to the WI DNR (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–
23; WI DNR 2008, p. 6). During the 19
months wolves were Federally delisted
in 2007 and 2008, 5 wolves were shot
in the act of depredations on domestic
animals, and 2 wolves were shot by one
landowner out of 67 permits issued.
One wolf was shot in the act of attack
on domestic animals during 2 months
when wolves were delisted in 2009.
The updated Wisconsin Plan also
envisions the possibility of intensive
control management actions in subzones of the larger wolf management
zones (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23).
Triggering actions and type of controls
planned for these ‘‘proactive control
areas’’ are listed in recent versions of the
WI DNR depredation control guidelines
(WI DNR 2008, pp. 7–9). Controls on
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 outside Indian reservations 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
2006, pers. comm.).
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, 29 in 2005, 18 in 2006, 37 in 2007,
39 in 2008, 9 in 2009, and 16 in 2010
(WI DNR 2006a, p. 32; Wydeven et al.
2008, pp. 8–9; Wydeven et al. 2009, pp.
6–7; Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 15;
Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 3). 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 2003–05, and thus
provide a reasonable measure of annual
lethal depredation control. Lethal
control authority only occurred for
about 3.5 months in 2006.
For 2003, 2004, and 2005, this
represents 5.1 percent, 6.4 percent, 7.4
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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). Limited
lethal control authority was granted to
WI DNR in 2006 by a section 10 permit
resulting in removal of 18 wolves (3.9
percent of winter wolf population), and
this permit remained in effect for 3.5
months (Wydeven et al. 2007, p. 7).
Lethal depredation control was again
authorized in the State while wolves
were delisted in 2007 (9.5 months) and
2008 (9 months). During those times, 40
and 43 wolves, respectively, were killed
for depredation control (by Wildlife
Services or by legal landowner action),
representing 7 and 8 percent of the latewinter population of Wisconsin wolves
during the previous year.
This level of lethal depredation
control was followed by a wolf
population increase of 0.5 percent from
2007 to 2008, and 12 percent from 2008
to 2009, (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft
2008, pp. 19–22; Wydeven et al. 2009a,
p. 6). Authority for lethal control on
depredating wolves only occurred for 2
months in 2009. During that time, eight
wolves were euthanized for depredation
control by USDA–WS, and one wolf was
shot by a landowner; additionally a wolf
was captured and euthanized by USDA–
WS for human safety concerns later in
2009 after relisting (Wydeven et al.
2010, p. 15). Thus in 2009, 10 wolves,
or 2 percent of the winter wolf
population, were removed in control
activities.
The Wisconsin wolf population in
winter 2010 grew to 690 wolves, an
increase of 8 percent from the wolf
population in 2009 (Wydeven et al.
2010, pp. 12–13). In 2010, authority for
lethal control of wolves depredating
livestock was not available in
Wisconsin, but 16 wolves or 2 percent
of the winter population were removed
for human safety concerns (Wydeven et
al. 2011, p. 3). 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 have an adverse impact
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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).
Control actions in Wisconsin also
resulted in removal of wolf-dog hybrids
from the wild that had begun
associating with packs. Wolf-dog hybrid
removal in depredation control activity
by USDA–WS included 3 in 2005, 1 in
2007, 2 in 2008, and 1 in 2010 (WI DNR
files).
One substantive change to lethal
control that will result from the
proposed 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; WI DNR 2008, p.
8). During the time wolves were
Federally delisted from March 12, 2007
through September 29, 2008, the DNR
issued 67 such permits, resulting in 2
wolves being killed. Some landowners
received permits more than once and
permits were issued for up to 90 days
at a time and restricted to specific
calendar years. During that same time
period, under Wisconsin depredation
management guidelines, landowners
were allowed to shoot wolves in the act
of attacks on domestic animals on
private land without a permit; under
that authority, landowners killed a total
of five wolves. The death of these seven
additional wolves—only one percent of
the State’s wolves in 2008—did not
affect the viability of the population.
Another substantive change after the
proposed delisting may be potential
proactive trapping or ‘‘intensive control’’
of wolves in limited areas as described
above. We are confident that the number
of wolves killed by these actions will
not impact the long-term viability of the
Wisconsin wolf population, because
generally less than 15 percent of packs
cause depredations that would initiate
such controls, and ‘‘proactive’’ controls
will be carried out only if the State’s
late-winter wolf population exceeds 350
animals outside Indian reservations.
The State’s current guidelines for
conducting depredation control actions
say that no control trapping will be
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’’ (WI DNR
2008, p. 5). Controls would be applied
on wolves depredating pet dogs attacked
near homes and wolves attacking
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
livestock, which in 2010 included 25
packs attacking livestock (23 packs that
were also documented in the previous
winter surveys), 8 packs attacking dogs
at homes, and 5 packs attacking both
livestock and dogs. Thus control would
have been applied to 31 packs (17
percent of State packs) previously
detected and 2 new packs. Because of
these state-imposed 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
2008, pp. 5–6; 2006c, 12.52). However,
Wisconsin regulations for deer farm
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. Wolf
packs establishing in more marginal
habitat with high acreage of pasture
land are more likely to become
depredators (Treves et al. 2004, p. 121–
122). 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 2008, of farms
experiencing wolf depredation, 25
percent (8 of 32) were in Zone 3, yet
only 4 percent of the State wolf
population occurs in this zone
(Wydeven et al. 2009a, p. 23). 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 recovery
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26127
goal in the Recovery Plan for the Eastern
Timber Wolf 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
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 updates (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.
The Wisconsin Conservation
Congress, a group that advises the WI
DNR on issues of fishing and hunting
regulations, held hearings in 2008
(while wolves were Federally delisted
in the WGL) to gather information on
the public’s attitudes toward a public
harvest of wolves in the State. Of the
people attending those meetings, 86
percent recommended that efforts begin
to develop public harvest regulations for
wolves in the State, indicating a strong
interest among hunters and anglers to
begin such development. Establishing a
public harvest, however, would be
preceded by extensive public input,
including public hearings, 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, 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 Tribes within the
proposed WGL DPS to establish any
public harvest of wolves during our
post-delisting monitoring program.
Future updates for the Wisconsin wolf
management and conservation plan will
likely contain more specific language on
any potential public harvest for the
State. The WI DNR is committed to
maintaining a wolf population at 350
wolves outside of Indian reservations,
which translates to a statewide
population of 361 to 385 wolves in late
winter. No harvest would be considered
if the wolf population fell below this
goal (WI DNR 1999, pp. 15, 16). Any
harvest would consist of limited permits
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26128
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
on limited portions of the wolf range to
reduce wolf-human conflict, and
extensive areas in wolf range would be
closed to harvest of wolves (WI DNR
1999, p. 21). Also, 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.
The Michigan Wolf Management Plan
In 1997, the Michigan DNR finalized
the Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and
Management Plan (MI DNR 1997). That
plan was developed when the number
of wolves in the State was relatively
small, and focused on recovery. In 2001,
the MI DNR began reevaluating the 1997
Plan and appointed a committee to
evaluate wolf recovery and management
in the State. As a result of that
evaluation, MI DNR concluded that the
1997 Plan needed revising, which
prompted a more formal review,
including extensive stakeholder input.
Recognizing that wolf recovery had been
achieved in Michigan, additional
scientific knowledge had been gained,
and new social issues had arisen since
the 1997 Plan was drafted, the focus of
the revised plan shifted from a recovery
plan to a wolf management plan. To
assist in this endeavor, the DNR
convened a Michigan Wolf Management
Roundtable, composed of a diverse
group of citizens 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 and trapping, the environment,
animal protection, law enforcement and
public safety, and tourism.
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
provided ‘‘guiding principles’’ for
managing wolves and wolf-related
issues following Federal delisting
(Michigan Wolf Management
Roundtable 2006, pp. 6–7). Those
guiding principles strongly influenced
the 2008 Michigan Wolf Management
Plan (MI Plan) (MI DNR 2008a).
The 2008 MI Plan describes the wolf
recovery goals and management actions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
needed to maintain a viable wolf
population in the UP of Michigan, while
facilitating wolf-related benefits and
minimizing conflicts. The four principal
goals are to ‘‘1) maintain a viable
Michigan wolf population above a level
that would warrant its classification as
threatened or endangered; 2) facilitate
wolf-related benefits; 3) minimize wolfrelated conflicts; and 4) conduct
science-based wolf management with
socially acceptable methods’’ (MI DNR
2008a, p. 22). The Michigan Plan details
wolf management actions, including
public education and outreach
activities, annual wolf population and
health monitoring, research,
depredation control, ensuring adequate
legal protection for wolves, and prey
and habitat management. 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).
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, even
though their population will continue to
be connected with populations in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Canada. The
Michigan wolf population must exceed
200 wolves in order to achieve the
Plan’s first goal of maintaining a viable
wolf population in the UP. This number
is consistent with the Federal Recovery
Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf’s
definition of a viable, isolated wolf
population (USFWS 1992, p. 25). The
MI Plan, however, clearly states that 200
wolves is not the target population size,
and that a larger population may be
necessary to meet the other goals of the
Plan. Therefore, the State will maintain
a wolf population that will ‘‘provide all
of the ecological and social benefits
valued by the public’’ while
‘‘minimizing and resolving conflicts
where they occur’’ (MI DNR 2008a, pp.
22–23). 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.
The 2008 Michigan Plan identifies
wolf population monitoring as a priority
activity, and specifically states that the
WI DNR will monitor wolf abundance
annually for at least 5 years postdelisting (MI DNR 2008a, pp. 31–32).
This includes monitoring to assess wolf
presence in the northern Lower
Peninsula. As discussed previously, the
size of the wolf population in Michigan
is determined by extensive radio and
snow tracking surveys. Recently the MI
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
DNR also conducted a field evaluation
of a less expensive ‘‘Minnesota-type’’
wolf survey. However, similar to WI
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).
From 1989 through 2006, the WI DNR
attempted to count wolves throughout
the entire UP. As the wolf population
increased, this method became more
difficult. In the winter of 2006–07, the
MI DNR implemented a new sampling
approach based on an analysis by Potvin
et al. (2005, p. 1668) to increase the
efficiency of the State survey. The new
approach is based on a geographically
based stratified random sample and
produces an unbiased, regional estimate
of wolf abundance. The UP was
stratified into three sampling areas, and
within each stratum the DNR
intensively surveys 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; Roell et al. 2009, p. 3).
Another component of wolf
population monitoring is monitoring
wolf health. The MI DNR will continue
to monitor the impact of parasites and
disease on the viability of wolf
populations in the State through
necropsies of dead wolves and
analyzing biological samples from
captured live wolves. Prior to 2004, MI
DNR vaccinated all captured wolves for
canine distemper and parvovirus and
treated them for mange. These
inoculations were discontinued to
provide more natural biotic conditions
and to provide biologists with an
unbiased estimate of disease-caused
mortality rates in the population (Roell
in litt. 2005b). Since diseases and
parasites are not currently a significant
threat to the Michigan wolf population,
the MI DNR is continuing the practice
of not actively managing disease. If
monitoring indicates that diseases or
parasites may pose a threat to the wolf
population, the MI DNR will again
consider more active management
similar to that conducted prior to 2004.
The 2008 Plan includes maintaining
habitat and prey necessary to sustain a
viable wolf population in the State as a
management component. This includes
maintaining prey populations required
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
for a viable wolf population while
providing for sustainable human uses,
maintaining habitat linkages to allow for
wolf dispersal, and minimizing
disturbance at known, active wolf dens
(MI DNR 2008a, pp. 36–41).
The Plan does not determine whether
a public harvest will be used as a
management strategy in Michigan, but it
discusses developing a ‘‘socially and
biologically responsible policy
regarding public harvest’’ (MI DNR
2008a, p. 65). Instituting public harvest
during a regulated season would first
require that the wolf be classified as a
‘‘game animal’’ in the State. Gameanimal status in Michigan may be
designated only by the State Legislature
and, additionally, only the State
Legislature could authorize the first
harvest season. If such designation and
authorization were conferred, the
Michigan Natural Resources
Commission would then need to enact
regulations pertaining to the methods of
a public harvest.
To minimize illegal take, the 2008
Plan calls for enacting and enforcing
regulations to ensure adequate legal
protection for wolves in the State.
Under State regulations, wolves could
be classified as threatened, endangered,
game, or protected animal, all of which
prohibit killing (or harming) the species
except under a permit, license, or
specific conditions. As discussed above,
designating a species as a ‘‘game animal’’
would require action by the State
Legislature. Michigan reclassified
wolves from endangered to threatened
in June 2002, and in April 2009,
removed gray wolves from the State’s
Threatened and Endangered species list
and amended the Wildlife Conservation
Order to grant ‘‘protected animal’’ status
to the gray wolf in the State (Roell 2009,
pers. comm.). A person who commits a
violation regarding the possession or
taking of most wildlife species with the
four legal designations (threatened,
endangered, game, or protected animal)
in Michigan is guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by imprisonment for not
more than 90 days, or a fine of not less
than $100 or more than $1,000, or both.
Penalties may also include costs of
prosecution, loss of hunting privileges,
and reimbursing the value of the animal
($1,500 for a threatened or endangered
species, $100 to $500 for most game
species, and $100 for protected animals)
(MI DNR 2008a, p. 35).
The 2008 Plan emphasizes the need
for public education efforts that focus
on living with a recovered wolf
population and ways to manage wolves
and wolf-human interaction (both
positive and negative). The Plan
recommends continuing reimbursement
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:20 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
for depredation losses, citizen
stakeholder involvement in the wolf
management program, continuing
important research efforts, and
minimizing the impacts of captive
wolves and wolf-dog hybrids on the
wild wolf population (MI DNR 2008a,
pp. 31, 59, 61, and 66).
The 2008 Michigan Plan calls for
establishing a wolf management
advisory group that would meet
annually to monitor the progress made
toward implementing the Plan.
Furthermore, the Plan will be reviewed
and updated at 5-year intervals, to
address ‘‘ecological, social, and
regulatory’’ changes (MI DNR 2008a, p.
66). The plan also addresses currently
available and potential new sources of
funding to offset costs associated with
wolf management.
The MI DNR has long been an
innovative leader in wolf recovery
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). The
MI DNR’s history of leadership in wolf
recovery and 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 further reinforces that the
revised 2008 Michigan Wolf
Management Plan will provide adequate
regulatory mechanisms for Michigan
wolves. The DNR’s primary goal
remains to conduct management to
maintain the wolf population in
Michigan above the minimum size that
is biologically required for a viable,
isolated population and to provide for
ecological and social benefits valued by
the public while resolving conflicts
where they occur (MI DNR 2008a, p.
22).
Depredation Control in Michigan—
Data from Michigan show a general
increase in confirmed events of wolf
depredations on livestock (Table 2).
These livestock depredations occurred
at 59 different UP farms (approximately
7 percent of the existing farms); 16 (27
percent) of those 59 farms have
experienced more than one depredation
event. Over 80 percent of the
depredation events were on cattle, with
the rest on sheep, poultry, rabbits, and
captive cervids (Roell et al. 2009, pp. 9,
11). In 2010, 26 (57 percent) of the
depredation events occurred on a single
farm. The relationship between the
number of wolves and the number of
depredation events suggests that for
every 100 additional wolves in the
population there will be about 3
additional livestock depredation events
per year (Roell et al. 2010, p. 6).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26129
TABLE 2—NUMBER OF VERIFIED LIVESTOCK DEPREDATION EVENTS BY
WOLVES IN MICHIGAN BY YEAR
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
Number of animals killed
3
1
5
3
5
13
11
5
10
14
14
12
46
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. Yearly losses vary and actions
of a single pack of wolves can be an
important influence. In Michigan, there
is not a strong relationship between
wolf depredation on dogs and wolf
abundance (Roell et al. 2010, p. 7). The
number of dogs killed in the State
between 1996 and 2010 was 34; 12
additional dogs were injured in wolf
attacks during that same period. Of the
34 wolf-related dog deaths during that
time, 50 percent involved hounds used
to hunt bears (Roell 2010, pers. comm.).
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 free-roaming, 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). However, in 2008,
the Michigan Legislature passed a law
that would allow dog owners or their
designated agents to remove, capture,
or, if deemed necessary, use lethal
means to destroy a gray wolf that is in
the act of preying upon the owner’s dog,
which includes dogs free-roaming or
hunting on public lands.
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
population in the UP. A total of 41
wolves were killed by the MI DNR and
USDA –Wildlife Services in response to
depredation events during the time
period when permits or special rules
were in effect or while wolves were not
on the Federal list of threatened and
endangered species (Roell et al. 2010, p.
8). Four, five, two, seven, fourteen,
eight, and one wolves, respectively,
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26130
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
were euthanized in 2003, 2004, 2005,
2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 (2 months)
(Beyer et al. 2006, p. 88; Roell in litt.
2006, p. 1; Roell et al. 2010, p. 19; Roell
2010, pers. comm.). This represents 1.2
percent, 1.7 percent, 0.5 percent, 1.6
percent, 2.7 percent, 2.5 percent, and
0.2 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, 7 percent from 2005
to 2006, 17 percent from 2006 to 2007,
2 percent from 2007 to 2008, and 11
percent from 2008 to 2009,
demonstrating that the wolf population
continues to increase at a healthy rate
(Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6; MI DNR
2006a, Roell et al. 2009, p. 4). Lethal
control of wolves during livestock
depredation was not available in 2010.
Post-delisting Depredation Control in
Michigan—Following the proposed
Federal delisting, wolf depredation
control in Michigan would be carried
out according to the 2008 Michigan
Wolf Recovery and Management Plan
(MI DNR 2008) and any Tribal wolf
management plans that may be
developed in the future for reservations
in occupied wolf range.
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 noninjurious 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
UP wolves during 1998–2003 (Beyer et
al. 2006, p. 88), but as with Wisconsin,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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). Therefore,
reducing depredation problems by
relocation is no longer recommended as
a management tool in Michigan (MI
DNR 2008a, p. 57).
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 (for example,
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 previous
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 2003–05 and
2007–09 depredation data, it is likely
that significantly less than 10 percent
lethal control will be needed over the
next several years.
The MI Plan provides
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 MI Plan’s
depredation and conflict control
strategies to be conservative, in that they
commit to nonlethal depredation
management whenever possible, oppose
preventative wolf removal where
problems have not yet occurred,
encourage incentives for best
management practices that decrease
wolf-livestock conflicts 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
nonlethal methods are determined to be
ineffective. Based on these components
of the revised MI Plan and the stated
goal for maintaining wolf populations at
or above recovery goals, the Service
believes any wolf management changes
implemented following the proposed
delisting would not be implemented in
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
a manner that results in significant
reductions in Michigan wolf
populations. The MI DNR remains
committed to ensuring a viable wolf
population above a level that would
trigger relisting as either threatened or
endangered in the future (MI DNR
2008a, p. 9).
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 nonprofit organization.
From the inception of the program to
2000, MI DA has paid 90 percent of full
market value of depredated livestock 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 $38,000 in livestock
loss compensation through 2008 (Roell
et al., p. 15). Neither of these programs
provides 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 (MI
DNR 2008a, pp. 59–60).
In 2009, Michigan passed two House
Bills that would become effective after
Federal delisting. Those bills authorized
a livestock or dog owner (or a
designated agent) to ‘‘remove, capture,
or use lethal means to destroy a wolf
that is in the act of preying upon’’ the
owner’s livestock or dog. During the 2
months that wolves were Federally and
State delisted in 2009, no wolves were
killed under these authorizations. We
are confident that the limited number of
wolves expected to be taken under these
Bills would not affect the viability of the
Michigan wolf population.
Regulatory Mechanisms in Other States
and Tribal Areas Within the Proposed
WGL DPS
North Dakota and South Dakota
North Dakota lacks a State endangered
species law or regulation. Any wolves in
the State currently are classified as
furbearers, with a closed season. North
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Dakota Game and Fish Department is
unlikely to change the species’ State
classification immediately following the
proposed Federal delisting. Wolves are
included in the State’s Wildlife Action
Plan as a ‘‘Level 3’’ Species of
Conservation Priority. 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.
2009).
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 any 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 wolves east of the
Missouri River; however, absent some
definitive action to establish a season,
wolves would remain protected.
Following the proposed 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
wolves in North and South Dakota not
on the Federal list 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 the proposed 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 effects
on the long-term viability of wolf
populations in the proposed WGL DPS
as a whole, because the existence of a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
wolf or a wolf population in the Dakotas
will not make a meaningful contribution
to the maintenance of the current viable,
self-sustaining, and representative
metapopulation of wolves in the
proposed WGL DPS.
Other States in the Western Great Lakes
DPS
The proposed 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
wolves as furbearers, with a closed
season (Howell in litt. 2005). If the State
retains this listing following the
proposed Federal delisting of the 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 the DPS,
and is part of the geographic area where
wolves are proposed for removal 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 the proposed
Federal delisting, wolves dispersing into
northern Illinois would continue to be
protected from human take by State law.
The extreme northern portions of
Indiana and northwestern Ohio are
included within the proposed DPS. If
this proposal is made final, any wolves
that are found in this area would no
longer be 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 any 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, if this proposal is made
final, 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 proposed
WGL DPS do not contain suitable
habitat or currently established packs,
depredation control in these States
would not have any significant impact
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26131
on the continued viability of wolf
populations in the proposed WGL DPS.
Tribal Management and Protection of
Wolves
Native American Tribes and interTribal resource management
organizations have indicated to the
Service that they will continue to
conserve wolves on most, and probably
all, Native American reservations in the
core recovery areas of the proposed
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 any 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 governments
(Hunt in litt. 1998).
Although not all Tribes with wolves
that visit or reside on their reservations
have completed management plans
specific to the 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 the proposed
Federal delisting. The Red Lake Band of
Chippewa Indians (Minnesota) and the
Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa
Indians (Michigan) have developed wolf
monitoring and/or management plans.
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
inter-Tribal 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
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26132
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
purposes, this would be carried out in
a manner that would not impact
reservation or ceded territory wolf
populations.
The Red Lake Band of Chippewa
Indians (Minnesota) completed a wolf
management plan in 2010 (Red Lake
Band of Chippewa Indians 2010). A
primary goal of the management plan is
to maintain wolf numbers at a level that
will ensure the long-term survival of
wolves on Red Lake lands. Key
components of the plan are habitat
management, public education, and law
enforcement. To address human-wolf
interactions, the plan outlines how
wolves may be taken on Red Lake lands.
Wolves thought to be a threat to public
safety may be harassed at any time, and
if they must be killed, the incident must
be reported to Tribal law enforcement.
Agricultural livestock are not common
on Red Lake lands, and wolf-related
depredation on livestock or pets is
unlikely to be a significant management
issue. If such events do occur, Tribal
members may protect their livestock or
pets by lethal means, but ‘‘* * * all
reasonable efforts should be made to
deter wolves using non-lethal means’’
(Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians
2010, p. 15). Hunting or trapping of
wolves on Tribal lands will be
prohibited. The Reservation currently
has seven or eight packs with an
estimated 40–48 wolves within its
boundaries (Red Lake Band of
Chippewa Indians 2010, p. 12).
In 2009, the Little Traverse Bay Bands
of Odawa Indians (LTBB) finalized a
management plan for the 1855
Reservation and portions of the 1936
ceded territory in the northern LP of
Michigan (Little Traverse Bay Bands of
Odawa Indians Natural Resource
Department 2009). The plan provides
the framework for managing wolves on
the LTBB Reservation with the goal of
maintaining a viable wolf presence on
the LTBB Reservation or within the
northern LP should a population
become established by (1) prescribing
scientifically sound biological wolf
management, research, and monitoring
strategies; (2) addressing wolf-related
conflicts; (3) facilitating wolf-related
benefits; and (4) developing and
implementing wolf-related education
and public information.
The Tribal Council of the Leech Lake
Band of Minnesota Ojibwe (Council)
approved a resolution that describes the
sport and recreational harvest of wolves
as an inappropriate use of the 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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). The Tribe is currently developing
a wolf management plan (Mortensen
2011, pers. comm.). In 2005, the Leech
Lake Reservation was home to an
estimated 75 wolves, the largest
population of wolves on a Native
American reservation in the 48
conterminous States (Mortensen 2006,
pers. comm.; White in litt. 2003).
Although no recent surveys have been
conducted, the number of wolves on the
reservation likely remains the same
(Mortensen 2009, pers. comm.).
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 wolf (Schrage in litt. 1998b; in
litt. 2003; 2009, pers. comm.). 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 wolves from harvest,
although harvest for ceremonial
purposes would likely be permitted
after Federal delisting (Symbal in litt.
2003).
The Menominee Indian Tribe of
Wisconsin is committed to establishing
a self-sustaining wolf population,
continuing restoration efforts, ensuring
the long-term survival of the wolf in
Menominee, placing emphasis on the
cultural significance of the wolf as a
clan member, and resolving conflicts
between wolves and humans. They are
currently working on developing a
Menominee Wolf Management Plan
(Cox 2011, pers. comm.).
The Tribe has shown a great deal of
interest in wolf recovery and protection.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 were
moved back to the Wildlife Science
Center (Pioneer Press 2006), and were
subsequently transferred to the
International Wolf Center in Ely,
Minnesota, where they remain in
captivity.
The Menominee Tribe continues to
support wolf conservation and
monitoring activity in Wisconsin. In
recent years the Menominee Tribe has
assisted the WI DNR in radio-telemetry
wolf flights, allowing more regular
flights to occur across all of northern
Wisconsin.
The Keweenaw Bay Indian
Community (Michigan) will continue to
list the wolf as a protected animal under
the Tribal Code following any Federal
delisting, with hunting and trapping
prohibited (Mike Donofrio 1998, pers.
comm.). Furthermore, the Keweenaw
Bay Community plans to develop a
management plan that will address
wolves (Donofrio in litt. 2003; Warner
20010, pers. comm.). At least three other
Tribes (Stock-bridge Munsee
Community, Lac Courte Oreilles Band of
Ojibwe, the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe,
and Grand Portage Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa) have indicated that
they are currently developing Tribal
wolf management plans.
Several Midwestern Tribes (for
example, the Bad River Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians and the
LTBB) have expressed concern that
Federal delisting will result in increased
mortality of 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). 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 western Great Lakes area.
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
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
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 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). The
1854 Authority is currently developing
a wolf management plan for the 1854
Ceded Territory, based on the above
principles (Edwards 2011, pers. comm.).
While there are few written Tribal
protections currently in place for
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
population, either locally or across the
proposed WGL DPS.
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. If we ultimately
determine that delisting the WGL DPS is
supported by the best available science,
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 wolves encompassed
within the Tribes’ retained rights to
hunt, fish, and gather in treaty-ceded
territories. The Department is available
to assist in the exercise of any such
rights. If biological assistance is needed,
the Service may provide it via our field
offices. Upon delisting, the Service
would remain involved in the postdelisting monitoring of the wolves in
the WGL, but all Service management
and protection authority under the Act
would end. Legal assistance would be
provided to the Tribes by the
Department of the Interior, and the BIA
will be involved, when needed. If this
proposal is finalized, we strongly
encourage the States and Tribes to work
cooperatively toward post-delisting wolf
management.
Consistent with our responsibilities to
Tribes and our goal to have the most
comprehensive data available for our
post-delisting monitoring, if the
proposal to delist the WGL DPS is made
final, we will annually contact Tribes
and their designated intertribal natural
resource agencies within the DPS during
the 5-year post-delisting monitoring
period to obtain any information they
wish to share regarding wolf
populations, the health of those
populations, or changes in their
management and protection.
Reservations within the WGL DPS that
may have significant wolf data to
provide during the post-delisting period
include Bois Forte, Bad River, Fond du
Lac, Grand Portage, Keweenaw Bay
Indian Community, Lac Courte Oreilles,
Lac du Flambeau, Leech Lake,
Menominee, Oneida, Red Lake,
Stockbridge-Munsee Community, and
White Earth. Throughout the 5-year
post-delisting monitoring period, the
Service will annually contact the
natural resource agencies of each of
these reservations and that of the 1854
Treaty Authority and Great Lakes Indian
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26133
Fish and Wildlife Commission. We
encourage the States and Tribes within
the WGL DPS to work together on
management and monitoring issues
post-delisting.
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
standards and guidelines in their
management plans that follow the 1992
Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber
Wolf’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 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 wolves in the
proposed 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 longterm viability of wolf populations in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26134
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Wolves regularly use four units of the
National Park System in the proposed
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.
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
wolf, the NPS Organic Act and NPS
policies will continue to provide
protection following the proposed
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
National Park (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 radiotelemetry study conducted between
1987 and 1991 of wolves living in and
adjacent to the park found that all
mortality inside the park was due to
natural causes (for example, killing by
other wolves or starvation), whereas the
majority (60–80 percent) of mortality
outside the park was human-induced
(for example, 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).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 wolf populations
in the proposed WGL DPS; as described
above, it is not considered to be
significant to the recovery or long-term
viability of the 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
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 (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.
Approximately 54–58 wolves from 11
packs used the Riverway on the
Wisconsin side in 2010 (Wydeven 2011,
pers. comm.). 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).
At least one pack of 4–5 wolves used
the shoreline areas of the Apostle
Islands National Lake Shore, with a
major deer yard area occurring on
portions of the Park Service land. Wolf
tracks have been detected on Sand
Island, and a wolf was photographed by
a trail camera on the island in
September 2009. It is not known if
wolves periodically swim to this and
other islands, or if they only travel to
islands on ice in winter.
Wolves occurring on NWRs in the
proposed 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 these NWRs.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 four wolves. In
2008–09, there were seven wolves using
the installation (Wilder 2009, pers.
comm.). In 2010 a pack of three wolves
occurred in the northern portions of the
Fort, and a pack of two occurred on the
south side (Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 42).
Management and protection of wolves
on the installation would not change
significantly after Federal or State
delisting. Den and rendezvous sites
would continue to be protected, hunting
seasons for other species (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).
Minnesota National Guard’s (MNG)
Camp Ripley contains parts of two pack
territories, which typically include 10 to
20 wolves. MNG wildlife managers try
to have at least one wolf in each pack
radio-collared and to fit an additional
one or two wolves in each pack with
satellite transmitters that may record
long-distance movements. There have
been no significant conflicts with
military training or with the permit-only
public deer-hunting program at the
camp, and no new conflicts are
expected following delisting. Long-term
and intensive monitoring has detected
only two wolf mortalities within the
camp boundaries—both were of natural
causes (Dirks 2009, pers. comm.).
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
proposed WGL DPS will also receive the
protection afforded by these Federal
agencies.
Summary of Factor D
In summary, if this proposed delisting
of the WGL DPS of gray wolves is made
final, there would be varying State and
Tribal classifications and protections
provided to wolves. The wolf
management plans currently in place for
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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, p. 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, the 2008 revised
Michigan wolf plan continues to
maintain the State’s commitments to
maintain viable wolf populations after
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, and
all would maintain sufficient numbers
of wolves to ensure their continued
survival.
If Federally delisted, wolves in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
would continue to receive protection
from general human persecution by
State laws and regulations. Michigan
met the criteria established in their
management plan for State delisting and
in April 2009 removed gray wolves from
the State’s threatened and endangered
species list and amended the Wildlife
Conservation Order to grant ‘‘protected
animal’’ status to the gray wolf in the
State (Roell 2009, pers. comm.). That
status ‘‘prohibit[s] take, establish[es]
penalties and restitution for violations
of the Order, and detail[s] conditions
under which lethal depredation control
measures could be implemented’’
(Humphries in litt. 2004).
Since 2004 wolves have been listed as
a ‘‘protected wild animal’’ by the WI
DNR, allowing no lethal take unless
special authorization is requested from
the WI DNR (Wydeven et al. 2009c).
Following the proposed Federal
delisting, Wisconsin will fully
implement that ‘‘protected wild animal’’
status 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 MN
DNR will maintain a wolf population of
at least 1,600 animals (MN DNR 2001,
p. 2). In the meantime, wolves may be
taken legally in Zone A only when they
pose an immediate threat to pets,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
domestic animals, or livestock or to
protect human safety (MN DNR 2001,
pp. 3–4). Since the wolf management
plan was completed in 2001, MN DNR
has fully staffed its conservation officer
corps in the State’s wolf range (Stark
2009a, pers. comm.).
Except for the very small portions of
Indiana and Ohio, if delisted, wolves in
the proposed WGL DPS 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 the proposed Federal delisting
of the DPS, in order to deal with wolflivestock conflicts in areas where wolf
protection would no longer be required
by the Act. Because these States
(Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, North
Dakota, and South Dakota) constitute
only about one-third of the land area
within the DPS, and contain virtually no
suitable habitat of sufficient size to host
viable wolf populations, it is clear that
even complete protection for 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 wolves in these six States,
these threats, and the area in which they
will be, will not impact the recovered
wolf populations in the DPS now or in
the foreseeable future.
Finally, based on our review of the
completed Tribal management plans
and communications with Tribes and
Tribal organizations, Federally delisted
wolves are very likely to be adequately
protected on Tribal lands. Furthermore,
the numerical recovery criteria (and for
Minnesota, the numerical planning goal)
in the 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
Park System, military bases, and
National Wildlife Refuges will provide
protections to wolves in the areas they
manage if delisted that will match, and
in some cases will exceed, the
protections provided by State wolf
management plans and State protective
regulations.
Therefore, we conclude that the
regulatory mechanisms that will be in
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26135
place subsequent to Federal delisting
are adequate to control threats to wolves
in the proposed WGL DPS such that
wolves in the proposed WGL DPS are
not likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future in all or a significant
portion of the range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
Taking of Wolves by Native Americans
for Certain Purposes
As noted elsewhere in this proposed
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, 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 if
wolves are delisted, 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 in coordination with the
Tribes, consistent with past Federal
court rulings on treaty rights. Such
taking would 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
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26136
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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, 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 the small number of
wolves that may be taken by Native
Americans would not be a threat
sufficient to cause the wolves in the
proposed WGL DPS to be in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future.
Public Attitudes Toward the Wolf
Human behavior has had a
tremendous effect on wolf populations
around the world. Theory and social
science research have identified
attitudes, and the beliefs on which they
are based, as important drivers of
behavior. Therefore, understanding
public attitudes toward wolves is a key
component of wolf management. The
success of the United States wolferadication programs of the latenineteenth and early twentieth centuries
are often accepted as evidence of
negative public attitudes that were
based on perceptions and beliefs
brought by European settlers that
portrayed the wolf as an evil, menacing
threat (Browne-Nunez and Taylor 2002,
p. 1; Fogleman 1988; Kellert 1986;
Schanning 2009, pp. 252–253) and were
perpetuated by exaggerated accounts of
marauding wolves preying on livestock
(Schanning 2009, p. 253).
As the wolf arrived on the brink of
extinction, there was a shift in
management and a parallel shift in
attitudes (Kellert et al. 1996; Schanning
2009, pp. 253–254; Williams et al. 2002,
p. 581). In the Great Lakes region,
bounty systems were repealed
(Wisconsin in 1957, Michigan in 1960,
and Minnesota in 1965) and, in 1972,
the first of many attitudinal studies
regarding wolves was carried out in
Minnesota (Johnson 1974). In the last
three decades, investigations of attitudes
toward wolves and wolf management
have burgeoned.
Minnesota
The first empirical examination of
attitudes toward wolves was conducted
using a convenience sample of 1,692
attendees of the Minnesota State Fair
(Johnson 1974). It was based on the
premise that children’s stories, which
typically cast the wolf as a villainous
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
creature, shape attitudes from an early
age. Although it found children to be
more negative toward the wolf, a vast
majority of adults held positive beliefs
and attitudes. Most respondents felt that
wolves were not a danger to humans,
should not be exterminated, had value
for Minnesota, and are good for the deer
and moose populations.
Llewellyn (1978) reported the results
of a content analysis of 1,083 public
comment letters received by the Service
regarding the proposed reclassification
of the timber wolf in Minnesota from
endangered to threatened. Of the 700
letters from Minnesota residents (the
other letters were from out-of-state), 23
percent favored retention of endangered
status, 7 percent supported
reclassification, and 70 percent were in
favor of delisting and return to State
management. Of note were differences
between urban and rural residents, with
a large majority (78 percent) of urban
residents and a minority (16 percent) of
rural residents in favor of continued
Federal protection of wolves. Support
for delisting was largely based on
concern for livestock and fear of wolves.
Kellert (1986) conducted a statewide
phone survey of Minnesota residents’
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors
toward the wolves. The study sample
comprised the general public
(Minneapolis-St. Paul residents and
mostly rural, northern county residents),
deer hunters, trappers, and livestock
producers. Most respondents held
favorable attitudes toward wolves
(except farmers), supported protection
of wolves and their habitat as long it did
not interfere with human needs, and
supported control of problem wolves.
Urban residents expressed more
protectionist attitudes, while rural
residents’ attitudes were more
utilitarian in nature. There was
‘‘somewhat-limited’’ factual knowledge
among the general public, but a higher
knowledge level among trappers and, to
a lesser degree, hunters and individuals
with a higher income. Fear of wolves
was expressed by some respondents,
although most did not feel that wolves
are a threat to people. Rather large
percentages of farmers (12 percent) and
trappers (17 percent) reported capturing
or killing a wolf, and a majority of
farmer, hunter, trapper, and northern
county respondents reported knowing
someone who captured or killed a wolf.
Additionally, almost one-third of
farmers, hunters, and trappers and a
quarter of northern county respondents
indicated that, given the opportunity,
they might shoot a wolf while deer
hunting.
In 1999, a second statewide phone
survey of Minnesota residents was
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
conducted, similar to the 1985 study,
using a stratified random sample of
northern residents, southern residents,
farmers, hunters, and trappers (Kellert
1999). During this study period,
Minnesota wolves were being
considered for Federal delisting.
Compared to the 1985 survey, this study
found an overall increase in positive
perceptions of the wolf. The general
public expressed more affection and
ethical concern for wolves than did
farmers, although there was not a
significant difference between groups in
level of dislike of wolves. Over 70
percent of respondents believed wolves
symbolize the beauty in nature and a
large portion of the sample perceived
other values of wolves, including
ecological, scientific, and moral.
Suburban and urban residents, the
college educated, and younger
respondents were more likely to have
positive attitudes. Farmers were more
knowledgeable about the wolf and more
likely to support delisting. Of note was
a substantial increase in the number of
northern Minnesota residents who
reported either killing a wolf themselves
or knowing someone who did.
Chavez et al. (2005) assessed attitudes
of residents of northwestern Minnesota.
The sample of 600 rural residents was
stratified by location: inside wolf range
and outside but adjacent to wolf range.
The study did not find large differences
between geographic groups or farmers
and non-farmers, with all groups
indicating slightly unfavorable attitudes
toward wolves. The authors suggest this
could be attributable to shared rural
cultural values and utilitarian attitudes.
They also consider the possible
influence of immigrant roots in Europe
where folklore and early conflicts with
wolves fostered negative attitudes. Both
geographic groups agreed that wolves
cause unacceptable levels of damage to
northwest Minnesota’s livestock
industry, although predators were
perceived as less of an agricultural
threat than other threats (e.g., livestock
diseases, crop pests).
Using a random sample of 909
respondents (18 percent response rate),
Schanning (2005) reported ‘‘pragmatic/
utilitarian’’ beliefs regarding wolves
among Minnesota residents. Most
respondents supported compensation to
livestock owners and having problem
wolves shot by the DNR. Counter to
Kellert’s earlier findings, there was a
significant level of fear of wolves among
Schanning’s sample, including fear for
personal safety (31 percent), the safety
of children (64 percent), and pets (70
percent).
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Michigan
In Michigan, Hook and Robinson
(1982, pp. 388–391) found that only a
small percentage of respondents scored
high on their anti-predator scale and
most respondents were in favor of wolf
restoration. Hunters were more positive
toward predators than nonhunters. Fear
of the wolf was the most important
factor related to an anti-predator
attitude, followed by negativistic
attitudes toward all animals, and age,
with older people holding more
negative attitudes.
Kellert (1990) conducted a statewide
mail survey of Michigan residents’
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors
toward wolves. There were 639
respondents from the Upper (UP) and
Lower (LP) peninsulas and members of
three special interest groups: hunters,
trappers, and livestock producers.
Livestock producers were the most
likely of the special interest groups to
hold negative attitudes toward the wolf.
LP residents were more likely than UP
residents to express fear and dislike of
wolves. A majority of respondents in
each group, except livestock producers,
supported restoration (64 percent of UP
residents, 57 percent of LP residents, 76
percent of hunters, 66 percent of
trappers, and 37 percent of livestock
producers). Support was primarily
motivated by the existence, ecological,
and cultural values of the wolf.
A 2002 statewide survey of 557
Michigan residents’ attitudes toward
wolf recovery found that support for
recovery by UP residents had declined
since Kellert’s 1990 study (Mertig 2004).
At the time this study was conducted,
the UP’s wolf population had risen to
about 250 animals (Hammill 2007), but
in the LP, where wolves were not
known to be present, there was
increased support for wolf recovery in
the UP. Other differences from Kellert’s
(1990) findings included increased
support for wolf control and for hunting
and trapping for pelts.
Based on a sample of 1,017 Michigan
residents (20 percent response rate),
Schanning (2004) found that a majority
of respondents in his survey agreed with
pro-wolf statements including ‘‘wolves
are a part of our vanishing wilderness
and should be protected’’ (51 percent).
Similar to his 2005 study of Minnesota
residents and his 2003 study of
Wisconsin residents (reported below),
Schanning found a substantial level of
fear of wolves among the Michigan
sample. Respondents reported fear for
their personal safety (40 percent), the
safety of children (70 percent), pets (7
percent), and livestock (66 percent).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Using a stratified random sample of
respondents from five regions in
Michigan, Beyer (2006) measured
tolerance of wolves using a scale for
social carrying capacity. The scale was
based on Michigan wolves’ perceived
range, numbers, and the type and
number of interactions with people. The
study found that most people were at
the most tolerant end of the scale, with
smaller percentages classified as
intolerant (7 percent) or least tolerant
(20 percent).
Wisconsin
Knight (1985, reported in Schanning
2009, p. 257) surveyed hunter attitudes
in two Wisconsin counties in wolf range
where a minority (20 percent) of hunters
reported negative attitudes toward
wolves and most (69 percent) believed
that wolves should not be eliminated.
In 1988, when there were only 20
wolves in Wisconsin, Nelson and
Franson (1988) compared farmer’ and
non-farmers’ attitudes toward wolves
and wolf recovery in six Wisconsin
counties. A series of agree-disagree
belief statements was used to gauge
attitudes toward wolves. Non-farmers
were more positive than farmers, and a
majority agreed that the wolf
‘‘symbolizes the beauty and wonder in
nature’’ and ‘‘it would be wonderful to
hear the wolf howl in the wild’’ (64
percent and 62 percent respectively).
Almost half of farmers agreed with the
same statements. Both groups disagreed
that they would be afraid of an attack if
they saw a wolf while walking in the
woods. Farmers and non-farmers were
divided about wolf restoration, with half
of farmers and about one-third of nonfamers opposed. Both groups favored
trapping and removal of problem
wolves.
Wilson (1999) examined knowledge,
attitudes, and behaviors toward wolves
in a 1997 survey of two random
samples: all Wisconsin license plate
owners and those who purchased an
Endangered Resources (ER) license
plate. Fifty percent of all license plate
owners and almost 90 percent of ER
license plate owners supported efforts to
increase the State wolf population.
There were slight differences between
hunters (47 percent) and non-hunters
(54 percent) who support wolf recovery.
Naughton et al. (2003) assessed
tolerance of wolves among 535 rural
Wisconsin residents using a mail-back
questionnaire (82 percent response rate).
They examined the influence of
compensation for livestock losses to
wolves and preferences for wolf
management actions among different
segments of the sample, including
livestock producers, bear hunters,
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26137
general residents, wolf damage
complainants, recipients of
compensation, and demographic
segments. The strongest predictor of
tolerance was social group. A large
majority of bear hunters (73 percent)
were in favor of reducing or eliminating
the wolf population, compared to 45
percent of the livestock producers and
29 percent of general residents.
Individuals who had lost a domestic
animal to a predator were less tolerant
of wolves than those who had not.
Preferences for management actions
depended on the conflict situation.
Approval for lethal control was highest
for depredation on livestock and pets.
Bear hunters also were highly in favor
of lethal control when hunting hounds
are killed, but other groups did not
muster a majority for this option.
Compensation was not associated with
higher tolerance when comparing
recipients to nonrecipients among those
who reported losing a domestic animal
to wolves.
Similar to his studies in Minnesota
and Michigan, Schanning (2003)
surveyed 644 Wisconsin residents’ (13
percent response rate) attitudes toward
wolves. He found a majority of
respondents held pro-wolf attitudes
based on their agreement with three
belief statements: ‘‘the wolf is a symbol
of the beauty and wonder in nature,’’
‘‘wolves are part of our vanishing
wilderness and should be protected,’’
and ‘‘wolves are essential to maintaining
the balance in nature’’ (72 percent, 56
percent, and 62 percent in agreement,
respectively). There was substantial
support for wolf hunting (41 percent),
and a majority (60 percent) indicated
they would shoot a wolf if it threatened
their pet.
In a followup to Naughton et al.
(2001), Treves et al. (2009) reported
attitudes of 1,364 respondents (62
percent response rate) toward
compensation after wolf recovery. They
compared the attitudes of individuals
who contributed to Wisconsin’s
voluntary compensation fund with
those of noncontributors and found that
attitudes of each group differed in
several ways. Contributors favored
nonlethal over lethal problem wolf
management actions and supported all
types of payments more strongly with
the exception of payment for hunting
dogs injured or killed by wolves on
public land, but a majority of
respondents of both groups supported
compensation ‘‘even when wolves are
no longer threatened or endangered.’’
Noncontributors were more likely to
believe that wolf damages were part of
raising livestock and should not be
compensated.
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26138
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Treves et al. (in review) report the
first longitudinal results for change in
individual attitudes over time using
findings from surveys conducted in
2001 (Naughton et al. 2003), 2004
(Treves et al. 2009), and 2009. During
the data collection period, wolf numbers
nearly tripled and greatly exceeded the
State population goal, the level of wolf
depredation on pets increased and
became the third most frequent conflict
after attacks on beef calves and bearhunting dogs, and wolf management
authority was granted to State
governments and subsequently revoked
several times after Federal court
challenges. The 2009 survey found
attitudes toward wolves had become
less favorable, and fear of wolves,
perceived competition for deer, and
reported inclination to illegally kill
wolves increased. In the 2009 survey, 18
percent of hunters indicated they would
shoot a wolf if they saw one while
hunting. Nearly half of respondents
agreed their tolerance for wolves in
Wisconsin would increase if people
could hunt them.
Shelley et al. (in review) compared
attitudes of Ojibwe Indians and
nontribal residents of Wisconsin’s wolf
range. Tribal membership was the best
predictor of attitudes. Ojibwe
respondents had more positive attitudes
toward wolves, were more supportive of
wolf protection policy, and were less
supportive of a public wolf harvest and
lethal control of problem wolves. A
considerable percentage (Ojibwe 33
percent, nontribal 44 percent) of each
group indicated they would be afraid if
wolves lived near their homes. Fewer
Ojibwe (8 percent) than nontribal
respondents (16 percent) indicated that
they would shoot a wolf if they saw one
while hunting. Nontribal respondents
(57 percent) were more likely than
Ojibwe respondents (26 percent) to
believe that wolves threaten deer
hunting opportunities. Shelley et al. (in
review) point out the potential
significance of treaty rights, which grant
the Tribe half of any harvest, including
wolves, within the territories ceded by
them in nineteenth century Federal
treaties upheld by Federal courts in the
1980s.
Treves and Martin (2011) examined
the attitudes of 2,320 respondents,
hunters and nonhunters, living within
or adjacent to wolf range in surveys
conducted in Wisconsin in 2001 and
2004 (reported above) and the northern
Rocky Mountain (NRM) States of Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming. A majority of
respondents supported regulated, public
wolf hunting, although support was
dependent on potential justifications for
a hunting season.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
In Wisconsin, bear hunters in 2001,
followed by other hunters, were most
likely to support an immediate hunt,
whereas nonhunters in favor of wolf
hunting were more likely to be
supportive when managers estimate the
wolf population could sustain harvests
or when the majority of the public
believe damages have become
intolerable. There was a shift in 2004
when a majority of hunters indicated
they would support wolf hunting when
the population was deemed to be at a
level that could sustain harvests. More
nonhunters agreed with a hunt when
the public felt damages had become
intolerable. Inclination to kill a wolf
illegally in Wisconsin in 2001 and 2004
was high among hunters, particularly
among likely carnivore-hunters. These
two groups favored a significant
reduction (up to half) of the Wisconsin
wolf population.
In addition to the studies summarized
above, citizen input on the wolf
management plans of Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan has provided
additional insight on public support for
wolf recovery. Namely, it shows strong
support for wolf recovery if the adverse
impacts on recreational activities and
livestock production 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).
Summary of Public Attitudes
While there is a lack of empirical data
on early attitudes toward wolves,
historical accounts describe an
antagonist view of wolves during the
19th and early 20th centuries.
Attitudinal research conducted
throughout the lower 48 States in the
last three decades has shown that a shift
toward more positive attitudes took
place during the 20th century (Browne˜
Nunez and Taylor 2002, Kellert et al.
1996, Williams et al. 2002). Although
the basis for this shift is not understood,
suggested causes include changes in the
portrayal of wolves in the media (Kellert
et al. 1996) and a broader shift in
societal values of wildlife (Manfredo et
al. 2003).
Although direct comparisons cannot
be made of each study summarized
here, given different research methods
and contextual circumstances, we can
summarize some common findings and
general conclusions. Similar to research
conducted outside the Great Lakes
region (summarized in Williams et al.
2002), many of the studies reviewed
here demonstrate urban-rural
differences in attitudes, with urban
residents displaying more positive
attitudes; farmers and livestock
producers are more negative toward
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
wolves; those with higher education
levels have more positive attitudes; and
compensation does not translate into
increased tolerance.
In several studies, hunters were
mostly positive toward wolves (Hook
and Robinson 1982, Kellert 1990, Knight
1985), with the exception of Wisconsin
bear hunters who were the most
negative among special interest groups
(Naughton et al. 2003). Cross-sectional
studies suggest increasing support for
control of problem wolves and public
harvest of wolves (Kellert 1985, Mertig
2004, Naughton et al. 2003), and one
recent study shows this support has
increased among individuals re-sampled
over time (Treves et al., in review).
Some respondents indicated they had or
would kill a wolf illegally (Kellert 1985;
Treves et al., in review).
While most respondents were positive
toward wolves, it is evident that there
have long been competing attitudes
toward wolves. While attitudes in other
regions have been shown to be relatively
stable (Williams et al. 2002, Wilson and
Bruskotter 2009), a troubling finding for
managers in the Great Lakes region is
the most recent research showing
declining support for wolves (Hammill
2007; Mertig 2004; Treves et al., in
review) and an increasing inclination to
kill wolves illegally (Treves et al., in
review). Possible explanations for this
decline include increasing wolf
numbers, negative interactions with
humans, and negative media coverage
(Hammill 2007). It is unclear how
delisting will affect attitudes and
behavior toward wolves. Also in
question is how public wolf harvest
might affect attitudes and behaviors.
While we do not believe the affects of
public attitudes on wolves will be a
significant threat to the species in the
foreseeable future, as the status and
management of the wolf evolves, there
will be a need for continued
collaboration between managers and
researchers to monitor public attitudes
toward wolves and their management.
Hybridization with Coyotes
Genetic data relevant to possible
interbreeding between North American
wolves and coyotes was first reported in
a study of mtDNA restriction fragment
length polymorphisms by Lehman et al.
(1991). They found mtDNA haplotypes
in wolf populations in the Great Lakes
region that they interpreted as being
derived from coyotes (Lehman et al., p.
108). As wolf haplotypes were not
found in coyotes, the apparent
introgression occurred through matings
of wolf males with coyote females. They
determined that a minimum of six
instances of coyote-wolf hybridization
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
could account for the diversity of
‘‘coyote-type’’ haplotypes observed in
wolves (p. 112). Their general
interpretation was that introgression
primarily occurred as coyotes expanded
their ranges into the Great Lakes region
within historical time, although they
allow that two coyote-type haplotypes
commonly observed in Great Lakes
wolves may have been the result of
ancient hybridization. Their data also
indicated (Lehman et al., Figure 4) that
coyote-type haplotypes were less
common in the western part of the Great
Lakes region than in the east.
Wilson et al. (2000, Figure 6, p. 2165)
provided a different interpretation of
wolf-coyote relationships in the region.
They found coyote-like mtDNA
sequences in eastern Canadian wolves
from Algonquin Provincial Park,
Ontario, southern Manitoba, and
northeastern Minnesota that were
intermediate in sequence divergence
between coyotes and gray wolves. As
these haplotypes were apparently absent
in coyotes, they were thought not to
result from hybridization with coyotes,
but to represent an eastern wolf species,
Canis lycaon. They suggest that these
Canis lycaon haplotypes may have been
previously reported as ‘‘coyote-type’’ in
the study of Lehman et al. (1991).
It is now generally agreed that
historical and most contemporary Great
Lakes wolves have unique mtDNA
haplotypes that are distinct from those
of other wolves, and more related to but
still distinct from those of coyotes.
Haplotypes specific to the early 20th
century wolf population of the western
Great Lakes region were identified by
Leonard and Wayne (2008, pp. 2–3),
from a study of 17 historical specimens
from Michigan, Wisconsin, Ontario, and
Quebec. Of the 17 specimens that gave
conclusive results, 14 were either the
same or most similar to the haplotypes
described by Wilson et al. (2000) as C.
lycaon. Only one had a coyote
haplotype. Wheeldon and White (2009)
reported haplotypes from three
additional historical specimens from the
western Great Lakes region. Two
individuals from Minnesota (collected
1899 and 1900) had the same coyotelike haplotypes (C13) found in a late
19th century specimen from Maine, 50
years before recorded coyote sightings
in Maine (Wilson et al. 2003), as well as
in contemporary western Great Lakes
wolves from Minnesota to Quebec
(Leonard and Wayne 2008, pp. 2–3).
The third specimen, collected in the
winter of 1907–08 in Wisconsin, had the
common Great Lakes wolf haplotype C1.
Microsatellite DNA analysis of these
three specimens grouped them with
wolves rather than coyotes.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
¨
Koblmuller et al. (2009) addressed the
issue of coyote hybridization in the
Great Lakes region from analyses of
mtDNA sequence and both Ychromosome and autosomal
microsatellite DNA. They found
evidence of repeated incidences of
ancient introgression of coyotes into
Great Lakes wolves, although they also
suggested that introgression by coyotes
is recent and ongoing, especially north
of the Great Lakes.
Wheeldon and White (2009, p. 2) and
Fain et al. (2010) concluded that the
coyote-related haplotype C13 is actually
a C. lycaon marker based on its presence
mainly in C. lycaon-C. lupus hybrids in
the western Great Lakes region, the
absence of C13 in non-hybridizing
coyotes, and its occurrence in historical
eastern wolves. Assessments based on
mtDNA, Y-chromosome, and autosomal
microsatellite DNA data consistently
found that the wolf population in the
western Great Lakes region does not
currently interbreed with coyotes (Fain
et al. 2010, p. 14; Wheeldon et al. 2010).
Previous reports of coyote-wolf
hybridization in the WGL region were
based on the misidentification of
coyote-like haplotypes, which are now
understood to be unique markers for C.
lycaon, as discussed above.
Lehman et al.’s (1991, p. 114)
interpretation of coyote introgression
into Great Lakes wolves included an
explanation that it occurred at a time
when wolf population densities were
low in the region, so that wolves would
be less likely to find mates of the same
species and mating with coyotes was
more likely to take place. Conversely,
Lehman et al. (1991) suggested that
coyote introgression does not appear to
occur when wolf densities are higher. If
so, the increase in population size that
has occurred over the last 30 years
renders the western Great Lakes wolf
population less vulnerable to whatever
threat may have been presented by
coyote introgression. The wolf
population of the region has likely been
exposed to this factor for centuries and
has rebounded from near extirpation,
yet retains essential genetic, behavioral,
and other biological features of wolves
without being displaced by coyotes.
This fact suggests that the threat of
coyote hybridization to a recovered wolf
population is small.
Hybridization Between C. lupus and C.
lycaon
Although it is clear that C. lycaon and
C. lupus have hybridized in the western
Great Lakes region, same-species
combinations of paternal and maternal
markers in male wolves are more
common than expected by random
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26139
mating (Wheeldon et al. 2010). This
suggests that there is some constraint on
complete hybridization between the two
species and that complete blending of
the two components of the population is
not inevitable. The limited number of
historical specimens from the western
Great Lakes region that have been
genetically characterized all have
mtDNA indicative of C. lycaon (Leonard
and Wayne 2008, pp. 2–3; Wheeldon
and White 2009, p. 1), but four of these
from the early 20th century also had C.
lupus Y-chromosome haplotypes, which
indicates that hybridization had
occurred by that time. The opportunity
for hybridization between C. lycaon,
which belongs to a North American
lineage, and C. lupus, which evolved in
Eurasia, has existed since C. lupus
entered North America about 500,000
´
years ago (Kurten and Anderson 1980),
yet a predominantly C. lycaon
population of wolves still persists in the
western Great Lakes region.
Hybrid indices based on the cooccurrence of species specific mtDNA
and nuclear markers have been used to
assess the depth and extent of hybrid
zones in tiger salamanders, cutthroat
trout, red deer, and wolves (Abernathy
1994; Riley et al. 2003; Wheeldon and
White 2009). Wheeldon and White
(2009) used the mtDNA haplotype of an
individual wolf in combination with the
program STRUCTURE assignment of its
microsatellite genotype to identify C.
lupus—C. lycaon hybrids in historical
WGL wolves. Applying this index, half
of WGL females with C. lupus mtDNA
also exhibited high assignment to C.
lupus and half of WGL females with C.
lycaon mtDNA were similarly assigned
to C. lycaon. Considering both lineage
markers in males, 44 percent of males
with C. lupus mtDNA and Ychromosome haplotypes exhibited high
assignment to C. lupus, but only 28
percent of males exhibiting C. lycaon
mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplotypes
also exhibited high assignment to C.
lycaon. The 8–12 microsatellite loci
typically used in studies of C. lupus—
C. lycaon introgression (Grewal et al.
2004; Wilson et al. 2000, 2009; Fain et
al. 2010; Rutledge et al. 2010; Wheeldon
et al. 2010) can effectively estimate the
amount of mixing at the population
level, but not the individual level
(Allendorf et al. 2010). Based on the
information presented in these studies,
there is no evidence showing that
hybridization between C. lupus and C.
lycaon is a threat to C. lupus.
Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis
As required by the Act, we considered
the five potential threat factors to assess
whether the wolves in the proposed
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
26140
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
WGL DPS are threatened or endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of
their range. When considering the status
of the species, the first step in the
analysis is to determine whether the
species is in danger of extinction or
likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future throughout all of its
range.
Human-caused mortality is the most
significant issue to the long-term
conservation status of the wolves in the
proposed WGL DPS. Therefore,
managing this source of mortality (i.e.,
human predation) remains the primary
challenge to maintaining a recovered
wolf population into the foreseeable
future. We have concluded that
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
will maintain their share and
distribution of the WGL wolf population
above recovery levels for the foreseeable
future, and that the threats have been
sufficiently reduced. All three States
have wolf management laws, plans, and
regulations that adequately regulate
human-caused mortality. Each of the
three States has committed to manage
its wolf population at or above viable
population levels, and this commitment
is not expected to change.
Regulatory mechanisms in all three
States are adequate to facilitate the
maintenance of, and in no way threaten,
the recovered status of the wolves in the
WGL DPS. If Federally delisted, wolves
in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
would continue to receive protection
from general human persecution by
State laws and regulations. Violation of
regulations will be subject to
prosecution.
As long as populations are maintained
well above minimal recovery levels,
wolf biology (namely the species’
reproductive capacity) and the
availability of large, secure blocks of
suitable habitat will maintain strong
populations capable of withstanding all
other foreseeable threats. In terms of
habitat, the amount and distribution of
suitable habitat in public ownership
provides, and will continue to provide,
large core areas that contain highquality habitat of sufficient size to
anchor a recovered wolf population.
Our analysis of land management shows
these areas will maintain their
suitability into the foreseeable future, if
not indefinitely.
While disease and parasites can
temporarily impact population stability,
as long as populations are managed
above recovery levels, these factors are
not likely to threaten the wolf
population at any point in the
foreseeable future. Natural predation is
also likely to remain an insignificant
factor in population dynamics into the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
foreseeable future. Finally, we believe
that other natural or manmade factors,
such as potential hybridization with
coyotes and public attitudes, are
unlikely to threaten the wolves in the
proposed WGL DPS in the foreseeable
future in all portions of the range within
the DPS.
We find that the threat of habitat
destruction or degradation or a
reduction in the range of the 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 cause wolves in the
proposed WGL DPS to likely become
endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all of the species’
range in the DPS. Ongoing effects of
recovery efforts over the past decades,
which resulted in a significant
expansion of the occupied range of
wolves in the proposed 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 proposed WGL DPS. These activities
will maintain an adequate prey base,
preserve denning and rendezvous sites,
monitor disease, restrict human take,
and keep wolf populations well above
the numerical recovery criteria
established in the Revised Recovery
Plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 25–28). Thus,
the gray wolves in the proposed WGL
DPS do not merit continued listing as
threatened or endangered throughout all
of their range.
Is the Species Threatened or
Endangered in a Significant Portion of
Its Range?
Having determined that wolves in the
proposed WGL DPS do not meet the
definition of endangered or threatened
throughout their entire range, we must
next consider whether they are in
danger of extinction or are likely to
become so in a significant portion of
their range. The Act does not define the
term ‘‘significant portion of its range.’’
Therefore, we must give meaning to this
phrase based on our experience and
expertise. We interpret a portion of a
species’ range as being significant if it
is part of the current range of the species
(species used here is as defined in the
Act, to include species, subspecies, or
DPS) and if it is important to the
conservation of the species because it
contributes meaningfully to the
representation, resiliency, or
redundancy of the species. The
contribution must be at a level such that
its loss would result in a decrease in the
ability to conserve the species.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Applying the definition described
above for determining whether a species
is endangered or threatened in a
significant portion of its range, we first
address whether any portions of the
range of wolves in the WGL DPS
warranted further consideration. We
evaluated the WGL DPS in the context
of whether any potential remaining
threats are concentrated in one or more
areas, such that if there were
concentrated impacts, those wolves
might be threatened, and further,
whether any such area might constitute
a significant portion of the species
ranges.
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. Based on the biology of the
gray wolf, threats to its continued
existence, and conservation biology
principles, the Recovery Plan specifies
that two populations (or what equates to
a single metapopulation) are needed to
ensure long-term viability (see Recovery
Criteria, above). The Revised 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).
The Recovery Plan also discusses the
importance of low-road-density areas,
the importance of minimizing wolf–
human conflicts, and the maintenance
of an adequate natural prey base in the
areas hosting these two necessary wolf
populations. These portions of
Minnesota (Management Zones 1
through 4) and the portions of the
proposed DPS that support the second
viable wolf population (Wisconsin
Zones 1 and 2 and the entire UP of
Michigan) provide an adequate wild
prey base, suitably low levels of humancaused mortality, and sufficient
representation, resiliency, and
redundancy to buffer the impacts of
disease and parasite-induced mortality
(See the discussion under Recovery
Criteria, above) regarding how achieving
the goals of the Recovery Plan for the
Eastern Timber Wolf assures a viable
wolf population in terms of
representation, resiliency, and
redundancy).
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Post-delisting wolf protection,
management, and population and health
monitoring by the States, Tribes, and
Federal land management agencies will
ensure the continuation of viable wolf
populations above the Federal recovery
criteria for the foreseeable future. This
is particularly true in Minnesota Zone
A, Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2, and across
the UP of Michigan, because the State
management plans provide for greater
protections for the species in that area
(see the discussion of the three plans in
State Wolf Management Planning,
above).
Post-delisting threats to wolves in
Zone B in Minnesota, Zones 3 and 4 in
Wisconsin, and in the Lower Peninsula
of Michigan will be more substantial,
and may preclude the establishment of
wolf packs in most or all of these areas
in Wisconsin and Michigan. The
Recovery Plan f specifically
recommends against managing wolves
in large areas of unsuitable habitat,
stating that Minnesota Zone 5 (identical
to Minnesota Wolf Management Zone B,
Figure 2) 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, which
is roughly 60 percent of the State, as not
an important part of the range of the
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.
The northern LP 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 northern LP wolf population
viability would be dependent upon
continuing immigration from the UP.
The only part of Michigan’s LP that may
contain suitable habitat are 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
minimal area identified by the Recovery
Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf as
needed for the establishment of viable
populations. These LP 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Proposed Western Great Lakes DPS,
above, for additional discussion). While
the UP wolves may be significant to any
LP wolf population (occasional UP to LP
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—LP wolves would not
be important to the wolf population in
the UP, as that population is already
large enough in size and range to be selfsustaining.
The lack of sufficient areas of suitable
habitat in those parts of North Dakota,
South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana,
and Ohio that are within the proposed
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. As a result, wolf
numbers in these areas will have no
impact on the continued viability of
wolves in the proposed WGL DPS, and
are not necessary to maintain adequate
representation, resiliency, and
redundancy for wolves in the proposed
DPS.
In conclusion, Minnesota Zone A,
Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2, and the UP
of Michigan provide an adequate wild
prey base, suitably low levels of humancaused mortality, and sufficient
numbers and distribution of wolves to
ensure adequate representation,
resiliency, and redundancy to buffer the
impacts of disease and parasite-induced
mortality. Post-delisting wolf protection,
management, and population and health
monitoring by the States, Tribes, and
Federal land management agencies will
ensure the continuation of viable wolf
populations in those areas above the
recovery criteria established in the
Recovery Plan for the foreseeable future.
In coming to this determination, we
considered 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. Reasonably
foreseeable threats to wolves in all parts
of the proposed WGL DPS are not likely
to threaten wolf population viability in
the WGL DPS in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that wolves in the
WGL DPS are not in danger of
extinction and are not likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
their range.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26141
Proposed Determination
After a thorough review of all
available information and an evaluation
of the 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 propose that revising the
boundary of the 1978 Minnesota gray
wolf listing and removing the WGL DPS
of gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(50 CFR 17.11) is appropriate. Wolves
have recovered in the proposed WGL
DPS as a result of the reduction of
threats as described in the analysis of
the five categories of threats and no
longer are in danger of extinction, nor
are likely to become so in the
foreseeable future, throughout all or a
significant portion of their range.
We recognize recent taxonomic
information indicating that the gray
wolf subspecies Canis lupus lycaon
should be elevated to the full species C.
lycaon. Additionally, we acknowledge
evidence that C. lycaon intercrosses
with C. lupus in the western Great Lakes
region, resulting in a mixed population
composed of C. lupus, C. lycaon, and
their hybrids. As discussed under
Procedural Aspects of Proposal
Applying to the Gray Wolf above, the
procedural aspects of this proposed rule
refer to the gray wolf (C. lupus), because
that is the named entity currently on the
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife. Our proposed action here is to
establish the existence of a WGL distinct
population segment of C. lupus that is
neither endangered nor threatened,
despite its proximity to a closely related
species, C. lycaon—a species whose
status we will evaluate for possible
protection under the Act in the near
future.
Because C. lycaon was recently
recognized as a unique species (rather
than a subspecies of C. lupus), a
complete status review of this species
has never been conducted. Therefore,
we are initiating a status review for C.
lycaon throughout its range in the
United States and Canada.
We also are proposing to revise the
range of the gray wolf (the species C.
lupus) by removing all or parts of 29
states (see Effects of the Rule, below)
because this area is outside of the
currently known historical range of the
gray wolf (see Taxonomy and Historical
Ranges of Wolves in the United States).
These areas should not have been
included in the original listing of the
gray wolf because gray wolves did not
historically occur there; they were either
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26142
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
red wolf (C. rufus) range or eastern wolf
(C. lycaon) range.
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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.
Recognition through listing encourages
and results in conservation actions by
Federal, State, Tribal, 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. This
proposed rule, if made final, would
remove these Federal conservation
measures for gray wolves within the
proposed WGL DPS.
Effects of the Rule
This proposal, if made final, would
revise the pre-DPS policy Minnesota
‘‘species’’ listing and establish it as a
WGL DPS of the gray wolf (C. lupus),
expand the boundaries of that DPS, and
remove the protections of the Act for
that WGL DPS by removing the gray
wolf wolves in that DPS from the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
This proposal, if made final, would
remove 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 proposal, if made final,
would remove the designation of critical
habitat for gray wolves in Minnesota
and on Isle Royale, Michigan.
As described in the Taxonomy and
Historical Ranges of Wolves in the
United States section above, the species’
historical range did not extend into
many southern and eastern States.
Therefore, our 1978 listing of the gray
wolf throughout the 48 States and
Mexico was partially in error. This
proposed rule, if made final, would
revise the geographic boundaries for the
gray wolf as described in the 1978
listing by removing all or parts of 29
southern and eastern states (Maine,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont,
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Florida, Ohio (the part outside WGL
DPS), West Virginia, Kentucky,
Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, Texas (east of Interstate
Highway 35), Oklahoma (east of
Interstate Highway 35 and southeast of
Interstate Highway 44 north of
Oklahoma City), Arkansas, Missouri
(southeast of Interstate Highway 44 and
southeast of Interstate Highway 70 east
of St. Louis), Indiana (the part outside
WGL DPS), and Illinois (the part outside
WGL DPS)) because this area is outside
of the currently known historical range
of the gray wolf.
We also note that this proposed rule
initiates a 5-year status review and
request information for wolves in the
western United States, which may
inform future rulemakings to replace the
remainder of the revised lower 48-State
listing with more targeted regional units
(as discussed above under National
Wolf Strategy). This proposed rule does
not apply to the separate listing and
protection of the red wolf (C. rufus).
Furthermore, the remaining protections
of the gray wolf under the 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
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
responsibilities for the species’
conservation, after delisting.
We developed a PDM plan for the
wolves in the proposed WGL DPS with
the assistance of the Eastern Wolf
Recovery Team. That document is
available on our Web site (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
The PDM program will rely on a
continuation of State monitoring
activities, similar to those which have
been conducted by Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan DNR’s in
recent years, and Tribal monitoring.
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
comprise the core recovery areas within
the DPS, and, therefore, the numerical
recovery criteria in the Recovery Plan
apply only to the area encompassed by
these States’ boundaries. These
activities will include both population
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
population of 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 work with the States and Tribes
to evaluate and change (intensify,
extend, and/or otherwise improve) the
monitoring methods, if appropriate,
and/or consider relisting the WGL DPS,
if warranted.
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
Clarity of the Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires
agencies to write regulations that are
easy to understand. We invite your
comments on how to make this proposal
easier to understand including answers
to questions such as the following: (1)
Is the discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of the preamble
helpful to your understanding of the
proposal? (2) Does the proposal contain
technical language or jargon that
interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the
format of the proposal (groupings and
order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its
clarity? What else could we do to make
the proposal easier to understand? Send
a copy of any comments on how we
could make this rule easier to
understand to: Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Department of the Interior,
Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20240. You may also email the comments to this address:
Exsec@ios.doi.gov.
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).
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
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.).
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:49 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 proposal does not include any
collections of information that require
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. As proposed under the
Post-delisting Monitoring above, wolf
populations in the Western Great Lakes
DPS will be monitored by the States of
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in
accordance with their 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 12-month period to
satisfy monitoring information needs. If
it becomes necessary to collect
standardized information from 10 or
more non-Federal individuals, groups,
or organizations per year, we will first
obtain information collection approval
from OMB.
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), E.O. 13175,
and the Department of the Interior’s
manual at 512 DM 2, we readily
acknowledge our responsibility to
communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with Tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
Tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to Tribes.
We have coordinated the proposed rule
with the affected Tribes and,
furthermore, throughout several years of
development of earlier related rules and
this 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. If
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
26143
requested, we will conduct additional
consultations with Native American
Tribes and multitribal organizations
subsequent to any final rule in order to
facilitate the transition to State and
Tribal management of wolves within the
proposed WGL DPS. We will fully
consider all of the comments on the
proposed rule that are submitted by
Tribes and Tribal members during the
public comment period and will attempt
to address those concerns, new data,
and new information where appropriate.
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).
Data Quality Act
In developing this rule we did not
conduct or use a study, experiment, or
survey requiring peer review under the
Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed
rule are the staff members of the Ft.
Snelling, Minnesota, Regional Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT),
with contributions from staff from
Service Regions 2, 4, and 5. Staff from
the Michigan DNR, Minnesota DNR, and
Wisconsin DNR provided current
information regarding wolves in their
States. Staff from the Nelson Institute
for Environmental Studies at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison
compiled the current data on public
attitudes toward the wolf.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby propose to
amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17—[AMENDED]
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; Pub. L. 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:
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
26144
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
*
Species
Vertebrate
population where
endangered or
threatened
Historic range
Common name
Scientific name
Status
When listed
Critical
habitat
Special
rules
MAMMALS
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
Holarctic ..................
.................................
Do ............................
*
Canis lupus .............
.................................
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
*
Wolf, gray ................
.................................
do ............................
do ............................
19:20 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00060
*
U.S.A.: All of CA,
CO, KS, NE, NV,
OR, UT, and WA;
those portions of
AZ, NM, TX, ID,
MT, and WY not
included in an experimental population as set forth
below; and portions of IA, MO,
ND, OK, SD, and
TX as follows:
(1) Southern IA,
(that portion south
of the centerline
of Highway 80);
(2) Northwestern
MO (that portion
northwest of the
centerline of Interstate Highway 44
and northwest of
the centerline of
Interstate Highway 70 east of St.
Louis);
(3) Western ND
(that portion south
and west of the
Missouri River upstream to Lake
Sakakawea and
west of the centerline of Highway
83 from Lake
Sakakawea to the
Canadian border);
(4) Western OK
(that portion west
of the centerline
of Interstate Highway 35 and northwest of the centerline of Interstate Highway 44
north of Oklahoma City);
(5) Western SD
(that portion south
and west of the
Missouri River);
and
(6) Western TX (that
portion west of
the centerline of
Interstate Highway 35). Mexico.
U.S.A. (portions of
AZ, NM, and
TX—see
§ 17.84(k)).
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
*
E
*
1, 6, 13, 15,
35
N/A
N/A
631
N/A
17.84(k)
XN
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
*
26145
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Species
Vertebrate
population where
endangered or
threatened
Historic range
Common name
Scientific name
Do ............................
do ............................
*
§ 17.40
*
do ............................
U.S.A. (portions of
ID, MT, and WY—
see § 17.84(i)).
*
[Amended]
*
§ 17.95
3. Amend § 17.40 by removing and
reserving paragraph (d).
Status
When listed
XN
561, 562
*
[Amended]
4. Amend § 17.95(a) by removing the
critical habitat entry for ‘‘Gray Wolf
(Canis lupus).’’
*
emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
19:20 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
Special
rules
N/A
17.84(i),
17.84(n).
*
Dated: April 12, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–9557 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Critical
habitat
E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM
05MYP3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26086-26145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9557]
[[Page 26085]]
Vol. 76
Thursday,
No. 87
May 5, 2011
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Revise
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife for the Gray Wolf (Canis
lupus) in the Eastern United States, Initiation of Status Reviews for
the Gray Wolf and for the Eastern Wolf (Canis lycaon); Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 26086]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2011-0029; 92220-1113-000; ABC Code: C6]
RIN 1018-AX57
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To
Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife for the Gray Wolf
(Canis lupus) in the Eastern United States, Initiation of Status
Reviews for the Gray Wolf and for the Eastern Wolf (Canis lycaon)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule, initiation of status reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) are
re-evaluating the listing of the Minnesota population of gray wolves
(Canis lupus) and propose to revise it to conform to current statutory
and policy requirements. We propose to identify the Minnesota
population as a Western Great Lakes (WGL) Distinct Population Segment
(DPS) of the gray wolf and to remove this DPS from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We propose these actions because
the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that
the WGL DPS does not meet the definitions of threatened or endangered
under the Act.
This proposed rule, if made final, would remove the currently
designated critical habitat for the gray wolf in Minnesota and Michigan
and the current special regulations for gray wolves in Minnesota. We
also propose to revise the range of the gray wolf (the species C.
lupus) by removing all or parts of 29 eastern states that we now
recognize were not part of the historical range of the gray wolf. New
information indicates that these areas should not have been included in
the original listing of the gray wolf.
In this proposed rule, we recognize recent taxonomic information
indicating that the gray wolf subspecies Canis lupus lycaon should be
elevated to the full species C. lycaon. Given that a complete status
review of this newly recognized species has never been conducted, we
are initiating a rangewide review of the conservation status of C.
lycaon in the United States and Canada. This rule also constitutes the
initiation of our five-year review of the status of gray wolves under
section 4(c)(2) of the Act, as well as the initiation of status reviews
specific to gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest and Mexican wolves in
the Southwest United States and Mexico.
DATES: Comment submission: We will accept comments received or
postmarked on or before July 5, 2011.
Public hearings: We will hold two public hearings on this proposed
rule scheduled on May 18, 2011 and on June 8, 2011. Informational
meetings will be held from 6 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., followed by the public
hearings from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Enter Keyword or ID box, enter FWS-R3-ES-
2011-0029, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the
Search panel at the top of the screen, under the Document Type heading,
click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may
submit a comment by clicking on ``Submit a Comment.''
By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R3-ES-2011-0029; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
Public hearings: We have scheduled an informational meeting
followed by a public hearing in Ashland, Wisconsin, on May 18, 2011, at
the Northern Great Lakes Center, 29270 County Highway G. We have
scheduled an informational meeting followed by a public hearing in
Augusta, Maine, on June 8, 2011, at the Augusta Civic Center, 16 Cony
Street. See the Public Hearings section below for more details.
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 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:
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments, new
information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. In
particular, we are seeking targeted information and comments on our
national wolf strategy and our proposed revision of the Minnesota
listing; see items (1)-(2) below. Also, as part of this proposed rule
we are announcing initiation of a 5-year status review for C. lupus in
the conterminous United States and Mexico; initiation of status reviews
specific to, respectively, gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest and in
the Southwest United States and Mexico; and initiation of a status
review for C. lycaon throughout its range in the United States and
Canada. For these status reviews to be complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial information, we request information
on items (9)-(11) below from governmental agencies, Native American
Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested
parties.
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant information
concerning our analysis of the current gray wolf listing and the
adequacy of our national wolf strategy, with particular respect to our
recommended gray wolf listing units (i.e., taxonomic or population
units);
(2) Information that forms the basis for revising the currently
listed Minnesota group of gray wolves under section 4(c) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), with particular respect to the factors in section 4(a) of the
Act, which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any current or likely future threat, or lack thereof, to wolves in the
WGL DPS;
(4) Additional information concerning the range, distribution,
population size, population trends, and threats with respect to wolves
in the WGL DPS;
[[Page 26087]]
(5) Current or planned activities in the WGL DPS and their possible
impacts on the wolves and their habitat;
(6) Information concerning the adequacy of the recovery criteria
described in the 1992 Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf;
(7) The extent and adequacy of Federal, state, and Tribal
protection and management that would be provided to wolves in the WGL
DPS as delisted species; and
(8) The proposed geographic boundaries of the WGL DPS, and
scientific and legal supporting information for alternative boundaries
that might result in a larger or smaller DPS, including information on
the discreteness and significance of the proposed DPS.
(9) New information concerning the biology and conservation of the
gray wolf in the conterminous United States and Mexico that may be
informative to the 5-year status review of Canis lupus, with particular
attention to the listing units described under (1) above, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends;
(e) Historical, current, and projected levels of suitable gray wolf
habitat;
(f) Past, ongoing, and emerging threats to extant gray wolf
populations, their habitat, or both; and
(g) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the gray wolf, its
habitat, or both.
(10) Information concerning the status of the gray wolf in the
Pacific Northwest United States and the gray wolf subspecies baileyi
(Mexican wolf) in the Southwest United States and Mexico, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends;
(e) Historical, current, and projected levels of suitable habitat;
(f) Past, ongoing, and emerging threats to these populations, their
habitat, or both; and
(g) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these populations,
their habitat, or both.
(11) Information concerning the biology, range, and population
trends of Canis lycaon, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends;
(e) Historical, current, and projected levels of suitable habitat;
(f) Past, ongoing, and emerging threats to extant populations,
their habitat, or both;
(g) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both; and
(h) The potential role that any portion of the historical range of
the C. lycaon in the United States may play in the persistence and
viability of the species.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods
listed in ADDRESSES. We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax
or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. Comments must be submitted to
https://www.regulations.gov before midnight (Eastern Daylight Time) on
the date specified in DATES. Finally, we will not consider hand-
delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are
not postmarked, by the date specified in DATES.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information, such as your street address, phone
number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from public review. However, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R3-ES-2011-0029, or by appointment, during normal business
hours at the following Ecological Services offices:
Twin Cities, Minnesota Ecological Services Field Office,
4101 American Blvd. E., Bloomington, MN; 612-725-3548.
Green Bay, Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office,
2661 Scott Tower Dr., New Franken, WI; 920-866-1717.
East Lansing, Michigan Ecological Services Field Office,
2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101, East Lansing, MI; 517-351-2555.
New England Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 70 Commercial St., Suite 300, Concord, NH; 603-
223-2541.
Public Hearings
We have scheduled an informational meeting followed by a public
hearing in Ashland, Wisconsin, on May 18, 2011, at the Northern Great
Lakes Center, 29270 County Highway G. The informational meeting will be
held from 6 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., followed by a public hearing from 7:30
p.m. to 9 p.m.
A second informational meeting followed by a public hearing will be
held in Augusta, Maine, on June 8, 2011, at the Augusta Civic Center,
16 Cony Street. The informational meeting will be held from 6 p.m. to
7:15 p.m., followed by a public hearing from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' which
was published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinion of at least three appropriate independent specialists regarding
scientific data and interpretations contained in this proposed rule.
The purpose of such review is to ensure that our decisions are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. We will send
copies of this proposed rule to the peer reviewers immediately
following publication in the Federal Register.
Background
National Overview
Below we provide an overview of our proposed national approach to
recovery of wolves in the conterminous United States and Mexico. This
overview provides the context for our proposed actions for wolves in
the eastern United States. In this overview, we discuss the listing
history for the gray wolf, evaluate the current gray wolf listing,
present the structured decision-making process we have used to date to
formulate our national wolf strategy, and describe the strategy itself.
Gray Wolf Listing History
Here we present a brief overview of previous Federal actions
relating to the listing of gray wolves and the recovery plans that have
been developed pursuant to these listing actions. Additional Federal
actions for western Great Lakes wolves are discussed in Previous
Federal Actions for WGL Wolves below.
Gray wolves were originally listed as subspecies or as regional
populations of subspecies in the conterminous United States and Mexico.
In 1967, we listed the eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus lycaon) in the
Great Lakes region (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967), and in 1973 we listed
C. l. irremotus in the northern
[[Page 26088]]
Rocky Mountains (38 FR 14678, June 4, 1973). Both listings were
promulgated under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969;
subsequently, on January 4, 1974, these subspecies were listed under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (39 FR 1171). We listed a third gray
wolf subspecies, the Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi) as endangered on
April 28, 1976 (41 FR 17740), in the southwestern United States and
Mexico. On June 14, 1976 (41 FR 24064), we listed the Texas gray wolf
subspecies (C. l. monstrabilis) as endangered in Texas and Mexico.
In 1978, we published a rule (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978)
reclassifying the gray wolf as an endangered population at the species
level (C. lupus) throughout the conterminous 48 States and Mexico,
except for the Minnesota gray wolf population, which was classified as
threatened. At that time, we considered the Minnesota group of gray
wolves to be a listable entity under the Act, and we considered the
gray wolf group in Mexico and the 48 conterminous States other than
Minnesota to be another listable entity (43 FR 9607, 9610,
respectively, March 9, 1978). This reclassification was undertaken
because of uncertainty about the taxonomic validity of some of the
previously listed subspecies and because we recognized that wolf
populations were historically connected, and that subspecies boundaries
were thus malleable.
However, the 1978 rule also stated that ``biological subspecies
would continue to be maintained and dealt with as separate entities''
(43 FR 9609), and offered ``the firmest assurance that [the Service]
will continue to recognize valid biological subspecies for purposes of
its research and conservation programs'' (43 FR 9610, March 9, 1978).
Accordingly, recovery plans were developed for the wolf populations in
the following regions of the United States: the northern Rocky
Mountains in 1980, revised in 1987; the Great Lakes in 1978, revised in
1992; and the Southwest in 1982, the revision of which is now underway.
More detail on previous Federal actions for the Southwest and
northern Rocky Mountains wolves is provided, respectively, within the
90-day finding for Mexican wolves (75 FR 46894) and in various notices
and rulemakings for the management of northern Rocky Mountains wolves
(59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 68 FR
15804, April 1, 2003; 68 FR 15879, April 1, 2003; 70 FR 1286, January
6, 2005; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006; 71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006; 73
FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR 15123,
April 2, 2009) . Further detail on previous Federal actions related to
the WGL DPS is provided in Previous Federal Actions for WGL Wolves
below.
Evaluation of the 1978 Gray Wolf Listing
The Service now considers the 1978 Canis lupus listing rule at 43
FR 9607 to be in need of revision. This need has been identified based
on our review of the best available taxonomic information, which
indicates that C. lupus historically did not occupy large portions of
the eastern United States and on our reconsideration of the listing in
light of current statutory and policy requirements under the Act. These
considerations are discussed in turn below.
Taxonomy and Historical Ranges of Wolves in the United States
Our review of the best available taxonomic information indicates
that Canis lupus did not occupy large portions of the eastern United
States: i.e., the northeastern United States was occupied by the
eastern wolf (C. lycaon), now considered a separate species of Canis
rather than a subspecies of lupus, and the southeastern United States
was occupied by the red wolf (Canis rufus) rather than the gray wolf.
Our review of North American wolf taxonomy also suggests that changes
in listing classification are warranted in other portions of the
country.
At the time the gray wolf was listed in 1978, and until the
molecular genetics studies of the last few years, the range of the gray
wolf prior to European settlement was generally believed to include
most of North America. The only areas that were believed to have lacked
gray wolf populations were the coastal and interior portions of
California, the arid deserts and mountaintops of the western United
States, and parts of the eastern and southeastern United States (Young
and Goldman 1944, Hall 1981, Mech 1974, and Nowak 1995). We note,
however, that some authorities have questioned the reported historical
absence of gray wolves in parts of California (Carbyn in litt. 2000,
Mech in litt. 2000).
Furthermore, we note long-held differences of opinion regarding the
precise boundary of the gray wolf's historical range in the eastern and
southeastern United States. Some researchers regarded Georgia's
southeastern corner as the southern extent of gray wolf range (Young
and Goldman 1944, Mech 1974); others believed gray wolves did not
extend into the Southeast at all (Hall 1981) or did so to a limited
extent, primarily at somewhat higher elevations (Nowak 1995). The
southeastern and mid-Atlantic States were generally recognized as being
within the historical range of the red wolf (Canis rufus), and it is
not known how much range overlap historically occurred between the two
Canis species. Morphological work by Nowak (2000, 2002, 2003) supported
extending the historical range of the red wolf into southern New
England or even farther northward, indicating either that the
historical range of the gray wolf in the eastern United States was more
limited than previously believed, or that the respective ranges of
several wolf species expanded and contracted in the eastern and
northeastern United States, intermingling in post-glacial times along
contact zones.
The results of recent molecular genetic analyses (e.g., Wilson et
al. 2000, Wilson et al. 2003, Wheeldon and White 2009, Wilson et al.
2009, Fain et al. 2010, Wheeldon et al. 2010) and morphometric studies
(e.g., Nowak 1995, 2000, 2002, 2003) explain some of the past
difficulties in establishing the gray wolf's range in the eastern
United States. These studies show that the mid-Atlantic and
southeastern United States historically were occupied by the red wolf
(C. rufus), and that New England and portions of the upper Midwest
(eastern and western Great Lakes regions) historically were occupied by
C. lycaon; they also indicate that the gray wolf (C. lupus) did not
occur in the eastern United States.
Based on these recent studies, we view the historical range of the
gray wolf as the central and western United States, including portions
of the western Great Lakes region, the Great Plains, portions of the
Rocky Mountains, the Intermountain West, the Pacific Northwest, and
portions of the Southwest. All or parts of 29 southern and eastern
States (Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ohio (the
part outside WGL DPS), West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas (east of Interstate Highway 35), Oklahoma
(east of Interstate Highway 35 and southeast of Interstate Highway 44
north of Oklahoma City), Arkansas, Missouri (southeast of Interstate
Highway 44 and southeast of Interstate Highway 70 east of St. Louis),
Indiana (the part outside WGL DPS), and Illinois (the part outside WGL
DPS)) were not within the gray wolf's historical range.
[[Page 26089]]
In sum, we now recognize three wolf species with ranges in the
conterminous United States: Canis lupus, Canis lycaon, and Canis rufus.
The ranges of C. lupus and C. lycaon overlap in the western Great Lakes
region, as discussed in Taxonomy of Wolves in the Western Great Lakes
Region below; however, in the eastern United States, the historical
range of C. lupus is considered to fall outside the historical ranges
of C. lycaon and C. rufus.
Conformance With the Act's Definition of Species
Given the assurances we provided in the 1978 C. lupus listing that
we would continue to treat gray wolf subspecies as separate entities
for conservation purposes (as noted in Gray Wolf Listing History,
above), we identified a need to reconsider the listing in light of
current statutory and policy standards regarding the Act's definition
of species. The Act provides for listing at various taxonomic and
subtaxonomic levels through its definition of ``species'' in section
3(16): The term species includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or
plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16) (italics added). As a matter of procedure, then, the Service
determines whether it is most appropriate to list an entity as a full
species, a subspecies, or a DPS of either a species or subspecies. The
gray wolf has a Holarctic range; the current listing encompasses the
United States-Mexico segment of the population and consists, in turn,
of multiple entities.
The specific provision for listing distinct population segments of
vertebrates was enacted through the 1978 Amendments to the Act (Pub. L.
95-362, November 10, 1978); these amendments replaced the ability to
list ``populations'' with the ability to list ``distinct population
segments'' and treat them as species under the Act. To interpret and
implement the 1978 DPS amendment, the Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service jointly published the Policy Regarding the
Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the
Endangered Species Act (DPS policy) (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996),
setting policy standards for designating populations as ``distinct.''
The March 1978 gray wolf listing predated the November 1978
amendments to the Act. Although the 1978 rule lists two C. lupus
entities, i.e., the endangered and threatened entities described above,
these listings were not predicated upon a formal DPS analysis and do
not comport with current policy standards. Nonetheless, subsequent
recovery plans and all gray wolf rulemakings since 1996 have focused on
units reflective of the evident intent of the 1978 rule to manage and
recover gray wolves as ``separate entities'' (43 FR 9609), i.e.,
subspecies or populations. This proposed rule and our proposed National
Wolf Strategy, below, constitute an effort to bring the 1978 listing in
line, insofar as possible, with the Act's requirements and current
policy standards.
Structured Decision-Making for Wolves
In 2008, the Service embarked on a structured decision-making
process as a means of developing a more integrated and comprehensive
strategy for gray wolf conservation in the lower 48 States and Mexico.
The overall intent of the process was to identify appropriate wolf
entities (i.e., listing units) for full status review, anticipating
that such review would lead to either confirmation or revision of the
existing gray wolf listing. We aimed to identify a coherent set of
listing units based on best available scientific and commercial
information, conformance with existing regulatory and policy
requirements, and fundamental wolf management objectives.
We first conducted several iterations of the process in an internal
Service effort to develop a viable framework for considering the
scientific and policy questions that drive decision-making for wolves.
The resulting framework incorporated decision analysis principles and
techniques for crafting alternative listing units and then assessing
the relative performance of each alternative in terms of achieving
management objectives.
Management of wolves is shared among the Service, States, and
Tribes. Thus, following our development of a satisfactory decision-
making framework, representatives from several States involved with
gray wolf conservation joined us to further explore alternative units
that could qualify for future status review (Tribal representatives
declined to participate). After acquainting state participants with the
decision-making framework, we convened a State-Federal workshop in
August 2010 to generate and assess alternative taxonomic and population
units at various scales and in various configurations, including the
1978 listing as the status quo alternative.
Workshop participants also explored the different values that drive
wolf decision-making; these values were expressed as the following
fundamental management objectives: (1) Promote and sustain wolf
recovery; (2) comply with the requirements of the Act; (3) minimize the
regulatory burden on States, Tribes, and the general public; (4)
facilitate State and Tribal management of wolves; (5) minimize wolf-
human conflicts; and (6) promote public acceptance of wolf listing and
recovery actions.
Workshop outcomes provided important input to our continuing effort
to formulate a comprehensive vision of wolf conservation. Based on
further Service deliberations, this comprehensive vision has evolved
into the proposed national wolf strategy discussed below. It is
important to note that this strategy is a broad outline, the components
of which are in various stages of execution.
National Wolf Strategy
The Service's national wolf strategy is intended to: (1) Lay out a
cohesive and coherent approach to addressing wolf conservation needs,
including protection and management, in accordance with the Act's
statutory framework; (2) ensure that actions taken for one wolf
population do not cause unintended consequences for other populations;
and (3) be explicit about the role of historical range in the
conservation of extant wolf populations.
The strategy is based on three precepts. First, in order to qualify
for any type of listing or delisting action, wolf entities must conform
to the Act's definition of ``species,'' whether as taxonomic species or
subspecies or as distinct population segments. Second, the strategy
promotes the continued representation in this country of all
substantially unique genetic lineages found historically in the lower
48 States. Third, wolf conservation under the Act is concerned with
reducing extinction risks to imperiled entities; the strategy thus
focuses on conservation of the four extant gray wolf entities
identified through the structured decision-making process and being
considered for section 4 actions: (1) The western Great Lakes
population, (2) the northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) population, (3) gray
wolves in the Pacific Northwest, and (4) the Southwestern population of
Mexican wolves.
Various reviews and listing actions are underway for these gray
wolf populations. The WGL DPS is proposed for delisting in the proposed
rule being published in today's Federal Register. With regard to the
NRM gray wolf population, Congress is considering legislation that
would direct us to reissue our 2009 final rule (74 FR 15123, April 2,
2009), that delisted the NRM DPS in the States of Idaho and Montana,
[[Page 26090]]
and in portions of Oregon, Washington, and Utah. This rule retained ESA
protections of wolves in Wyoming as non-essential experimental. If
passed, we would publish a separate notice in the Federal Register.
Negotiations regarding potential future post-delisting wolf management
in Wyoming are ongoing.
The biological and conservation status of wolves in the Pacific
Northwest (we are considering this to be the area west of the NRM gray
wolf population, including portions of Oregon, Washington, northern
California, and western Nevada) is being assessed to determine their
appropriate listing classification. When this review is completed, we
will evaluate a potential Pacific Northwest DPS in accordance with our
DPS policy and will reclassify this population as appropriate through
an additional rulemaking process. The status of the Southwestern
population (i.e., Mexican wolves within their historical range) is
being reviewed pursuant to our 90-day finding on two listing petitions
(75 FR 46894, August 4, 2010). We anticipate that the Southwestern
population will be proposed for listing as either the subspecies C. l.
baileyi or as a DPS of C. lupus; in the meantime, recovery planning
will continue to proceed for these wolves.
As separate actions move forward for the NRM, Pacific Northwest,
and Southwest, wolves in these regions will retain their current
classification as endangered, except where delisted and where currently
listed as non-essential experimental populations (see 50 CFR 17.84(k)).
We plan to move forward with a rulemaking to replace the remainder of
the 1978 listing with more targeted regional units, as appropriate,
concurrently with publication of the final rule for the WGL DPS.
It is likely that revision of the 1978 gray wolf listing into
finer-scale taxonomic or population units will result in removal of the
Act's protections in areas of the historical C. lupus range, such as
the Great Plains States and areas of the western States, that do not
support extant wolf populations and do not play a role in the recovery
of any of the four gray wolf entities. Although some of these areas are
within the species' historical range, these areas lack sufficient
suitable habitat for wolf pack persistence. Thus, we believe recovery
in these areas is both unrealistic and unnecessary. We note, however,
that such areas would not necessarily be precluded from wolf
conservation efforts under other authorities, e.g., Tribes, States, and
Federal land management agencies.
Our national wolf strategy also addresses the two other wolf taxa
that fall within the range described for Canis lupus in the 1978
listing, C. lycaon and C. rufus. With regard to Canis lycaon, we are
announcing a rangewide status review of this species, which occurs in
Canada and the western Great Lakes region of the United States. The
historical range of C. lycaon also extends into the northeastern United
States, which the 1978 listing inaccurately treated as part of the
range of C. lupus. The role of the Northeast region in conservation of
C. lycaon will be considered in the rangewide review, which will look
at the status of extant populations in terms of uniqueness, demography,
and extinction risks. A determination as to whether to proceed with any
C. lycaon listing action--and, if listing is warranted, whether or not
to include the northeastern United States in the listed range--will
depend on the results of the status review. Notification of our
intentions with regard to C. lycaon will be provided in conjunction
with publication of the final rule for the WGL DPS. Meanwhile, we
propose to revise the range of the gray wolf (the species C. lupus) by
removing all or parts of 29 eastern states that we now recognize were
not part of the historical range of the gray wolf. New information
indicates that these areas should not have been included in the
original listing of the gray wolf. These States are specified under
Taxonomy and Historical Ranges of Wolves in the United States, above.
Finally, with regard to Canis rufus, we propose to remove the
southeastern states included in the 1978 gray wolf listing from the
List due to error, because we now recognize were not part of the
historical range of the gray wolf. These states instead constitute the
range of Canis rufus; see Taxonomy and Historical Ranges of Wolves in
the United States, above. Red wolves currently are listed as endangered
where found (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967); this listing will be retained
and recovery efforts for red wolves will continue as warranted (Red
Wolf Recovery and Species Survival Plan; Service 1990).
Five-Year Review of Gray Wolves
Under section 4(c)(2) of the Act, we have a duty to review listed
species' status every 5 years and determine whether a change in listing
status is appropriate. We announce initiation of the 5-year review for
the gray wolf in this rule and seek new information as requested in
Public Comments above.
Western Great Lakes Wolves
Previous Federal Actions for WGL Wolves
The eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus lycaon) was listed as
endangered in Minnesota and Michigan in the first list of species that
were protected under the 1973 Act, published in May 1974 (USDI 1974).
On March 9, 1978, we published a rule (43 FR 9607) reclassifying the
gray wolf at the species level (Canis lupus) as endangered throughout
the conterminous 48 States and Mexico, except for the Minnesota
population, which we classified to threatened. The separate subspecies
listings, including C. l. lycaon, thus were subsumed into the listings
for the gray wolf in Minnesota and the gray wolf in the rest of the
conterminous United States and Mexico. In that 1978 rule, we also
identified Isle Royale National Park, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf
management zones 1, 2, and 3, as critical habitat. We also promulgated
special regulations under section 4(d) of the Act for operating a wolf
management program in Minnesota at that time. The depredation control
portion of the special regulation was later modified (50 FR 50793;
December 12, 1985); these special regulations are found in 50 CFR
17.40(d)(2).
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 DPSs for the gray
wolf (see Gray Wolf Listing History, above), including an Eastern DPS,
which was reclassified from endangered to threatened, except where
already classified as threatened. In addition, we established a second
section 4(d) rule that applied provisions similar to those previously
in effect in Minnesota to most of the Eastern DPS. The special rule was
codified in 50 CFR 17.40(o).
U.S. District Court rulings in Oregon and Vermont on January 31,
2005, and August 19, 2005, respectively, invalidated the April 1, 2003,
final rule. Consequently, the status of gray wolves outside of
Minnesota reverted back to endangered status, 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
[[Page 26091]]
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, the Service issued a rule that identified and
delisted the WGL DPS of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) (72 FR 6052). Three
parties challenged this rule (Humane Society of the United States v.
Kempthorne, 579 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008)), and on September 29,
2008, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and vacated the rule
and remanded it to the Service. 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.
The court's primary question was whether the Service has the
authority to identify a DPS within a larger already-listed entity and,
in the same decision, determine the DPS does not warrant the Act's
protections even though the other populations of the species retain the
old listing status. Our authority to make these determinations and to
revise the list accordingly is a reasonable interpretation of the
language of the Act, and our ability to do so is an important component
of the Service's program for the conservation of threatened and
endangered species.
Our authority to revise the existing listing of a species (the gray
wolf in Minnesota and the gray wolf in the lower 48 States and Mexico,
excluding Minnesota) to identify a Western Great Lakes DPS and
determine that it is healthy enough that it no longer needs the Act's
protections is found in the precise language of the Act. Moreover, even
if that authority were 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 Act's
text, structure, legislative history, relevant judicial
interpretations, and policy objectives.
We consulted with the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior
to address the issue in the court's opinion. 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). The Service fully agrees with the
analysis and conclusions set out in the Solicitor's opinion. This
proposed action is consistent with the opinion. The complete text of
the Solicitor's opinion can be found at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/.
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).
On April 2, 2009, we published a final rule identifying the western
Great Lakes populations of gray wolves as a DPS and revising the list
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing the DPS from that
list (74 FR 15070). We did not seek additional public comment on the
2009 final rule. On June 15, 2009, five parties filed a complaint
against the Department and the Service alleging that we violated the
Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the court's remand
order by publishing the 2009 final rule (74 FR 15070). On July 2, 2009,
pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties, the court
issued an order remanding and vacating the 2009 final rule.
On March 1, 2000, we received a petition from Mr. Lawrence Krak of
Gilman, Wisconsin, and on June 28, 2000, we received a petition from
the Minnesota Conservation Federation. Mr. Krak's petition requested
the delisting of gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The
Minnesota Conservation Federation requested the delisting of gray
wolves in a Western Great Lakes DPS. Because the data reviews resulting
from the processing of these petitions would be a subset of the review
begun by our July 13, 2000, proposal (65 FR 43450) to revise the
current listing of the wolf across most of the conterminous United
States, we did not initiate separate reviews in response to those two
petitions. While we addressed these petitions in our February 8, 2007,
final rule (72 FR 6052), this rule was vacated by the subsequent
District Court ruling. While we view our actions on these petitions as
final upon publication of the Federal Register determinations, we
nevertheless restate our 90-day findings that the action requested by
each of the petitions may be warranted, as well as our 12-month finding
that the action requested by each petition is warranted.
On March 15, 2010, we received a petition from the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources requesting that the gray wolf in
Minnesota be removed from the List of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife
under the Act. Likewise, on April 26, 2010, we received a petition from
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources requesting that the gray
wolf in Minnesota and Wisconsin be delisted. On April 26, 2010, we
received a petition from the Sportsmen's Alliance, representing five
other organizations, requesting that gray wolves in the Great Lakes
area be delisted. On June 17, 2010, we received a petition from Safari
Club International, Safari Club International Foundation and the
National Rifle Association of America requesting that wolves of the
western Great Lakes be delisted. In response to those four petitions,
on September 14, 2010, we published a 90-day finding determining that
the petitions presented substantial information that delisting may be
warranted and reinitiated a full status review. Therefore, this
delisting proposal constitutes our 12-month finding that the action
requested by each petition is warranted.
In response to a separate petition, on June 10, 2010, we made a 90-
day finding that there was no evidence of any breeding population of
wolves to support the requested listing of a DPS of the gray wolf in
New England (75 FR 32869).
Species Concepts
As noted in Conformance with the Act's Definition of Species above,
the Act defines ``species'' as including any species or subspecies of
fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population
segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). It has not been uncommon in the years since the Act was
passed for significant controversy to arise over the propriety of
recognizing various groups of organisms as eligible for protection
under the Act. Our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11) require us
to use standard taxonomic distinctions (such as species and subspecies)
when they are available, clearly defined, and generally accepted. In
determining that a taxonomic entity qualifies as a species or
subspecies we carefully evaluate the best available taxonomic data to
determine whether we have sufficient information to conclude that a
taxonomic entity qualifies as a species under the Act.
In identifying species, there is not a single set of criteria, and,
therefore, no single species concept that is accepted by all
taxonomists. In 1942, Ernst Mayr identified five different species
concepts (Mayr 1942), and many more have been recognized since then
(Wilkins 2006; 2003; Mayden 1997, pp. 381-384). Many of these species
concepts can be associated with one of two major classes of concepts or
approaches. The first is the biological species concept (BSC). This
concept is based on reproductive relationships among populations. The
[[Page 26092]]
ability to interbreed and realize gene flow between two populations is
the indication that they belong to the same species. The concept is
most commonly associated with Mayr (1963), but has antecedents during
the development of evolutionary biology in the 20th century. The second
major class of concepts is the phylogenetic species concept (PSC).
Under this group of concepts, species are identified by their
genealogical (lineages) or phylogenetic (evolutionary) relationships
and diagnosability. The many variations of these concepts and others
are reviewed by Wiley (1981), Avise (2004), and Coyne and Orr (2004).
There is, likewise, no scientific consensus on what constitutes a
subspecies, and some authorities (Wilson and Brown 1953) have
questioned the utility of the subspecies level of classification.
Following is a description of various subspecies criteria that have
been proposed and applied in the taxonomic literature. Because some
criteria are more stringent than others, a putative, or generally
accepted, subspecies may meet the criteria and be recognized following
one concept, but found to be invalid under a more stringent concept.
Nowak (1995, p. 394) discussed the standards he used when he revised
the subspecies of Canis lupus: ``My investigation largely disregarded
such questions [concerning use of very localized characters] and
concentrated on general trends in measurable size and proportion that
could be evaluated on a continent-wide or worldwide basis. Substantive
statistical breaks in such trends, as discussed above, were taken as
evidence of taxonomic division.'' In The Mammals of North America, Hall
(1981, p. viii) included the following in his ``Criteria for Species
versus Subspecies.''
If crossbreeding occurs in nature at a place or places where the
geographic ranges of two kinds of mammals meet, the two kinds are to
be treated as subspecies of one species. If no crossbreeding occurs,
the two kinds are to be regarded as two distinct, full species.
Mayr (1963, glossary) defined subspecies as, ``an aggregate of
local populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of
the range of the species, and differing taxonomically from other
populations of the species.'' He further explains ``differing
taxonomically'' as differing ``by diagnostic morphological characters''
(Mayr 1963, p. 348). Mayr (1969, p. 190) also describes a quantitative
method for determining whether populations differ taxonomically: ``A
so-called 75-percent rule is widely adopted. According to this, a
population is recognized as a valid subspecies if 75 percent of the
individuals differ from ``all'' (97 percent) of the individuals of a
previously recognized subspecies. At the point of intersection between
the two curves where this is true, about 90 percent of population A
will be different from about 90 percent of the individuals of
population B (to supply a symmetrical solution)''.
Patten and Unitt (2002, p. 27) provide another definition of
subspecies as ``diagnosable clusters of populations of biological
species occupying distinct geographic ranges.'' They do not require
that diagnosability be absolute, but advocate 90 percent separation as
a more stringent criterion than the 75-percent rule.
Avise (2004, p. 362) attempted to incorporate phylogenetic
information within a biological species concept in providing the
following guidance on recognizing subspecies: ``Within such units
[=species], ``subspecies'' warranting formal recognition could then be
conceptualized as groups of actually or potentially interbreeding
populations (normally mostly allopatric) that are genealogically highly
distinctive from, but reproductively compatible with, other such
groups. Importantly, the empirical evidence for genealogical
distinction must come, in principle, from concordant genetic partitions
across multiple, independent, genetically based molecular (or
phenotypic; Wilson and Brown 1953) traits.''
A common feature of all of the above definitions is that they
recognize that subspecies are groups of populations, and most recognize
that subspecies can be variable and overlap, to some degree, in
distinguishing characters. Taxonomists do not assign an individual to
one subspecies or another; instead individuals are assigned a specific
taxonomic classification based on the population in which they exist.
The existence of multiple concepts of species and subspecies is not
the only complicating factor in the debate surrounding the
classification of organisms; it is further complicated by the way
organisms occur in the natural world. Taxonomists are determined to
categorize natural organisms into specific groups and identify and name
those groups, while also striving to understand the evolutionary
processes that give rise to these specific groups (Hey 2001, pp. 328-
329). When viewed on the ground, a particular organism may appear to
clearly fit into one group or another, but when their evolutionary
history is viewed, these groups are revealed as changeable and without
clear boundaries. In the reverse, individuals may appear different
(that is be morphometrically distinct) but in fact be of the same taxon
(that is, genetically similar). In many situations, it is difficult to
determine where one species ends and another begins. This is especially
true in wide-ranging species and in the zones where multiple forms (for
example, where either two species or two subspecies) contact each other
or meet, which is the situation with wolves in the WGL region.
Ultimately, species are evolving, dynamic populations, and at times are
difficult to categorize. Nevertheless, Congress directs that the
Service classify populations as species, subspecies, and DPSs, despite
the difficulty and complexity of various taxonomic concepts.
Taxonomy of Wolves in the Western Great Lakes Region
The taxonomic status of the wolves in the western Great Lakes
region has long been debated. They have been considered a subspecies of
gray wolf, Canis lupus lycaon (Goldman 1944), Nowak 1995, 2002, 2003);
a Canis lupus population that has been influenced by interbreeding with
coyotes (Lehman et al. 1991); members of a full species, Canis lycaon
(or eastern wolf) that is separate from Canis lupus (Wilson et al.
2000, Baker et al. 2003); possibly the same species as the red wolf, C.
rufus (Wilson et al. 2000); the result of hybridization between C.
rufus and C. lupus (Nowak 2002, 2003, 2009); and, most recently, as a
mixed population of C. lupus, C. lycaon, and their intercrosses (for
example, Wheeldon and White 2009, Fain et al. 2010, Wheeldon et al.
2010). These varying interpretations of the taxonomic status of western
Great Lakes wolves are summarized, respectively, below.
Wolves in Michigan, Wisconsin, and eastern Minnesota were
considered by Goldman (1944, p. 437 and Figure 14) to be within the
range of the subspecies Canis lupus lycaon. Goldman based his
classification on variation in body size and proportions, and in pelage
(coat) color. According to Goldman, this was the subspecies of gray
wolf historically found across a wide range east of the Mississippi
River in the United States and in southeastern Canada. Wolves
immediately to the west of the Mississippi River were considered to be
part of the subspecies Canis lupus nubilus. This taxonomic
interpretation was followed by Hall and Kelson (1959, p. 849) and Hall
(1981, p. 932).
Nowak's (1995, p. 396; 2003, p. 243) revision of the subspecies
taxonomy reduced the range of C. l. lycaon to southern Ontario and
Quebec and northern portions of New York,
[[Page 26093]]
Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Nowak's classification was primarily based on
statistical analysis of measurements of skull features. He considered
gray wolves that historically occupied Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Minnesota to be within the range of C. l. nubilus. Based on analysis of
additional specimens, Nowak (2002, p. 119; 2003; 2009, p. 238)
continued to recognize western Great Lakes wolves as C. l. nubilus, but
noted that historical specimens from the Upper Peninsula (UP) of
Michigan were somewhat transitional between the two subspecies.
Based on a study of DNA variation in North American wolves, Wilson
et al. (2000, p. 2165) proposed that the taxonomic standing of eastern
wolves be restored to full species as Canis lycaon. They found that
eastern wolves were divergent from Canis lupus in both mitochondrial
DNA (mtDNA) and autosomal microsatellite DNA composition. They
considered the geographic range of C. lycaon as extending west across
the Great Lakes region to Minnesota and Manitoba.
Leonard and Wayne (2008, pp. 2-3) have reported on maternally
inherited mtDNA sequence haplotypes (DNA sequences or groups of alleles
of different genes on a single chromosome that are inherited together
as a single unit) from historical (``prerecovery'') wolves from
Ontario, Quebec, Michigan, and Wisconsin compared with the recent
population of the area. Their interpretation of these results is that
the 6 unique haplotypes) identified in 15 historical individuals
indicate that the pre-recovery population was ``an endemic American
wolf,'' which they call ``the Great Lakes wolf'' (p. 1). However, only
the two haplotypes most common in the historical sample still occur in
the modern wolf population of the western Great Lakes area. Leonard and
Wayne (2007) conclude that the modern population does not contain the
diversity of Great Lakes wolf haplotypes found in the prerecovery
population and that the current population is primarily a mixture of
Canis lupus and coyote hybrids, with minor influence from the endemic
Great Lakes wolf (p. 3).
Koblm[uuml]ller et al. (2009) examined wolves from the western
Great Lakes region using three types of genetic markers: mtDNA; Y-
chromosome haplotypes based on microsatellite DNA loci on the Y-
chromosome, which is a paternally-inherited marker; and autosomal
microsatellite DNA, which provides information on recent and ongoing
interactions among populations rather than evolutionary lineage
information. The historical sample from Minnesota was found to exhibit
a third Great Lakes wolf mtDNA haplotype that is common in the modern
population. However, the Y-chromosome haplotypes identified in the
historical sample were more similar to those of western gray wolves,
suggesting that interbreeding between Great Lakes wolves and western
gray wolves had taken place before 1910, the year of collection.
Koblm[uuml]ller et al. (2009) conclude that, despite what they
consider both ancient and recent incidences of interbreeding with
coyotes and western gray wolves, Great Lakes wolves remain
morphologically distinct and represent a ``distinct taxon'' of gray
wolf (Canis lupus) that is adapted to the region. They do not, however,
conclude that this taxon is differentiated enough to be recognized as a
species separate from gray wolves, as proposed by Wilson et al. (2000).
Several recent studies conclude that the eastern wolf is a unique
species and should be recognized as C. lycaon (Wheeldon and White 2009;
Wilson et al. 2009; Fain et al. 2010, p. 15; Wheeldon et al. 2010).
Wheeldon and White (2009, pp. 3-4) state that both the present-day and
pre-recovery wolf populations in the western Great Lakes region are
genetically similar and that both were derived from hybridization
between C. lupus and the eastern wolf, C. lycaon. Fain et al. (2010, p.
10) recognize C. lycaon as a unique species of North American wolf, and
based on mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplotypes and autosomal microsatellite
markers, they establish that the population of wolves in the western
Great Lakes region comprise C. lupus, C. lycaon, and their hybrids.
Contrary to Koblm[uuml]ller et al. (2009), Fain et al. (2010, p. 14)
found no evidence of interbreeding with coyotes. Furthermore, they
conclude that the western Great Lakes States were included in the
historical range of C. lycaon and that hybridization between the two
species ``predates significant human intervention'' (Fain et al. 2010,
pp. 13-14).
Wheeldon et al. (2010, p. 2) used multiple genetic markers to
clarify the taxonomic status of Canis species in the western Great
Lakes region of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and western Ontario.
They conclude that the current western Great Lakes wolf population is
``composed of gray-eastern wolf hybrids that probably resulted from
historic hybridization between the parental species'' (Wheeldon et al.
2010, p. 10), and that the appropriate taxonomic designation for the
western Great Lakes hybrid wolves is C. lupus x lycaon, replacing
Nowak's (2009) wolf subspecies designation of C. lupus lycaon. We note,
however, that a name in the form of C. lupus x lycaon has no standing
as an available species name under the rules of zoological nomenclature
(ICZN 1999).
It is clear from the studies discussed above that the taxonomic
classification of wolves in the western Great Lakes region is one that
has been, and will continue to be, of great debate in the scientific
community. Most researchers, however, appear to agree that there is a
unique and genetically identifiable form of wolf that occupies the
western Great Lakes region, and that this form has hybridized with
Canis lupus, whose origins were from elsewhere in North America.
Researchers differ in whether this unique form of wolf should be
recognized as a species (Wilson et al. 2000; Fain et al. 2010, p. 15;
Wheeldon et al. 2010), a subspecies (Nowak 1995), or a distinct taxon
or ecotype but without applying a formal scientific name to that form
(Koblm[uuml]ller et al. 2009). In choosing among these three
alternatives, we find that the large divergence of both mtDNA and Y-
chromosome haplotypes between Great Lakes wolves and C. lupus is
greater than that found between subspecies of Canis lupus and favors
recognition of the eastern wolf as a species. Currently, the best
available scientific information supports recognition of the eastern
wolf, C. lycaon, as a species (rather than, as previous believed, as a
subspecies of gray wolf), and establishes that this species has
intercrossed with C. lupus in the western Great Lakes region to
constitute a population composed of C. lupus, C. lycaon, and their
hybrids (Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 1; Fain et al. 2010, p. 14; Mech
et al. 2010; Wheeldon et al. 2010).
The existence of two wolf species in the western Great Lakes region
was not known or suspected in 1978, when the Service replaced the
listings of four subspecies of gray wolf, including C. lupus lycaon,
with the listing of all Canis lupus and Canis lupus subspecies in the
conterminous United States and Mexico as endangered, except for the
Minnesota population, which was listed as threatened (USFWS 1978).
Since that time, increasingly powerful genetic techniques for the
characterization of populations have been developed and applied to wild
populations, including wolves. These advances have shown that
hybridization between species is much more prevalent than was
appreciated in 1978 (Schwenk et al. 2011); thus the detection of
hybridization in western Great Lakes wolves is not unique among
mammalian species.
[[Page 26094]]
Nowak's (1995, 2002, 2003) exclusion of the western Great Lakes
region from C. l. lycaon was likely influenced by his inclusion of both
C. lupus and C. lycaon in his western Great Lakes sample. In any event,
the various genetic investigations of western Great Lakes wolves
clearly show a distribution of eastern wolf (C. lycaon) genetic markers
throughout the region.
We do not accept the proposal of Wilson et al. (2000) that C.
lycaon and C. rufus (red wolf) are the same species. Their conclusion
was based on red wolf and C. lycaon occurring on the same branch of a
phylogenetic network representing mtDNA differences (Wilson et al.
2000, Figure 5A). This relationship has not been found in subsequent
studies (Wilson et al. 2003; Leonard and Wayne 2008, p. 2; Fain et al.
2010, p. 9), which placed the red wolf and C. lycaon on different
branches separated by intervening coyote lineages. This suggests that
the red wolf and C. lycaon may have evolved independently from common
ancestors with modern coyotes, but does not support uniting them as a
single species.
Genetic Composition of Wolves in the Western Great Lakes Region
Estimates of the genetic composition of the wolves of the western
Great Lakes region with respect to the two species (C. lupus and C.
lycaon) are based on the frequencies of different paternal (Y-
chromosome) and maternal (mtDNA) markers specific to the each species
in samples of wolves from the region. For mtDNA, 66 percent of sampled
wolves had C. lycaon haplotypes (Fain et al. 2010, p. 13; Wheeldon et
al. 2010). For Y-chromosome haplotypes, 54 percent (Wheeldon et al.
2010) or 50 percent (Fain et al. 2010, p. 7) of sampled wolves had
haplotypes of C. lycaon. Male wolves carry both paternal and maternal
markers. Of male wolves sampled by Fain et al. (2010, p. 12), 41
percent had both maternal and paternal haplotypes of C. lycaon, and 13
percent had both maternal and paternal haplotypes of C. lupus. Based on
a larger sample that also included some wolves from western Ontario,
Wheeldon et al. (2010) reported 42 percent of the sampled male wolves
had both maternal and paternal haplotypes of C. lycaon and 21 percent
had both maternal and paternal haplotypes of C. lupus. Maternal and
paternal haplotypes were mixed with respect to the two species for the
remaining wolves in both studies.
Although it is clear that C. lycaon and C. lupus have hybridized in
the western Great Lakes region, same-species combinations of paternal
and maternal markers in male wolves are more common than expected by
random mating (Wheeldon et al. 2010). This suggests that there is some
constraint on complete hybridization between the two species and that
complete blending of the two components of the population is not
inevitable. The limited number of historical specimens from the western
Great Lakes region that have been genetically characterized all have
mtDNA indicative of C. lycaon (Leonard and Wayne 2008, pp. 2-3;
Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 1), but four of these from the early 20th
century also had C. lupus Y-chromosome haplotypes, which indicates that
hybridization had occurred by that time. The opportunity for
hybridization between C. lycaon, which belongs to a North American
lineage, and C. lupus, which evolved in Eurasia, has existed since C.
lupus entered North America about 500,000 years ago (Kurt[eacute]n and
Anderson 1980), yet a predominantly C. lycaon population of wolves
still persists in the western Great Lakes region.
Wolf-Coyote Relationships
For a discussion on interpretations of wolf-coyote relationships in
the western Great Lakes, see the discussion under Factor E. Other
Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence in this
proposed rule.
Procedural Aspects of Proposal Applying to the Gray Wolf (C. lupus)
When the Service revised the endangered species list in 1978 to
include the species Canis lupus i