Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revising the Listing of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in the Western Great Lakes, 81666-81726 [2011-32825]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81666-81726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32825]



[[Page 81665]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 249

December 28, 2011

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revising the Listing of 
the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in the Western Great Lakes; Final rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 81666]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2011-0029; FXES11130900000C6-123-FF09E32000]
RIN 1018-AX57


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revising the 
Listing of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in the Western Great Lakes

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) are 
revising the 1978 listing of the Minnesota population of gray wolves 
(Canis lupus) to conform to current statutory and policy requirements. 
We rename what was previously listed as the Minnesota population of the 
gray wolf as the Western Great Lakes (WGL) Distinct Population Segment 
(DPS), and delineate the boundaries of the expanded Minnesota 
population segment to include all of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 
and portions of the adjacent states. We are removing the WGL DPS from 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We are taking this 
action 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 final rule also removes the designated critical habitat for 
the wolf in Minnesota and Michigan and the special regulations under 
section 4(d) of the Act for wolves in Minnesota.
    We are separating our determination on the delisting of the Western 
Great Lakes DPS from the determination on our proposal regarding all or 
portions of the 29 eastern States we considered to be outside the 
historical range of the gray wolf. This rule finalizes our 
determination for the WGL DPS. A subsequent decision will be made for 
the rest of the eastern United States.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on January 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest 
Regional Office, 5600 American Boulevard West, Suite 990, Bloomington, 
Minnesota 55437. Comments and materials we received, as well as 
supporting documentation we used in preparing this final rule, are 
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.

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, 5600 American Boulevard 
West, Suite 990, Bloomington, Minnesota 55437. 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: 

Background

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. We considered the Minnesota 
group of gray wolves to be a listable entity under the Act, and listed 
it as threatened; we considered the gray wolf group in Mexico and the 
48 conterminous States other than Minnesota to be another listable 
entity, and listed it as endangered (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 eastern U.S. in 1978, revised 
in 1992; and the Southwest in 1982, the revision of which is now under 
way.
    In the 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, 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 remove special regulations 
for the gray wolf in Minnesota. The proposal was followed by a 90-day 
comment period,

[[Page 81667]]

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 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.
    We published a proposal to revise the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the eastern 
United States and to initiate status reviews for the gray wolf and for 
the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon) on May 5, 2011 (76 FR 26806). On August 
26, 2011, we published a notice (76 FR 53379) reopening the public 
comment period on the May 5, 2011, proposal. We reopened the comment 
period to allow for additional public review and the inclusion of any 
new information, specifically concerning North American wolf taxonomy. 
That notice also informed the public that we were considering issuing 
separate final rules for our final determinations on the proposed 
delisting of the Western Great Lakes DPS and the proposed determination 
regarding all or portions of the 29 States considered to be outside the 
historical range of the gray wolf. On September 19, 2011, the Service 
published a notice (76 FR 57943) informing the public that 
supplementary materials were available. In recognition of intellectual 
property right laws, the manuscript made available on August 26 
provided readers with references to the sources of several copyrighted 
figures, but did not include the figures themselves. The Service 
subsequently obtained approval to include all copyrighted figures in 
the manuscript and on September 7, 2011, uploaded a complete copy of 
the manuscript to https://www.regulations.gov.

Conformance With the Act's Definition of Species

    Given the assurances we provided in the 1978 Canis lupus listing 
that we would continue to treat gray wolf subspecies as separate 
entities for conservation purposes (as noted in Previous Federal 
Actions for WGL Wolves, 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). 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 range 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 the different gray wolf groups covered by the 1978 listings as 
''separate entities'' (43 FR 9609), i.e., subspecies or populations. 
This rule revises the 1978 threatened listing to bring that listing in 
line, insofar as possible, with the Act's

[[Page 81668]]

requirements and current policy standards.

Wolf Taxonomy 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; Hall and Kelson 1959); a 
second subspecies of gray wolves, Canis lupus nubilis (Nowak 1995, 
2002, 2003); a Canis lupus population that has been influenced by 
interbreeding with coyotes (Lehman et al. 1991, Koblm[uuml]ller et al. 
2009; vonHoldt et al. 2011); members of a full species Canis lycaon (or 
eastern wolf) that is considered 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 as a mixed 
population of C. lupus, C. lycaon, and their intercrosses (hybrids) 
(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).
    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 elevated 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.
    Nowak's (2002, p. 119; 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, 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.
    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 (2008) 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 Great Lakes 
region (they do not separate between the western and eastern Great 
Lakes) 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 to be 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 in an 
attempt 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.
    Recently, vonHoldt et al. (2011) examined single nucleotide 
polymorphisms (SNPs) to investigate the genetic distinctiveness of 
North American canids. They conclude that wolves from the Great Lakes 
region are the product of low-level hybridization between coyotes and 
C. lupus that likely occurred prior to the recent invasion of coyotes 
into the area and found no evidence that C. lycaon exists as a distinct 
species (vonHoldt et al. 2011, pp. 8-9). They further find that Great

[[Page 81669]]

Lakes wolves are genetically distinct from other North American gray 
wolves and coyotes, but to what degree remains controversial (vonHoldt 
et al. 2011, p. 8). This study represents a new system for genetic 
testing using the whole genome of organisms. This new genetic testing 
system using SNPs promises to open new opportunities for studying the 
ancestry and relatedness of canid populations.
    Chambers et al. (2011, in prep.) conducted a review of the 
available scientific literature to assess the taxonomic standing of 
wolves in North America. They conclude the most supportable 
interpretation is that the eastern wolf is not a subspecies (C. lupus 
lycaon), but a full species (C. lycaon). This is based on the available 
mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplotype data (pp. 91-95). The Service believes 
the Chambers et al. (in prep.) manuscript (that includes the 
information on which we at least partially based our proposal) is an 
important synthesis of the available data that advances and focuses the 
debate regarding canid taxonomy in North America. The authors 
themselves acknowledge, nevertheless, that further research may change 
some of their conclusions (p. 128).
    Wolf taxonomic classification is a fast-changing field in which 
research capabilities have greatly expanded in recent years. 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, debated in the scientific community. 
Most researchers, however, agree that there is a unique and genetically 
identifiable form of wolf that occupies the western Great Lakes region. 
Researchers differ in whether this unique form of wolf should be 
recognized as a species, a subspecies, or a distinct taxon or ecotype. 
The taxonomic identity of eastern wolves has been controversial since 
Wilson et al. (2000) first claimed that eastern wolves are a separate 
species (Canis lycaon) from the western wolf (Canis lupus). In our May 
5, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 26806), we proposed to resolve the 
ongoing controversy over the classification of wolves in the western 
Great Lakes region by accepting what we considered at the time to be 
the best scientific interpretation of the available data and 
information. The scientific community then had the opportunity to 
review our analysis and respond to it through the public and peer 
review processes. Comments on the proposed rule, including comments 
provided by leading researchers in the field of canid biology and 
genetics, have led us to reconsider our proposed interpretation. While 
Chambers et al. (in prep.) provide a scientific basis for arguing the 
existence of eastern wolves as a distinct species, this represents 
neither a scientific consensus nor the majority opinion of researchers 
on the taxonomy of wolves, as others continue to argue that eastern 
wolves are forms of gray wolves (Koblm[uuml]ller et al. 2009, vonHoldt 
et al. 2011). In light of the ongoing scientific debate, and the lack 
of clear resolution concerning the taxonomy of wolves in the western 
Great Lakes, we are at this time continuing to recognize C. lupus as 
the only species that occurs in the WGL. The wolves that occupy the WGL 
DPS have long been accepted as gray wolves, C. lupus, and until greater 
scientific consensus is reached regarding whether to revise this 
taxonomic classification, the better conclusion is to continue to 
recognize them as gray wolves.

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 
final rule.

Biology and Ecology of Wolves in the Western Great Lakes

    For a discussion of the biology and ecology of wolves in the WGL, 
see the proposed WGL wolf rule published on May 5, 2011 (76 FR 26806-
26145).

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview

    Pursuant to the Act, we consider whether the best scientific and 
commercial data available are 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 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 December 8, 2011, of the 388 native vertebrate listings, 80 
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 80 populations, which span 49 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 retaining listed status for 
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). This decision was later vacated by the court; however, not 
on the grounds of the DPS. 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 and 
reclassified the Florida DPS from endangered to threatened (71

[[Page 81670]]

FR 13027). Revising and delisting the WGL DPS of wolves is consistent 
with the Service's past practice and does not represent a change in 
agency position.
    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 original 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 final 
action is consistent with the opinion. The complete text of the 
Solicitor's opinion can be found at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/.

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 coterminous 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. However, ever since the 
amendment to the Act later in 1978 that revised the definition of 
``species'' to include distinct population segments of vertebrate fish 
or wildlife, the 1978 Minnesota gray wolf listing has functioned 
effectively as a DPS.
    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-by-case 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 
rule, (1) recognizing that the 1978 Minnesota listing has functioned 
effectively as a DPS, (2) reevaluating that listing by applying the 
same reevaluation process to this and other de facto DPSs that we apply 
to formally established DPSs, and (3) revising that de facto DPS 
listing to meet the criteria in the DPS policy and to reflect the best 
available biological data.
    A gray wolf DPS including only Minnesota would not meet the 
criteria in the DPS policy because it would not be 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 
well 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 that demonstrate the Wisconsin and Michigan 
wolves are mostly of the same genetic makeup as Minnesota wolves 
(Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 4; Fain et al. 2010). Therefore, we are 
revising the boundaries of the Minnesota DPS to meet the criteria in 
the DPS policy and to reflect the current geographic location of the 
population as discussed under the Distinct Population Segment Analysis, 
below.

Geographical Area of the Western Great Lakes DPS

    The geographical area of the WGL DPS is shown in figure 1, below, 
and is described as all of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; the 
portion of North Dakota north and east of the Missouri River upstream 
to Lake Sakakawea and east of the centerline of Highway 83 from Lake 
Sakakawea to the Canadian border; the portion of South Dakota north and 
east of the Missouri River; the portions of Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana 
north of the centerline of Interstate Highway 80; and the portion of 
Ohio north of the centerline of Interstate Highway 80 and west of the 
Maumee River at Toledo.

[[Page 81671]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28DE11.000

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 same taxon as a consequence of physical, 
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors (quantitative measures 
of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this 
separation); or (2) it is delimited by international governmental 
boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, 
management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms 
exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
    Markedly Separated from Other Populations of the Same Taxon--The 
western boundaries of the 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 
WGL DPS is nearly 600 mi (966 km). The area between Minnesota packs and 
northern Rocky Mountains (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 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. Only three records exist of tagged 
wolves dispersing from within the core of the WGL DPS that were known 
to travel a straight-line distance over 400 mi (644 km) (Treves et al. 
2009). 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 WGL DPS are unknown and are expected 
to happen infrequently. The 2006 Sturgis (South Dakota) wolf is the 
closest that an NRM wolf has come to entering the WGL DPS (Fain in 
litt. 2006); however, the Sturgis

[[Page 81672]]

wolf would still have had to travel over 300 mi (500 km) before 
encountering the nearest wolf pack in the 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).
    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 this year's season running from 
August 31, 2011, through March 31, 2012 (Manitoba Conservation 20011a). 
Trapping wolves is allowed province-wide, except in and immediately 
around Riding Mountain National Park (southwestern Manitoba), with this 
year's season running from September 1, 2011 through August 31, 2012 or 
October 14, 2011 through March 31, 2012 (varies with trapping zone) 
(Manitoba Conservation 20011b).
    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 the portion of 
Ontario that is adjacent to the 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 
well-connected 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--Based on our analysis of the best available scientific 
information, the WGL DPS is markedly separated from other U.S. 
populations of gray wolves and difference in control of exploitation, 
conservation status, and regulatory mechanisms justifies discreteness 
between U.S. and Canadian wolf populations. Therefore, the WGL DPS 
meets the criterion for discreteness under the DPS policy.
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 WGL DPS and is included in our analysis for 
significance. Factors 1, 3, and 4 do not apply to the WGL DPS and thus 
are not included in our analysis for significance.
    Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon--Gray wolves once lived 
throughout most of North America. Gray wolves have been extirpated from 
most of the southern portions of their historical North American range. 
The successful restoration of a viable gray wolf metapopulation (a 
regional group of connected populations of a species) 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 gray wolf population would, therefore, represent a 
significant gap in the species' holarctic range in that the WGL wolf 
population is the only gray wolf population in the conterminous States 
east of the Rocky Mountains and currently holds about 70 percent of 
North American gray wolves known to occur south of Canada.
    Conclusion--Based on our analysis of the best available scientific 
information, the 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 WGL DPS meets the criterion for 
significance under the DPS policy.
Discrete Vertebrate Population Segment Conclusion
    Based on our review of the best available scientific data, we 
determine that the WGL DPS is discrete from other gray 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 WGL DPS is found below.

Delineating the Boundaries of the WGL Gray Wolf DPS

    In contrast to a species or a subspecies, a DPS is a biological 
population that is delineated by a boundary that is based on something 
other than established taxonomic distinctions. Therefore, the starting 
point for delineating a DPS is the biological population or 
metapopulation, and a geographical delineation of the DPS must 
reasonably represent the population or metapopulation and its 
biological characteristics and recovery needs.
    To delineate the boundary of the WGL DPS, we considered the current 
distribution of wolves in the Midwest and the characteristic movements 
of those wolves and of wolves elsewhere. We examined the best available

[[Page 81673]]

scientific data on long-distance movements, including long-distance 
movements followed by return movements to the vicinity of the natal 
pack. We concluded that wolf behavior and the nature of wolf 
populations require that we include within the area of the DPS some 
subset of known long-distance movement locations. However, as 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 boundaries of the WGL 
DPS that are shown in figure 1. This DPS has been delineated to include 
the core recovered wolf metapopulation plus a wolf movement zone around 
the core wolf metapopulation. 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 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 WGL DPS, we had to consider the high degree of 
mobility shown by wolves. The dispersal of wolves from their natal 
packs and territories is a normal and important behavioral attribute of 
the species that facilitates the formation of new packs, the occupancy 
of vacant territories, and the expansion of occupied range by the 
``colonization'' of vacant habitat. Data on wolf dispersal rates from 
numerous North American studies (summarized in Fuller et al. 2003, p. 
179, Table. 6.6; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1102, Table 6) show 
dispersal rates of 13 to 48 percent of the individuals in a pack. 
Sometimes the movements are temporary, and the wolf returns to a 
location in or near its natal territory. In some cases, a wolf may 
continue its movement for scores or even hundreds of miles until it 
locates suitable habitat, where it may establish a territory or join an 
existing pack. In other cases, a wolf is found dead at a distance from 
its original territory, leaving unanswered the questions of how far it 
would have gone and whether it eventually would have returned to its 
natal area or population.
    Minnesota--The current record for a documented 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 north-central 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 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 radio-tracked, 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

[[Page 81674]]

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 Minnesota-
Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population, as determined by genetic analysis 
(Anschutz in litt. 2003, Fain in litt. 2006). The nearest Minnesota 
wolf pack is nearly 350 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 
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 (1,590 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 north-central Wisconsin. The total travel distance was 278 mi 
(447 km) 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 more than 300 km (186 mi). 
Eleven dispersals (3.7 percent) were more than 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. Perhaps the longest documented 
wolf movement is that of a Scandinavian wolf that covered more than 678 
miles (1,092 km) (Wabakken et al. 2007).
    From these extra-territorial movement records, we conclude that 
wolf movements of more than 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 satellite-tracked 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 extra-
territorial 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 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.

Recovery of Western Great Lakes Wolves

Recovery Criteria

    Recovery plans are intended to provide guidance to the Service, 
States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed 
species and on criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is 
achieved. They are not regulatory documents and cannot substitute for 
the determinations and promulgation of regulations required under 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act. 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

[[Page 81675]]

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 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.
    Although the recovery criteria identified in the Recovery Plan 
predate identification of the conservation biology 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), those principles were incorporated into the recovery 
criteria. Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf population is vital in 
terms of representation and resilience, because the remaining genetic 
diversity of gray wolves in the eastern United States 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 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 reestablis