Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 69778-69895 [2020-24171]
Download as PDF
69778
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
ecos.fws.gov. Comments and materials
we received, as well as some supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this rule, are available for public
inspection at https://
www.regulations.gov.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2018–0097;
FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 212]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule and notification of
petition finding.
Bridget Fahey, Chief, Division of
Classification and Conservation,
Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Headquarters Office,
MS: ES, 5275, Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041–3803; telephone
(703) 358–2163. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS),
have evaluated the classification status
of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) entities
currently listed in the lower 48 United
States and Mexico under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). Based on our
evaluation, we are removing the gray
wolf entities in the lower 48 United
States and Mexico, except for the
Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi), that are
currently on the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. We are taking this
action because the best available
scientific and commercial data available
establish that the gray wolf entities in
the lower 48 United States do not meet
the definitions of a threatened species or
an endangered species under the Act.
The effect of this rulemaking action is
that C. lupus is not classified as a
threatened or endangered species under
the Act. This rule does not have any
effect on the separate listing of the
Mexican wolf subspecies (Canis lupus
baileyi) as endangered under the Act. In
addition, we announce a 90-day finding
on a petition to maintain protections for
the gray wolf in the lower 48 United
States as endangered or threatened
distinct population segments. Based on
our review, we find that the petition
does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned actions may be
warranted. Therefore, we are not
initiating status reviews of the
petitioned entities in response to the
petition.
DATES: This rule is effective January 4,
2021.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, the postdelisting monitoring plan, and the
summary of the basis for the petition
finding contained in this document are
available on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–HQ–ES–2018–0097 or https://
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act and our regulations, if we
determine that a species is no longer
threatened or endangered throughout all
or a significant portion of its range, we
must remove the species from the Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants in title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.11 and
17.12). The Act requires us to issue a
rule to remove a species from the List
(‘‘delist’’ it) (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)).
What this document does. This rule
removes from the List gray wolves that
are currently listed as threatened or
endangered species in the lower 48
United States and Mexico. This rule
does not have any effect on the separate
listing of the Mexican wolf subspecies
as endangered under the Act (80 FR
2487, January 16, 2015).
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, we determine whether a species is
an endangered or threatened species
based on any one or more of five factors
or the cumulative effects thereof: (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 (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(1(A)). We have
determined that the gray wolf entities
currently listed in the lower 48 United
States and Mexico (not including the
Mexican wolf subspecies) do not meet
the definition of an endangered species
or threatened species under the Act.
Peer review and public comment. We
sought comments on the proposed
delisting rule from independent
specialists to ensure that this rule is
based on reasonable assumptions and
scientifically sound data and analyses.
RIN 1018–BD60
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf
(Canis lupus) From the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
We also considered all comments and
information we received during the
proposed delisting rule’s comment
period.
Table of Contents
Previous Federal Actions
General Background
The 1978 Reclassification
National Wolf Strategy
The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not
Meet the Statutory Definition of a
‘‘Species’’
Approach for This Rule
The Gray Wolf Entities Addressed in This
Rule
Why and How We Address Each
Configuration of Gray Wolf Entities
The Two Listed Entities Assessed
Separately
The Two Listed Entities Assessed in
Combination
The Two Listed Entities and the NRM DPS
Assessed in Combination
How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing
How We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties
in This Rule
Definition and Treatment of Range
Summary of Our Approach
Species Information
Biology and Ecology
Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North
America
Range and Population Trends Prior to 1978
Reclassification
Historical Range
Historical Abundance
Historical Trends in Range and Abundance
Distribution and Abundance at the Time of
the 1978 Reclassification
Current Distribution and Abundance
Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery
Implementation
Recovery Criteria for the Eastern United
States
Recovery Progress in the Eastern United
States
Recovery Criteria for the NRM
Recovery Progress in the NRM DPS
Historical Context of Our Analysis
Regulatory Framework
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Human-Caused Mortality
Human-Caused Mortality in the Currently
Listed Entities
Human-Caused Mortality in the NRM DPS
Regulated Harvest in Idaho
Depredation Control in Idaho
Wolf Population and Human-Caused
Mortality in Idaho Summary
Regulated Harvest in Montana
Depredation Control in Montana
Wolf Population and Human-Caused
Mortality in Montana Summary
Regulated Harvest in Wyoming
Depredation Control in Wyoming
Wolf Population and Human-Caused
Mortality in Wyoming Summary
Regulated Harvest in Oregon
Depredation Control in Oregon
Wolf Population and Human-Caused
Mortality in Oregon Summary
Regulated Harvest in Washington
Depredation Control in Washington
Wolf Population and Human-Caused
Mortality in Washington Summary
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Effects on Wolf Social Structure and Pack
Dynamics
The Role of Public Attitudes
Human-Caused Mortality Summary
Habitat and Prey Availability
Great Lakes Area: Suitable Habitat
Great Lakes Area: Prey Availability
NRM DPS: Suitable Habitat
NRM DPS: Prey Availability
West Coast States: Suitable Habitat
West Coast States: Prey Availability
Central Rocky Mountains: Suitable Habitat
Central Rocky Mountains: Prey Availability
Habitat and Prey Availability Summary
Disease and Parasites
Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding
Effects of Climate Change
Cumulative Effects
Ongoing and Post-Delisting State, Tribal, and
Federal Wolf Management
Ongoing Management in the Delisted NRM
DPS
State Management
Idaho
Montana
Wyoming
Tribal Management and Conservation of
Wolves
Wind River Indian Reservation
Blackfeet Indian Reservation
Flathead Indian Reservation
Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation
Management on Federal Lands
Summary of Management in the NRM DPS
Post-Delisting Management Where Wolves
are Currently Listed
State Management in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan
The Minnesota Wolf Management Plan
Depredation Control in Minnesota
Post-Delisting Depredation Control in
Minnesota
Post-Delisting Regulated Harvest in
Minnesota
The Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan
Depredation Control in Wisconsin
Post-Delisting Depredation Control in
Wisconsin
Post-Delisting Regulated Harvest in
Wisconsin
The Michigan Wolf Management Plan
Depredation Control in Michigan
Post-Delisting Depredation Control in
Michigan
Post-Delisting Regulated Harvest in
Michigan
State Management in the West Coast States
The Oregon Wolf Management Plan
The Washington Wolf Management Plan
The California Wolf Management Plan
State Management in the Central Rocky
Mountains
Post-Delisting Management in Colorado
Post-Delisting Management in Utah
Tribal Management and Conservation of
Wolves
Management on Federal Lands
Great Lakes Area
West Coast States
Central Rocky Mountains
Summary of Post-Delisting Management
Summary of Changes From the Proposed
Rule
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Peer Reviewer Comments
Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or
Population Trends
Human-Caused Mortality
Habitat and Prey Availability
Disease and Parasites
Post-Delisting Management
General
Biological Report
Policy
State and Federal Agency Comments
Recovery and Delisting
Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or
Population Trends
Taxonomy
Human-Caused Mortality
Effects of Climate Change
Genetics
Post-Delisting Management
Policy
Tribal and Tribal Organization Comments
Public Comments
Recovery and Delisting
Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or
Population Trends
Taxonomy
Human-Caused Mortality
Habitat and Prey Availability
Disease and Parasites
Effects of Climate Change
Genetics
Additional Threats
Post-Delisting Management
Post-Delisting Monitoring
General
Policy
Evaluation of a Petition To Revise the
Listings for the Gray Wolf Under the Act
Background
Species and Range
Petition History
Findings
Alternatives 1 and 2
Alternative 3
Determination of Species Status
Currently Listed Entities
Minnesota: Determination of Status
Throughout All of Its Range
Minnesota: Determination of Status
Throughout a Significant Portion of Its
Range
Minnesota: Final Determination
44-State Entity: Determination of Status
Throughout All of Its Range
44-State Entity: Determination of Status
Throughout a Significant Portion of Its
Range
44-State Entity: Final Determination
Combined Listed Entity
Combined Listed Entity: Determination of
Status Throughout All of Its Range
Combined Listed Entity: Determination of
Status Throughout a Significant Portion
of Its Range
Combined Listed Entity: Final
Determination
Lower 48 United States Entity
Lower 48 United States Entity:
Determination of Status Throughout All
of Its Range
Lower 48 United States Entity:
Determination of Status Throughout a
Significant Portion of Its Range
Lower 48 United States Entity: Final
Determination
Determination of Species Status:
Conclusion
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69779
Effects of This Rule
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act
Government-to-Government Relationship
With Tribes
Previous Federal Actions
Gray wolves were originally listed as
subspecies or as regional populations 1
of subspecies in the lower 48 United
States and Mexico. Early listings were
under legislative predecessors of the
Act—the Endangered Species
Preservation Act of 1966 and the
Endangered Species Conservation Act of
1969. Later listings were under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973. The
Federal Register citations for all the
rulemaking actions described in the
following paragraphs are provided in
table 1, below.
In 1978, we published a rule
reclassifying the gray wolf throughout
the lower 48 United States and Mexico,
subsuming the earlier listings of
subspecies or regional populations of
subspecies. In that rule, we classified
gray wolves in Minnesota as a
threatened species and gray wolves
elsewhere in the lower 48 United States
and Mexico as an endangered species
(table 1). At that time, we considered
the gray wolves in Minnesota to be a
listable entity under the Act, and we
considered the gray wolves in the lower
48 United States and Mexico, other than
Minnesota, to be another listable entity
(43 FR 9607 and 9610, respectively,
March 9, 1978). The earlier subspecies
listings thus were subsumed into two
listed entities: The gray wolf in
Minnesota; and the gray wolf in the rest
of the lower 48 United States and
Mexico.
The 1978 reclassification was
undertaken to address changes in our
understanding of gray wolf taxonomy
and protect all gray wolves in the lower
48 United States and Mexico (43 FR
9607, March 9, 1978). In addition, we
also clarified that the gray wolf was only
listed south of the Canadian border.
The 1978 reclassification rule
stipulated 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). Accordingly, we implemented
three gray wolf recovery programs in
three regions of the country—the
1 A group of fish or wildlife in the same taxon
below the subspecific level, in common spatial
arrangement that interbreed when mature (50 CFR
17.3).
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69780
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
northern Rocky Mountains, the
Southwestern United States, and the
Eastern United States (including the
Great Lakes States). The recovery
programs were pursued to establish and
prioritize recovery criteria and actions
appropriate to the unique local
circumstances of the gray wolf (table 1).
Recovery in one of these regions
(Southwestern United States) included
reintroduction of gray wolves in an
experimental population (table 1).
Recovery in a second region (northern
Rocky Mountains) included
reintroduction of gray wolves in an
experimental population (table 1) and
natural recolonization. Recovery in the
third region (Eastern United States)
relied on natural recolonization and
population growth.
Between 2003 and 2015, we
published several rules revising the
1978 listed entities to acknowledge new
information regarding taxonomy,
comport with current policy and
practices, and recognize the biological
recovery of gray wolves in the northern
Rocky Mountains (NRM) and Eastern
United States. Previous rules were
challenged and subsequently
invalidated or vacated by various courts
based, in part, on their determinations
that our distinct population segment
(DPS) designations were legally flawed
(table 1).
Of particular relevance to this rule is
our 2011 final rule addressing wolf
recovery in the western Great Lakes
(WGL) area of the Eastern United States
(76 FR 81666, Dec. 28, 2011). In that
rule, we recognized the expansion of the
Minnesota wolf population by revising
the previously listed Minnesota entity to
include all or portions of six
surrounding States, classified the
expanded population as the WGL DPS,
and determined that the WGL DPS did
not meet the definition of a threatened
or an endangered species due to
recovery. Also in 2011, we published a
final rule that implemented section
1713 of Public Law 112–10, reinstating
our 2009 delisting rule for the NRM DPS
and, with the exception of Wyoming,
removed gray wolves in that DPS from
the List. In 2012, we finalized a rule
removing gray wolves in Wyoming from
the List. That rule was later vacated by
the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. In 2013, we published a
proposed rule to: (1) Delist C. lupus in
the remaining listed portions of the
United States and Mexico outside of the
delisted NRM and WGL DPSs; and (2)
keep Mexican wolf (C. l baileyi;
occurring in the Southwestern United
States and Mexico) listed as an
endangered subspecies (table 1).
In 2014, the U. S. District Court for
the District of Columbia vacated the
December 28, 2011, final rule
identifying the WGL DPS and removing
it from the List (table 1). The district
court’s decision was based, in part, on
its conclusion that the Act does not
allow the Service to use its authority to
identify a DPS solely for the purpose of
delisting it (Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v.
Jewell, 76 F. Supp. 3d 69, 112–13
(D.D.C. 2014)). The U.S. Court of
Appeals disagreed, ruling in 2017 that
the Service had the authority to
designate a DPS from a larger listed
entity and delist it in the same rule
(table 1). That court nonetheless upheld
the district court’s vacatur of the rule,
concluding that the Service failed to
analyze or consider two significant
aspects of the rule: The impacts of
delisting the DPS on the rest of the
listed entity and the impacts of the loss
of historical range (Humane Soc’y of the
U.S. v. Zinke, 865 F.3d 585, 602–03,
605–07).
In 2015, we finalized the portion of
the 2013 proposed rule listing the
Mexican wolf as an endangered
subspecies (table 1). In 2017, the D.C.
Circuit reversed the district court’s
decision and reinstated the delisting of
gray wolves in Wyoming (Defenders of
Wildlife v. Zinke, 849 F.3d 1077 (DC Cir.
2017)). Thus, wolves are currently
delisted in the entire northern Rocky
Mountains DPS (figure 1).
As a result of the above actions, the
C. lupus listed entities in 50 CFR 17.11
currently include: (1) C. lupus in
Minnesota listed as threatened, and (2)
C. lupus in all or portions of 44 U.S.
States and Mexico, listed as endangered
(figure 1). In the United States, this
includes: All of Alabama, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada,
New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, Vermont, West Virginia,
and Wisconsin; and portions of Arizona,
New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and
Washington (figure 1).
On March 15, 2019, we published a
proposed rule to delist the two currently
listed C. lupus entities in the Federal
Register (84 FR 9648). The publication
of the proposed delisting rule opened a
60-day public comment period, which
was scheduled to close on May 14,
2019. Based on several requests from the
public to extend the comment period,
we published a document on May 14,
2019, extending the comment period 60
days, to July 15, 2019 (84 FR 21312). We
announced a public information open
house and public hearing on our
proposed rule and the availability of the
final peer review report in the Federal
Register on June 6, 2019 (84 FR 26393).
The public events were held in
Brainerd, Minnesota, on June 25, 2019.
For additional information on these
Federal actions and their associated
litigation history, refer to the relevant
associated rules or the Previous Federal
Actions sections of our recent gray wolf
actions (see table 1).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
TABLE 1—KEY FEDERAL REGULATORY ACTIONS UNDER THE ACT AND PREDECESSOR LEGISLATION 1 PERTAINING TO
GRAY WOLF AND, WHERE APPLICABLE, OUTCOMES OF COURT CHALLENGES TO THESE ACTIONS.
Entity
Year of action
Type of action
Federal Register
citation
C. lupus lycaon ....................................
1967 1 ......................
List .....................................................
C. lupus irremotus ................................
1973 1 ......................
List .....................................................
C. l. lycaon ...........................................
1974 ........................
List .....................................................
C. l. irremotus .......................................
1974 ........................
List .....................................................
C. l. baileyi ...........................................
1976 ........................
List (E) ...............................................
C. lupus monstrabilis 2 ..........................
1976 ........................
List (E) ...............................................
C. lupus in lower 48 U.S. (except Minnesota) & Mexico.
1978 ........................
Reclassify (E) .....................................
32 FR 4001, March
11, 1967.
38 FR 14678, June
4, 1973.
39 FR 1171, January
4, 1974.
39 FR 1171, January
4, 1974.
41 FR 17736, April
28, 1976.
41 FR 24064, June
14, 1976.
43 FR 9607, March
9, 1978 3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
Litigation history
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
69781
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
TABLE 1—KEY FEDERAL REGULATORY ACTIONS UNDER THE ACT AND PREDECESSOR LEGISLATION 1 PERTAINING TO
GRAY WOLF AND, WHERE APPLICABLE, OUTCOMES OF COURT CHALLENGES TO THESE ACTIONS.—Continued
Federal Register
citation
Entity
Year of action
Type of action
C. lupus in Minnesota ..........................
1978 ........................
Reclassify (T) .....................................
C. lupus ................................................
1978 (revised 1992)
C. lupus ................................................
C. lupus ................................................
1980 (revised 1987)
1982 (revised 2017)
C. lupus ................................................
1994 ........................
C. lupus ................................................
1994 ........................
Recovery Plan for Eastern Timber
Wolf (eastern gray wolf).
Recovery Plan for NRM Gray Wolf ...
Recovery Plan for Mexican Gray
Wolf (C. l. baileyi).
Establish experimental population
(southeastern
Idaho,
southern
Montana, and Wyoming).
Establish experimental population
(central Idaho & southwest Montana).
C. lupus ................................................
1998 ........................
C. lupus DPSs: .....................................
—Eastern DPS
—Western DPS
—Southwestern U.S. & Mexico
DPS
2003 ........................
C. lupus WGL DPS ..............................
2007 ........................
Establish experimental population
(Arizona & New Mexico).
Designate DPS & classify/reclassify
as:.
—Eastern DPS (T)
—Western DPS (T)
—Southwestern U.S. & Mexico
DPS (E)
—Delist in unoccupied non-historical range
Designate DPS & delist .....................
C. lupus NRM DPS ..............................
2008 ........................
Designate DPS & delist .....................
73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008.
C. lupus DPSs: .....................................
—WGL DPS
—NRM DPS
C. lupus WGL DPS ..............................
2008 ........................
Reinstatement of protections—NRM
& WGL DPSs.
73 FR 75356, December 11, 2008.
2009 ........................
Designate DPS & delist .....................
74 FR 15070, April
2, 2009.
C. lupus NRM DPS (except Wyoming)
2009 ........................
Designate DPS & delist (except in
Wyoming).
74 FR 15123, April
2, 2009.
C. lupus WGL DPS ..............................
2009 ........................
Reinstatement of protections—WGL
C. lupus NRM DPS ..............................
2010 ........................
C. lupus NRM DPS ..............................
2011 ........................
C. lupus WGL DPS ..............................
2011 ........................
Reinstatement of protections—NRM
DPS.
Reissuance of 2009 NRM DPS
delisting rule (as required by Public
Law 112–10—The Department of
Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011).
Revise 1978 listing, designate DPS &
delist.
74 FR 47483, September 16, 2009.
75 FR 65574, October 26, 2010.
76 FR 25590, May
5, 2011.
C. lupus in lower 48 U.S. and Mexico,
as revised.
C. lupus in Wyoming ............................
2012 ........................
5-Year Review ...................................
n.a.
2012 ........................
Delist in Wyoming ..............................
77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012.
C. lupus in lower 48 U.S. (except NRM
& WGL DPSs) and Mexico.
2013 ........................
78 FR 35664, June
13, 2013.
C. l. baileyi ...........................................
2015 ........................
Propose delist in lower 48 U.S. & list
C. l. baileyi (E); status review of
wolves in Pacific Northwest.
List E ..................................................
C. l. baileyi ...........................................
2015 ........................
C. lupus WGL DPS and C. lupus in
Wyoming.
C. lupus in Wyoming ............................
2015 ........................
2017 ........................
Revised 1998 C. lupus experimental
population and associated it with
C. l. baileyi listing.
Reinstatement of protections—WGL
DPS & Wyoming.
Reinstatement of 2012 delisting—
Wyoming.
Litigation history
43 FR 9607, March
9, 1978 3.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994.
59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994.
63 FR 1752, January
12, 1998.
68 FR 15804, April
1, 2003.
72 FR 6052, February 8, 2007.
76 FR 81666, December 28, 2011.
Upholding reintroduction in the NRM
region (Wyoming Farm Bureau v.
Babbitt, 199 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir.
2000)).
Rule vacated (Defenders of Wildlife
v. Norton, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1156
(D. Or. 2005); National Wildlife
Federation v. Norton, 386 F. Supp.
2d 553 (D. Vt. 2005)).
Rule vacated (Humane Society of the
United States v. Kempthorne, 579
F. Supp. 2d 7 (D. D.C. 2008)).
Rule enjoined (Defenders of Wildlife
v. Hall, 565 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (D.
Mont. 2008)), and subsequently
vacated and remanded.
Rule vacated (Humane Society of the
United States v. Salazar, 1:09–
CV–1092–PLF (D.D.C. 2009)).
Rule vacated (Defenders of Wildlife
v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207
(D. Mont. 2010)).
Upholding Section 1713 (Alliance for
the Wild Rockies v. Salazar, 672
F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2012)).
Rule vacated (Humane Society of the
U.S. v. Jewell, 76 F. Supp. 3d 69,
110 (D.D.C. 2014)) .
Vacatur upheld on appeal (Humane
Society of the U.S. v. Zinke, 865
F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2017)).
Rule vacated (Defenders of Wildlife
v. Jewell, 68 F. Supp. 3d 193
(D.D.C. 2014)
Vacatur
reversed
on
appeal
(Defenders of Wildlife v. Zinke, 849
F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2017)).
80 FR 2488, January
16, 2015.
80 FR 2512, January
16, 2015.
80 FR 9218, February 20, 2015.
82 FR 20284, May
1, 2017.
E = endangered species, T = threatened species, DPS = Distinct Population Segment, NRM = Northern Rocky Mountains, WGL = Western Great Lakes.
1 Action taken under the Endangered Species Preservation predecessor legislation (Endangered Species Act of 1966, Endangered Species Conservation Act of
1969).
2 Later subsumed into C. l. baileyi due to taxonomic changes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69782
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
3 In this rule we also identified critical habitat in Michigan and Minnesota and promulgated special regulations under section 4(d) of the Act for operating a wolfmanagement program in Minnesota. The special regulation was later modified (50 FR 50793, December 12, 1985).
The 1978 Reclassification
When the gray wolf (C. lupus) was
reclassified in March 1978 (replacing
multiple subspecies entities with two C.
lupus population entities as described
further in Previous Federal Actions), it
had been extirpated from much of its
historical range in the lower 48 United
States. Although the 1978
reclassification listed two gray wolf
entities (a threatened population in
Minnesota and an endangered
population throughout the rest of the
lower 48 United States and Mexico),
these entities were not predicated upon
a formal DPS analysis, because the
reclassification predated the November
1978 amendments to the Act, which
revised the definition of ‘‘species’’ to
include DPSs of vertebrate fish or
wildlife, and our 1996 DPS Policy.
As indicated in Previous Federal
Actions, the 1978 reclassification was
undertaken to address changes in our
understanding of gray wolf taxonomy
and to ensure the gray wolf was
protected wherever it was found (as
described in 47 FR 9607, March 9, 1978)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
in the lower 48 United States and
Mexico, rather than an indication of
where gray wolves actually existed or
where recovery efforts were considered
necessary. Thus, the 1978
reclassification resulted in inclusion of
large areas of the lower 48 United States
where gray wolves were extirpated, as
well as the mid-Atlantic and
southeastern United States, areas where
long-held differences of opinion
regarding the precise boundary of the
species’ historical range remain (Young
and Goldman 1944, pp. 413–416, 478;
Hall 1981, p. 932; Nowak 1995, p. 395,
Fig. 20; Nowak 2009, p. 242; Mech and
Boitani 2003, p. 251, Fig. 9.7). While
this generalized approach to the gray
wolf listing facilitated recovery of
wolves in the northern Rocky
Mountains and western Great Lakes, it
also erroneously included areas outside
the species’ historical range and was
misread by some members of the public
as an expression of a more expansive
gray wolf recovery effort not required by
the Act and never intended by the
Service. In fact, our longstanding
approach to recovery has focused on
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reestablishing wolf populations in three
specific regions of the country: The
Eastern United States (including the
Great Lakes States), the northern Rocky
Mountains, and the Southwestern
United States. We have consistently
focused our recovery efforts on
reestablishing wolf populations in these
specific regions (see table 1 and Gray
Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery
Implementation).
National Wolf Strategy
Although not required by the Act, in
2011 we described our national wolf
strategy in our proposed rule to revise
the List for the gray wolf in the Eastern
United States (76 FR 26089–26090, May
5, 2011). This strategy was 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.
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
ER03NO20.016
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
General Background
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Our strategy focused on the continued
conservation of three extant gray wolf
entities (the Great Lakes population, the
northern Rocky Mountains population,
and the southwestern population of
Mexican wolves) and consideration of
conservation of a fourth, wolves in the
Pacific Northwest. In 2013 we
completed a status review for gray
wolves in the Pacific Northwest
(western Washington, western Oregon,
and northern California) (table 1) and
determined that, under our DPS policy,
these wolves are not discrete from
wolves in the recovered NRM DPS
(Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, eastern
Oregon, eastern Washington, and northcentral Utah) (see 78 FR 35707–35713).
Therefore, since that time, our strategy
has been consistent with a focus on the
western Great Lakes, the northern Rocky
Mountains, and the southwestern
population of Mexican wolves (see
Previous Federal Actions).
The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities
Do Not Meet the Statutory Definition of
a ‘‘Species’’
The gray wolf entities that are
currently on the List do not meet the
Act’s definition of a ‘‘species’’ (16
U.S.C. 1532(16)). The original listing of
certain gray wolf subspecies predated
the Act. In 1967, under a precursor to
the Act, we listed C. l. lycaon (Eastern
timber wolf) in the Great Lakes region
(table 1). In 1973, under the same
precursor to the Act, we listed C. l.
irremotus (Northern Rocky Mountain
wolf) (table 1). In 1974, these subspecies
were listed under the Act (table 1). In
2015, we subsequently listed C. l.
baileyi (Mexican wolf) as endangered in
the Southwestern United States and
Mexico (table 1). Finally, on June 14,
1976, we listed a fourth gray wolf
subspecies, C. l. monstrabilis (table 1),
which was later subsumed within C. l.
baileyi.
In 1978, we concluded that ‘‘this
listing arrangement has not been
satisfactory because the taxonomy of
wolves is out of date, wolves may
wander outside of recognized
subspecific boundaries, and some
wolves from unlisted subspecies may
occur in certain parts of the lower 48
states’’ (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). We
wanted to clarify that C. lupus was
listed as threatened or endangered south
of the Canadian border, and we
determined that the ‘‘most convenient’’
way to do so was to list the entity at the
species level rather than by subspecies
(43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). The
separate subspecies listings were
subsumed into two entities that were
defined geographically: (1) Threatened
in Minnesota; and (2) endangered
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
throughout the rest of the lower 48
United States and Mexico (43 FR 9612,
March 9, 1978). The 1978 rule treated
these entities as distinct ‘‘species’’
under the statutory definition of the
term that was in effect at that time (43
FR 9610, March 9, 1978).
When the Act was adopted in 1973,
the term ‘‘species’’ was defined to
include species, subspecies or ‘‘any
other group of fish or wildlife of the
same species or smaller taxa in common
spatial arrangement that interbreed
when mature’’ (Pub. L. 93–205, 87 Stat.
884, 886 (1973)). In November 1978, the
Act was amended to introduce the
concept of DPSs (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)).
Unlike species and subspecies, DPS is
not a taxonomic term. Rather, it refers
to certain populations of vertebrates
(i.e., less than the entire range of a
taxonomic vertebrate species or
subspecies). We issued a policy in 1996,
in conjunction with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, to explain how we
would apply this statutory term (61 FR
4722–4725, February 7, 1996).
Since the concept of DPSs was
introduced, we have attempted to revise
the lower 48 United States and Mexico
listings to account for the biological
recovery of gray wolves in the Western
Great Lakes (WGL) and Northern Rocky
Mountains (NRM). We published rules
identifying recovered DPSs, but some of
those actions did not survive legal
challenges. For example, our 2007 and
2011 rules designating and delisting a
WGL DPS were vacated by the
reviewing courts. Thus, wolves in the
WGL are part of the currently listed gray
wolf entities. By contrast, although our
rules designating and delisting the NRM
DPS were also challenged in court, after
several rounds of litigation and
congressional action the NRM DPS was
delisted and remains so today (see
Previous Federal Actions).
The two currently listed entities are:
(1) C. lupus in Minnesota (listed as
threatened); and (2) C. lupus in all or
portions of 44 U.S. States and Mexico
(listed as endangered). Neither of the
entities encompasses an entire species,
or a subspecies, of gray wolf. Thus, the
currently listed entities would only
constitute listable entities (i.e., meet the
statutory definition of ‘‘species’’) if they
qualified as DPSs.
To constitute a DPS, a vertebrate
population must be both discrete from
and significant to the remainder of the
taxon (i.e., taxonomic species or
subspecies) (61 FR 4725, February 7,
1996). We consider first whether the
population is discrete and, if so, then
we evaluate its biological and ecological
significance (61 FR 4725, February 7,
1996). A population segment may be
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69783
considered discrete if it ‘‘is markedly
separated from other populations of the
same taxon as a consequence of
physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors’’ (61 FR 4725). For the
reasons set forth below, the gray wolf
entities currently on the List do not
meet this standard.
The two entities are not markedly
separated from other populations of the
same taxon. The threatened Minnesota
listed entity is not discrete from the
endangered listed entity where they
abut in the Great Lakes area because
gray wolves in Minnesota are not
discrete from gray wolves in Wisconsin
and Michigan. In 1978, gray wolves
were largely confined to northern
Minnesota, with some wolves
occupying Isle Royale and possibly
other individuals scattered in Wisconsin
and Michigan (43 FR 9608). Wolves in
northern Minnesota subsequently
dispersed and recolonized Wisconsin
and Michigan, resulting in a
metapopulation 2 in the Great Lakes area
(Mech 2010, p. 130). There are no
significant physical barriers separating
Minnesota wolves from those in
Wisconsin and Michigan, as evidenced
by frequent movement of wolves among
the three States (Treves et al. 2009,
entire). In addition, genetic analyses
demonstrate that Wisconsin and
Michigan wolves are mostly of the same
genetic makeup as Minnesota wolves
and there is effective interbreeding
among wolves in the three States
(Wheeldon et al. 2010, p. 4438;
Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 104; Fain
et al. 2010, p. 1758; see also Taxonomy
of Gray Wolves in North America).
Thus, gray wolves in the Minnesota
entity are not ‘‘markedly separated’’
from wolves in the Great Lakes portion
of the endangered listed entity.
Likewise, the endangered listed entity
is not discrete from other populations of
gray wolves. As noted above, gray
wolves in the Great Lakes portion of the
endangered listed entity are connected
to gray wolves in Minnesota. And gray
wolves in the West Coast States that are
part of the endangered listed entity are
not discrete from the recovered NRM
population (78 FR 35664, June 13, 2013,
2 A metapopulation is a population that exists as
partially isolated sets of subpopulations that
‘‘interact’’ when individuals move from one
subpopulation to another. A metapopulation is
widely recognized as being more secure over the
long term than are several isolated populations that
contain the same total number of individuals. A
metapopulation is more secure because adverse
effects experienced by one of its subpopulations
resulting from genetic drift, demographic shifts, and
local environmental fluctuations can be countered
by occasional influxes of individuals and their
genetic diversity from the other components of the
metapopulation.
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69784
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
pp. 35707–35713; see also Current
Distribution and Abundance). We
removed most of the NRM DPS from the
List, most recently, in 2011 (ID, MT, the
eastern one-third of OR and WA, and a
small portion of north-central UT) and
the remainder, most recently, in 2017
(WY) (table 1). As we explained in our
2019 proposed rule, the NRM
population has continued to expand and
wolves from that population have now
dispersed and become established in
parts of the West Coast States (84 FR
9656, March 15, 2019). Genetic analysis
shows that all gray wolves currently
occupying Oregon descended from NRM
wolves and those wolves expanded into
California (Hendricks et al. 2018, pp.
142–143; California Department of Fish
and Wildlife 2020, entire). Wolves in
Washington in both the endangered
listed entity and the NRM include
individuals descended from NRM
wolves as well as wolves from Canada
(Hendricks et al. 2018, pp. 142–143).
Thus, listed wolves in the West Coast
States are not genetically distinct from
the NRM wolves. Nor is there marked
separation resulting from physical
factors. Wolf habitat models show that
there is little separation between
occupied wolf habitat in the NRM DPS
and suitable habitat in western
Washington, western Oregon, and
northern California (see 78 FR 35712,
June 13, 2013). Any gaps in suitable
habitat are unlikely to preclude
dispersal because gray wolves are
capable of traveling long distances
through a variety of habitats (78 FR
35712, June 13, 2013; ODFW 2016, p.
10; Jimenez et al. 2017, entire). In sum,
listed wolves in the West Coast States
are not discrete from wolves in the
delisted NRM DPS portion of the gray
wolf taxon.
Because the two currently listed
entities are not discrete, we need not
evaluate their significance (61 FR 4725,
February 7, 1996). Neither of the listed
entities is a DPS, and thus neither entity
is a ‘‘species’’ as that term is defined
under the Act.
As we noted in our proposed rule, the
currently listed gray wolf entities could
be removed from the List because they
do not meet the statutory definition of
a ‘‘species’’ (84 FR 9686, March 15,
2019). This independent basis for
delisting, which is based on the plain
language of the Act, was explained in
our 2019 revisions to the Act’s
implementing regulations. We
distinguish between a ‘‘listed entity’’
and a ‘‘species,’’ and reiterate that an
entity that is not a ‘‘species’’ as defined
under the Act should be removed from
the List. See 50 CFR 424.11(e)(3)
(providing that the Secretary shall
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
remove an entity from the List if, among
other things, ‘‘[t]he listed entity does not
meet the statutory definition of a
species’’). In the preamble to the rule we
explained that this is not a new
interpretation, but ‘‘merely reflects the
text and intent of the Act, i.e., only
‘species,’ as defined in section 3 of the
Act, may be listed under the Act’’ (84
FR 45037, August 27, 2020).
However, before proceeding with
delisting, we may consider whether any
populations of gray wolves covered by
the listed entities meet the definition of
a threatened species or an endangered
species. Thus, instead of removing the
listed entities solely because they do not
meet the statutory definition of a
‘‘species,’’ in this rule, we consider the
status of gray wolves in several
configurations, as explained below, to
eliminate the possibility of removing
protections for any gray wolves that
might meet the Act’s definition of a
‘‘species’’ and might be endangered or
threatened.
Approach for This Rule
The Gray Wolf Entities Addressed in
This Rule
As described above, two gray wolf
entities are currently listed: C. lupus in
Minnesota, listed as threatened; and C.
lupus in all or portions of 44 U.S. States
and Mexico, listed as endangered (figure
1). We refer to these entities simply as
‘‘Minnesota’’ and the ‘‘44-State entity’’
throughout this rule.
While our past status reviews have
focused on gray wolf DPSs and
taxonomic units that align with our
national wolf strategy (see table 1), we
have revised our approach in this rule
to take into account the unique listing
history of the gray wolf, as well as
multiple court opinions regarding our
prior actions to designate and delist gray
wolf DPSs (see table 1). The two
currently listed gray wolf entities are
largely vestiges of a 42-year-old action
(the 1978 reclassification (see General
Background)) that occurred prior to
formulation and implementation of our
DPS policy. As explained above, the
gray wolf entities that are currently on
the List are not species, subspecies, or
distinct population segments (DPSs)
(see The Currently Listed C. lupus
Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory
Definition of a ‘‘Species’’), and as such
should be delisted. However, in
recognition of the unique listing history
of the gray wolf, our many prior actions
to designate and delist DPSs (table 1),
and related court opinions, we have
adopted a conservative approach to
delisting in this rule. Rather than focus
on gray wolf DPSs and taxonomic units,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
we focus on the currently listed entities.
We do so by evaluating the conservation
status of the currently listed entities
under three different configurations, as
explained below.
In our proposed rule, we focused on
the status of listed gray wolves by
assessing the two listed entities in
combination. In response to peer review
and public comments, we have
expanded our analysis to consider the
conservation status of gray wolves in
three different configurations.
Specifically, we assess: (1) Each of the
two currently listed gray wolf entities
separately; (2) the two currently listed
entities combined into a single entity
(the approach in our proposed rule); and
(3) a single gray wolf entity that
includes all gray wolves in the lower 48
state and Mexico except for the Mexican
wolf. We explain our reasoning for
analyzing these specific configurations
below.
Why and How We Address Each
Configuration of Gray Wolf Entities
We consider the status of gray wolves
in each of the following configurations
to determine whether wolves should be
included on the List in their current
status, be reclassified from their current
status (e.g., upgraded to endangered or
downgraded to threatened), or be
removed from the List. For a summary
of these configurations, see table 2.
The Two Listed Entities Assessed
Separately
In this configuration, we assess the
status of gray wolves occurring within
the geographic area outlined by each of
the two currently listed C. lupus entities
separately, as they are listed. We do so
because they are the entities that are
currently on the List. Evaluating the
entities as they are listed is consistent
with section 4(c) of the Act, which
authorizes the Secretary to review
species included on the List and
determine on the basis of the review
whether changes to the listing status are
warranted (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)). We do
not consider the delisted NRM DPS
wolves as part of the 44-State entity
under analysis in this configuration
because they are recovered and no
longer listed. However, we include
information on the NRM DPS, as
appropriate, to provide context and to
inform our analysis and conclusions
about the status of wolves comprising
the 44-State entity.
The Two Listed Entities Assessed in
Combination
In this configuration, we assess the
status of gray wolves occurring within
the geographic area outlined by the two
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
currently listed C. lupus entities
combined into a single entity. We do so
because: (1) These are the entities that
are currently on the List and it is clear
that neither listed entity would qualify
as a DPS under our 1996 DPS policy due
to their lack of discreteness from each
other (see The Currently Listed C. lupus
Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory
Definition of a ‘‘Species’’), and (2) it
makes sense, biologically, to combine
them for analysis in light of their lack
of discreteness. We do not consider the
delisted NRM DPS wolves as part of the
listed entity under analysis in this
configuration because they are
recovered and no longer listed.
However, we include information on the
NRM DPS, as appropriate, to provide
context and to inform our analysis and
conclusions about the status of wolves
comprising this combined entity.
We assessed the two listed entities in
combination in our proposed rule. In
that rule, we referred to the resulting
entity as the ‘‘gray wolf entity.’’ For
clarity, in this final rule, we refer to the
resulting entity as the ‘‘combined listed
entity’’ (table 2).
The Two Listed Entities and the NRM
DPS Assessed in Combination
In this configuration, we assess the
status of gray wolves occurring within
the geographic area of the lower 48
United States and Mexico (excluding
the Mexican gray wolf; see How We
Address the C. l. baileyi Listing below),
a single entity that includes the two
currently listed entities and the delisted
NRM DPS combined. We do so because:
(1) It includes the two entities that are
currently on the List and neither listed
entity qualifies as a DPS under our 1996
DPS policy because the two listed
69785
entities are not discrete from each other
and the 44-State entity is not discrete
from the NRM DPS (see The Currently
Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the
Statutory Definition of a ‘‘Species’’), and
(2) it makes sense, biologically, to
combine the two currently listed entities
and the NRM DPS for analysis in light
of their lack of discreteness. We refer to
this entity as the ‘‘lower 48 United
States entity.’’ Although we include the
NRM wolves in this configuration due
to their connection to currently listed
wolves, we reiterate that wolves in the
NRM DPS are recovered, and we are not
reexamining or revisiting our 2009 and
2012 delisting rules (74 FR 15123, April
2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10,
2012). For additional information
regarding our rationale for analyzing the
lower 48 United States entity, see
Summary of Changes from the Proposed
Rule.
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF ANALYSES IN THIS RULE
Description of entity
assessed
Name given to the entity in
this rule
State of Minnesota ............
Minnesota ..........................
It is a currently listed entity.
Lower 48 States and Mexico 1 outside of the NRM
DPS and Minnesota.
Lower 48 States and Mexico 1 outside of the NRM
DPS.
44-State entity ...................
It is a currently listed entity.
combined listed entity ........
Lower 48 States and Mexico 1.
lower 48 United States entity.
Includes the two currently listed entities, but these two
entities are not discrete from one another; it makes
sense, biologically, to combine them in light of their
lack of discreteness. We do not include the NRM
wolves because they are delisted.
Includes the two currently listed entities, but these two
entities are not discrete from one another, and one
(the 44-State entity) is not discrete from the delisted
NRM DPS; it makes sense, biologically, to combine
them in light of their lack of discreteness.
Configuration
1. The separate listed entities.
2. The combined listed entities.
3. The combined listed entities and the NRM DPS.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
1 But
Why we assess the entity
see How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing.
How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing
As indicated above (see Previous
Federal Actions), in 2015 we revised the
listing for the gray wolf by reclassifying
the subspecies C. l. baileyi as a
separately listed entity with the status of
endangered, wherever found. Although
the rulemaking does not include
language expressly excluding C. l.
baileyi from the previously listed C.
lupus entity, we indicated in our 2015
final rule listing the subspecies that the
effect of the regulation was to revise the
List by making a separate entry for the
Mexican wolf (80 FR 2511, January 16,
2015). Therefore, because we already
assessed the status of, and listed, the
Mexican wolf separately, we do not
assess individuals or populations of the
Mexican wolf in this rule. In other
words, we do not consider individuals
or populations of Mexican wolves to be
among the wolves under analysis in this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
rule. Further, the Mexican wolf is the
only subspecies of C. lupus known to
currently occupy the Mexican wolf
experimental population area (that
covers portions of Arizona and New
Mexico) and Mexico. Therefore, based
on the best available information, the
experimental population area and
Mexico are unoccupied by and,
consequently, outside the range of, the
gray wolves under analysis in this rule
(see Definition and Treatment of Range).
How We Address Taxonomic
Uncertainties in This Rule
The taxonomy and evolutionary
history of wolves in North America are
complex and controversial, particularly
with respect to the taxonomic
assignment of wolves historically
present in the Northeastern United
States and those that occur in portions
of the Great Lakes region (eastern
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
wolves; see Taxonomy of Gray Wolves
in North America). Available
information indicates ongoing scientific
debate and a lack of resolution on the
taxonomy of eastern wolves. (see
Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North
America). Further, none of these
viewpoints is more supported by the
scientific evidence or more widely
accepted by the scientific community
than others. In other words, there is no
standard taxonomy indicating that
eastern wolves are a distinct species,
and no agreement among the scientific
community regarding the taxonomic
assignment of eastern wolves.
We originally listed the gray wolf
subspecies C. l. lycaon, the eastern
timber wolf, in 1967. We continued to
recognize this subspecies—and the
Northeastern United States as part of its
historical range—for years, as evidenced
by both our original (1978) and revised
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69786
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(1992) Recovery Plan for the Eastern
Timber Wolf. In 2013, we proposed
recognizing the species C. lycaon,
occurring in southeastern Canada and,
historically, the Northeastern United
States, in our proposed rule to delist C.
lupus and list C. l. baileyi as endangered
(table 1). However, all peer reviewers of
that proposed rule considered the
scientific basis for recognizing C. lycaon
as a species to be insufficient. They
noted that this is an area of active
scientific research with new studies
published yearly, and stated that the
proposed recognition of these wolves as
a species was premature (National
Center for Ecological Analysis and
Synthesis 2014, unpaginated). New
information published on the topic
since publication of our 2013 rule
indicates the taxonomy and
evolutionary history of eastern wolves
remains unresolved (USFWS 2020, pp.
1–5). The uncertainty of the existence of
a separate species is reflected in the fact
that C. lycaon is not recognized by
authoritative taxonomic organizations
such as the American Society of
Mammalogists or the International
Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature. Therefore, based on our
review of the best available scientific
and commercial information, in this
rule we continue to recognize wolves in
the Northeastern United States as
members of the species C. lupus.
Because we recognize wolves in the
Northeastern United States as members
of the species C. lupus in our
assessment of the status of gray wolf
entities in this rule, we include eastern
wolves and eastern wolf range that
occurs within the geographical
boundaries of the gray wolf entities we
assess. This approach ensures our
analysis takes into account the
possibility that gray wolves historically
occurred throughout most of the lower
48 United States. In other words,
because we also consider eastern wolf
historical range, our analysis assumes a
larger historical range for the gray wolf
species in the lower 48 United States
and, as a result, a greater loss of such
range (see Historical Range).
Scientists also disagree on the
taxonomic assignment of wolves in the
southeastern United States generally
recognized as ‘‘red wolves.’’ However, a
recent consensus study by the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine concluded that available
evidence supports species (C. rufus)
status for the extant red wolf (National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine (NASEM) 2019, pp. 51–
72). We recognize the red wolf as the
species C. rufus (USFWS 2018, pp. 15–
17) and note that it is listed as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
endangered where found (32 FR 4001,
March 11, 1967). We do not consider
red wolves further in this rule and the
red wolf listing is not affected by this
rule.
Definition and Treatment of Range
We interpret the term ‘‘range’’ as used
in the Act’s definitions of ‘‘threatened
species’’ and ‘‘endangered species’’ to
refer to the area occupied by the species
at the time we make a status
determination under section 4 of the Act
(79 FR 37583, July 1, 2014). In this rule,
we consider the latest wolf distribution
maps (inclusive of wolf packs, breeding
pairs, and areas of persistent activity by
multiple wolves) and other information
obtained from State agencies as the best
available information on wolf
occupancy and, therefore, wolf range.
Gray wolf range based on this
information is shown in figure 2.
Because we do not consider Mexican
wolves to be among the wolves under
analysis in this rule, we do not include
the Mexican wolf experimental
population area (that covers portions of
Arizona and New Mexico) or Mexico
within current gray wolf range (See How
We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing).
Wolves occur periodically in the
lower 48 United States as lone
dispersers in places that otherwise lack
evidence of persistent wolf presence or
suitable habitat for supporting a resident
wolf population (see Current
Distribution and Abundance). While
dispersal plays an important role in
recolonization of suitable habitat,
individual dispersers that do not settle
in an area, survive, and reproduce do
not substantively contribute to the
wolf’s viability (i.e., the ability of a
species to sustain populations in the
wild over time). Therefore, we did not
include the areas in which only these
lone dispersers are occasionally found
in our definition of current range.
Summary of Our Approach
In this rule, we assess the status of
gray wolves in three different
configurations. We do not include in
our assessment individuals or
populations of the Mexican wolf (C. l.
baileyi) (wolves that occur in Mexico
and the nonessential experimental
population area in the Southwestern
United States). Also, for the purposes of
this rule, we consider any eastern
wolves within the geographic
boundaries of the entities we evaluated
to be members of the species C. lupus.
Further, we consider the range of the
gray wolf to be the current distribution
of gray wolves (as shown in figure 2)
within the geographic boundaries of the
entities we evaluated.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Species Information
We provide detailed background
information on gray wolves in the lower
48 United States in a separate Gray Wolf
Biological Report (see USFWS 2020,
entire). This document can be found
along with this rule at https://
regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS–
HQ–ES–2018–0097 (see Supplemental
Documents). We summarize relevant
information from this report below. For
additional information, including
sources of the information presented
below, see USFWS (2020, entire) and
references therein.
Biology and Ecology
Gray wolves are the largest wild
members of the canid (dog) family and
have a broad circumpolar range. Adults
range in weight from 18 to 80 kilograms
(40 to 175 pounds), depending on sex
and geographic locale. Gray wolves are
highly territorial, social animals that
live and hunt in packs. They are well
adapted to traveling fast and far in
search of food, and to catching and
eating large mammals. In North
America, they are primarily predators of
medium to large mammals, including
deer, elk, and other species, and are
efficient at shifting their diet to take
advantage of available food resources
(USFWS 2020, p. 6).
Gray wolves are a highly adaptable
species. They can successfully occupy a
wide range of habitats provided
adequate prey exists and human-caused
mortality is sufficiently regulated.
Scientific models generally depict highquality suitable habitat as areas with
sufficient prey where human-caused
mortality is relatively low due to limited
human access, or high amounts of
escape cover, or relatively low risk of
wolf–livestock conflicts (USFWS 2020,
pp. 8–9).
Established gray wolf populations are
remarkably resilient as long as their
food supply is adequate and humancaused mortality is not too high. Where
human-caused mortality is low or
nonexistent, gray wolf populations are
regulated by the distribution and
abundance of prey on the landscape,
though considerable evidence indicates
density-dependent, intrinsic
mechanisms (e.g., social strife,
territoriality, disease) may limit
populations when ungulate densities are
high. High levels of reproduction and
immigration in gray wolf populations
can compensate for high mortality rates
in established populations (USFWS
2020, pp. 7–8). Pack social structure is
very adaptable—in many instances,
breeding members can be quickly
replaced from within or outside the
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
pack, and pups can be reared by other
pack members should their parents die.
Consequently, wolf populations can
rapidly overcome severe disruptions,
such as pervasive human-caused
mortality or disease; and they can
increase rapidly after severe declines if
the source of mortality is reduced. The
species’ dispersal capabilities allow
wolf populations to quickly expand and
recolonize vacant habitats as long as
rates of human-caused mortality are not
excessive; although, the rate of
recolonization can be affected by the
extent of intervening unoccupied
habitat between the source population
and newly recolonized area (USFWS
2020, p. 7).
Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North
America
The gray wolf is a member of the
canid family (Canidae) in a genus
(Canis) that includes domestic dogs (C.
familiaris), coyotes (C. latrans), and
several other species (USFWS 2020, p.
1). Taxonomic relationships among
Canis species found in North America
have been studied extensively, though
with a notable lack of consensus on
various phylogenetic issues (USFWS
2020, p. 1). Consequently, wolf
taxonomy and evolutionary history in
North America are complex and
controversial (USFWS 2020, p. 5).
In North America, scientists generally
recognize a ‘‘red wolf’’ phenotype
(morphological form), and an ‘‘eastern
wolf’’ phenotype that is distinct from
wolves further west (‘‘western gray
wolves’’), but disagree on the correct
taxonomic assignment of these two
entities or on their evolutionary origin
(USFWS 2020, p. 1). As indicated above
(see How We Address Taxonomic
Uncertainties in this Rule), we continue
to recognize the red wolf as the species
C. rufus and do not discuss the
taxonomy of the species further in this
rule (for more information, see our 2018
Red Wolf Species Status Assessment).
We discuss the eastern wolf further,
below.
The eastern wolf has been the source
of perhaps the most significant
disagreement on North American canid
taxonomy among scientists. The eastern
wolf has been variously described as a
species, a subspecies of gray wolf, an
ecotype of gray wolf, the product of
introgressive hybridization between
gray wolves and coyotes, the same
species as the red wolf, or the product
of introgressive hybridization between
red wolves and gray wolves (USFWS
2020, p. 1). Morphologically, eastern
wolves have long been considered
distinct from gray wolves and coyotes.
Many scientists have generally found
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
the eastern wolf to be consistently
intermediate between the gray wolf and
the coyote, both morphologically and
genetically (USFWS 2020, p. 2).
Regardless of viewpoint on the correct
taxonomic status of the eastern wolf,
hybridization and introgression is
widely recognized to have played, and
continue to play, an important role
among eastern wolves. However, there
is scientific disagreement on the role of
hybridization between eastern wolves
and coyotes, eastern wolves and gray
wolves, and gray wolves and coyotes.
Minnesota appears to be the western
edge of a hybrid zone between gray
wolves in the west and eastern wolves—
wolves in western Minnesota appear to
be western gray wolves based on
morphological and genetic analysis
while wolves in eastern Minnesota and
much of the Great Lakes area appear to
be eastern wolf, introgressed with
western gray wolf to varying degrees.
Scientists who support the eastern wolf
as a distinct species report that the only
area in which eastern wolves are not
currently experiencing admixture with
either gray wolves or coyotes is in
Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario,
Canada (USFWS 2020, pp. 2–3). Even
among those who hypothesize a hybrid
origin of eastern wolves, meaning they
are the result of ancient or more recent
hybridization between gray wolves and
coyotes, eastern wolves are viewed as
genetically distinct (USFWS 2020, pp.
2–3).
Despite the ongoing debate about
taxonomy and evolutionary history,
there is general agreement that wolves
currently found in the Great Lakes area
and neighboring provinces in Canada
are genetically distinct to some degree
from wolves further west in the Rocky
Mountains or the Pacific northwest
(USFWS 2020, pp. 1–2). Although there
is some debate about the degree of
genetic difference between the wolves
that occupy the Great Lakes area versus
the Western United States, wolves in the
Great Lakes area are generally smaller,
occupy habitat dominated by mixed
deciduous-coniferous forests with
relatively little elevation change, and
their primary prey is white-tailed deer;
whereas wolves in the Western United
States are larger and occupy montane
forests that also contain larger prey such
as elk and moose (USFWS 2020, pp. 28–
29).
All wolves in the Western United
States are widely recognized as gray
wolves (C. lupus) (USFWS 2020, pp. 3–
4). However, the science pertaining to
gray wolf subspecies designations,
unique evolutionary lineages, ecotypes,
and admixture of formerly isolated
populations continues to develop
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69787
(USFWS 2020, pp. 3–5)—except for the
Mexican wolf, where there is strong
scientific evidence supporting its
subspecies status. For example, coastal
and inland wolves in western Canada
and Alaska have been identified as
genetically and morphologically
distinct, and display distinct habitat and
prey preferences, despite relatively
close proximity. There have been
attempts to assess whether any wolves
recolonizing western States possess
genetic markers indicative of coastal
wolf ancestry. Genetic analysis of
wolves recolonizing Washington
revealed the presence of individuals
primarily from the northern Rocky
Mountains. However, two individuals
were an admixture of wolves with
inland wolf ancestry (wolves from the
northern Rocky Mountains or inland
western Canada) and coastal wolf
ancestry (wolves from coastal British
Columbia and coastal Alaska), although
it is not clear whether the admixture of
coastal and inland wolves happened in
Washington, or whether already
admixed individuals dispersed there.
All wolves recolonizing Oregon and
California appear to be descended from
inland wolves dispersing from the
northern Rocky Mountains (USFWS
2020, pp. 3–5).
Range and Population Trends Prior to
1978 Reclassification
Historical Range
We view the historical range to be the
range of gray wolves within the lower
48 United States at the time of European
settlement. We determined that this
timeframe is appropriate because it
precedes the major changes in range in
response to excessive human-caused
mortality (USFWS 2020, pp. 9–13).
At the time of the 1978
reclassification, the historical range of
the gray wolf was generally believed to
include most of North America and,
consequently, most of the lower 48
United States. We acknowledge that the
historical range of the gray wolf is
uncertain and the topic of continued
debate among scientists. However,
based on our review of the best available
information, we view the historical
range of the gray wolf within the lower
48 United States to be consistent with
that presented in Nowak (1995, p. 395,
fig. 20) and depicted in figure 2. This
includes all areas within the lower 48
United States except western California,
a small portion of southwestern
Arizona, and the southeastern United
States (see figure 2 and USFWS 2020,
pp. 9–13). While some authorities
question the absence of gray wolves in
parts of California, limited preserved
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69788
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
physical evidence of wolves in
California exists (USFWS 2020, p. 11).
Therefore, we rely on early reports of
wolves in the State that describe the
species as occurring in the northern and
Sierra Nevada Mountain regions of
California. Further, while recognizing
that the extent of overlap of red wolf
and gray wolf ranges is uncertain
(USFWS 2020, pp. 9–10), we chose
Nowak (1995) as the historical range
boundary in the East to encompass the
largest reasonable historical distribution
in the northeast and, consequently, the
lower 48 United States. Also, although
included in the 44-state listing, because
the southeastern United States are
generally recognized as within the range
of the red wolf (USFWS 2020, pp. 9–10),
we consider it to be generally outside
the range of the gray wolf.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Historical Abundance
Historical abundance of gray wolves
within the lower 48 United States is
largely unknown. Based on the reports
of European settlers, gray wolves were
common in much of the West. While
historical (at the time of European
settlement) estimates are notoriously
difficult to verify, one study estimates
that hundreds of thousands of wolves
occurred in the Western United States
and Mexico (USFWS 2020, pp. 10–11).
In the East, in the Great Lakes area,
there may have been 4,000 to 8,000
wolves in Minnesota, 3,000 to 5,000 in
Wisconsin, and fewer than 6,000 in
Michigan (USFWS 2020, p. 12). No
estimates are available for historical
wolf abundance in the Northeast
(USFWS 2020, p. 13).
Historical Trends in Range and
Abundance
Gray wolf range and numbers
throughout the lower 48 United States
declined significantly during the 19th
and 20th centuries as a result of humans
killing wolves through poisoning,
unregulated trapping and shooting, and
government-funded wolf-extermination
efforts (USFWS 2020, pp. 9–14). By the
time subspecies were first listed under
the Act in 1974 (table 1), the gray wolf
had been eliminated from most of its
historical range within the lower 48
United States. Aside from a few
scattered individuals, wolves occurred
in only two places within the lower 48
United States. A population persisted in
northeastern Minnesota, and a small,
isolated group of about 40 wolves
occurred on Isle Royale, Michigan. The
Minnesota wolf population was the only
major U.S. population in existence
outside Alaska at this time and
numbered about 1,000 individuals
(USFWS 2020, pp. 12–14).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Distribution and Abundance at the Time
of the 1978 Reclassification
By 1978, when several gray wolf
subspecies were consolidated into two
listed entities, a lower 48 United States
and Mexico entity and a separate
Minnesota entity, the gray wolf
population in Minnesota had increased
to an estimated 1,235 wolves in 138
packs (in the winter of 1978–79) and
had an estimated range of 14,038 square
miles (mi2) (36,500 square kilometers
(km2)) (USFWS 2020, p. 20) (figure 2).
Although, prior to this time, wolves
were occasionally reported in
Wisconsin, it was not until 1978 that
wolf reproduction was documented in
the State (USFWS 2020, p. 21). In the
West, occasional sightings were
documented, but there was no
indication that reproducing wolf packs
occurred in the West at the time
(USFWS 2020, p. 14; 59 FR 60266,
November 22, 1994; USFWS 1987, pp.
3–6).
Current Distribution and Abundance
During the years since the species was
reclassified in 1978, gray wolves within
the lower 48 United States increased in
number (figure 3) and expanded in
distribution (figure 2). Gray wolves
within the lower 48 United States now
exist primarily in two large, stable or
growing metapopulations in two
geographic areas in the lower 48 United
States—the Western United States and
the Great Lakes area in the Eastern
United States (USFWS 2020, p. 27).
Gray wolf populations within each of
these areas are connected as evidenced
by movements between States and
genetic data (USFWS 2020, p. 27). The
Great Lakes metapopulation consists of
more than 4,200 individuals broadly
distributed across the northern portions
of three States in the Great Lakes area
(USFWS 2020, p. 27). This
metapopulation is also connected, via
documented dispersals, to the large and
expansive population of about 12,000–
14,000 wolves in eastern Canada. As a
result, gray wolves in the Great Lakes
area do not function as an isolated
metapopulation of 4,200 individuals in
three States, but rather as part of a much
larger ‘‘Great Lakes and eastern Canada’’
metapopulation that spans across those
three States and two Canadian
Provinces (USFWS 2020, pp. 27–28).
Gray wolves in the Western United
States are distributed across the NRM
DPS and into western Oregon, western
Washington, northern California, and
most recently in northwest Colorado
(USFWS 2020, p. 28). The Western
United States metapopulation consisted
of more than 1,900 gray wolves in 2015
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(at least 1,880 in the NRM DPS and at
least 26 outside the NRM DPS
boundary), the final year of a combined
northern Rocky Mountain wolf annual
report (USFWS 2020, p. 28, Appendix
2). At the end of 2015, the post-delisting
monitoring period ended for Idaho and
Montana. After the post-delisting
monitoring period ended for Idaho and
Montana, these States transitioned away
from using minimum counts to
document wolf numbers and developed
other techniques to estimate population
size or evaluate population trends (or
both) which are not directly comparable
to minimum counts (USFWS 2020, pp.
15–16). Based on the most current
estimates, approximately 1,000 gray
wolves occur in Idaho and 819 wolves
were estimated in Montana (USFWS
2020, Appendix 2). In addition, the
most recent year-end minimum counts
indicate at least 311 gray wolves occur
in Wyoming and 310 in the States of
Oregon, Washington, and California
(256 in the delisted NRM DPS and 54 in
the endangered listed entity) (USFWS
2020, p. 16, Appendix 2). While the
current estimates for Idaho and Montana
are not directly comparable to year-end
minimum counts, indications from
mortality data are that the number of
individuals in these States remains
similar to the number of individuals
that were in these States in 2015, when
all of the States were reporting year-end
minimum counts (see table 3). In
addition, in January of 2020, Colorado
Parks and Wildlife personnel confirmed
the presence of a group of at least six
wolves in extreme northwest Colorado
(USFWS 2020, pp. 19, 28).
Similar to the metapopulation in the
Great Lakes area, the gray wolf
metapopulation in the Western United
States is connected to a large and
expansive population of about 15,000
wolves in western Canada (USFWS
2020, p. 28). As a result, gray wolves in
the Western United States function as
part of a larger ‘‘western United States
and western Canada’’ metapopulation
that spans several States of the United
States and two Provinces of Canada.
Further, effective dispersal has been
documented between West Coast States
where gray wolves are federally
protected (California, western Oregon,
and western Washington), as well as
between these areas, the NRM DPS
where wolves are delisted (Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, eastern Oregon,
eastern Washington, and north-central
Utah), and Canada (USFWS 2020, pp. 5,
17–18, 28). Thus, wolves outside the
NRM DPS boundary in western
Washington, western Oregon, and
northern California are an extension of
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69789
the metapopulation of wolves in the
northern Rocky Mountains and western
Canada. Although their specific place of
origin remains unknown at this time,
the group of wolves in Colorado are
assumed to be related to NRM wolves
based on proximity and the fact that
dispersing wolves of known origin
documented in Colorado since the early
2000s all originated from the NRM,
including the lone individual that
dispersed from Wyoming to Colorado
and has resided in North Park,
Colorado, since at least July 2019
(USFWS 2020, p. 19). Little information
is currently available regarding the
movements or territory use of the group
in northwest Colorado but, to date, all
confirmed reports have been in
Colorado.
Finally, a number of lone longdistance dispersing wolves have been
documented outside core populations 3
of the Great Lakes area and Western
United States. For example, over the
years, dispersing wolves have been
detected in all States within historical
gray wolf range west of the Mississippi
River except Oklahoma and Texas
(USFWS 2020, pp. 26, 28–29). Since the
early 2000s, confirmed records of
individual gray wolves have been
reported from Vermont, Massachusetts,
New York, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa,
Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Utah,
Arizona, and Nevada. The total number
of confirmed records in each of these
States, since the early 2000s, ranges
from 1 to at least 27, the latter occurring
in North Dakota, which also has an
additional 45 probable but unverified
reports (USFWS 2020, pp. 25–26).
In sum, gray wolves in the lower 48
United States today exist primarily as
two large metapopulations: One spread
across northern Minnesota, Michigan,
and Wisconsin, and the other consisting
of the recovered and delisted NRM DPS
wolf population that is biologically
connected to a small number of
colonizing wolves in western
Washington, western Oregon, northern
California, and, most likely, Colorado
(USFWS 2020, pp. 27–29) (figure 2). In
addition, a number of lone dispersers
have been documented outside of core
populations in several States.
3 A population that inhabits a larger, more
continuous, higher quality habitat patch within a
species’ distribution and, consequently, is larger in
size and more genetically diverse (due to higher
gene flow), and has greater evolutionary potential
and resilience to stochastic events than a
population that inhabits smaller, more isolated,
lower quality habitat patches.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
ER03NO20.017
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and
Recovery Implementation
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to
develop and implement recovery plans
for the conservation and survival of
endangered species and threatened
species unless we determine that such
a plan will not promote the
conservation of the species (16 U.S.C.
1533(f)(1)). Recovery plans are nonregulatory documents that identify
management actions that may be
necessary to achieve conservation and
survival of the species. They also
identify objective, measurable criteria
(recovery criteria) which, when met,
may result in a determination that the
species should be removed from the
List. Methods for monitoring recovery
progress may also be included in
recovery plans.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for
us and our partners on methods of
enhancing conservation and minimizing
threats to listed species, as well as
measurable criteria against which to
evaluate progress towards recovery and
assess the species’ likely future
condition. However, they are not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
regulatory documents and do not
substitute for the determinations and
promulgation of regulations required
under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A
decision to revise the status of a species,
or to delist a species is ultimately based
on an analysis of the best scientific and
commercial data available to determine
whether a species is no longer an
endangered species or a threatened
species, regardless of whether that
information differs from the recovery
plan.
There are many paths to recover a
species, and recovery may be achieved
without all recovery criteria being fully
met. For example, one or more criteria
may be exceeded while other criteria
may not yet be accomplished. In that
instance, we may determine that the
threats are minimized sufficiently and
that the species is robust enough that it
no longer meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened
species. In other cases, we may discover
new recovery opportunities after having
finalized the recovery plan. Parties
seeking to conserve the species may use
these opportunities instead of methods
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, we may learn new
information about the species after we
finalize the recovery plan. The new
information may change the extent to
which existing criteria are appropriate
for identifying recovery of the species.
The recovery of a species is a dynamic
process requiring adaptive management
that may, or may not, follow all of the
guidance provided in a recovery plan.
The Act does not describe recovery in
terms of the proportion of historical
range that must be occupied by a
species, nor does it imply that
restoration throughout the entire
historical range is required to achieve
conservation. In fact, the Act does not
contain the phrase ‘‘historical range.’’
Thus, the Act does not require us to
restore the gray wolf (or any other
species) to its entire historical range, or
any specific percentage of currently
suitable habitat. For some species,
expansion of their distribution or
abundance may be necessary to achieve
recovery. The amount of expansion
necessary is driven by the biological
needs of the species for viability (ability
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
ER03NO20.018
69790
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
to sustain populations in the wild over
time) and sustainability. Thus, there is
no specific percentage of historical
range or currently suitable habitat that
must be occupied by the species to
achieve recovery. Many other species
may be recovered in portions of their
historical range or currently suitable
habitat by removing or addressing the
threats to their continued existence.
And some species may be recovered by
a combination of range expansion and
threat reduction.
As indicated in Previous Federal
Actions, following our 1978
reclassification, we drafted recovery
plans and implemented recovery
programs for gray wolves in three
regions of the lower 48 United States
(table 1). Wolves in one of these
regions—C. l. baileyi, in the
Southwestern United States and
Mexico—are listed separately as an
endangered subspecies and are not
assessed in this rule (see Approach for
this Rule). Below, we discuss recovery
of wolves in the other two regions—the
Eastern United States and the northern
Rocky Mountains.
Recovery Criteria for the Eastern United
States
The 1978 Recovery Plan (hereafter
Recovery Plan) and the 1992 Revised
Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber
Wolf (hereafter Revised Recovery Plan)
were developed to guide recovery of the
eastern timber wolf subspecies in the
Eastern United States. Those recovery
plans contain the same two recovery
criteria, which are meant to indicate
when recovery of the eastern timber
wolf throughout its historical range in
the Eastern United States has been
achieved. These criteria are: (1) The
survival of the wolf in Minnesota is
assured, and (2) at least one viable
population of eastern timber wolves
outside Minnesota and Isle Royale in
the lower 48 States is reestablished.
The first recovery criterion, assuring
the survival of the wolf in Minnesota,
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 predate identification
of the conservation biology principles of
representation (conserving the adaptive
diversity of a taxon), resiliency (ability
to withstand demographic and
environmental variation), and
redundancy (sufficient populations to
provide a margin of safety), the recovery
criteria for the gray wolf in the Eastern
United States are consistent with those
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
principles. The Recovery Team
concluded that the remnant Minnesota
wolf population must be maintained
and protected to achieve wolf recovery
in the Eastern United States.
Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf
population is important in terms of
representation because these wolves
include both western gray wolves and
wolves that are admixtures of western
gray wolves and eastern wolves (see
Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North
America) and are comparable to wolf
populations that were present in the
area historically. The successful growth
of the remnant Minnesota population
has maintained and maximized the
representation of that genetic diversity
among wolves in the Great Lakes area.
Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf
population is also important in terms of
resiliency. Although the Revised
Recovery Plan did not establish a
specific numerical criterion for the
Minnesota wolf population, it did
identify, for planning purposes, a
population goal of 1,251–1,400 animals
for the Minnesota population (USFWS
1992, p. 28). A population of this size
not only increases the likelihood of
maintaining its genetic diversity over
the long term, but also reduces the
adverse impacts of unpredictable
demographic and environmental events.
Furthermore, the Revised Recovery Plan
recommends 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 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 Great Lakes
metapopulation.
The Revised Recovery Plan provides
two options for reestablishing this
second population. If it is an isolated
population, that is, located more than
100 miles (mi) (160 kilometers (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. Latewinter 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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69791
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 closely tied with
the Minnesota population, and by
occasional immigration of Minnesota
wolves, would retain sufficient genetic
diversity to cope with environmental
fluctuations.
The original Recovery Plan did not
specify where in the Eastern United
States the second population should be
reestablished. 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 Upper
Peninsula 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 indicate that
the establishment of gray wolves
throughout all or most of what was
thought to be its historical range in the
Eastern United States, or within all of
the identified potential reestablishment
areas, is necessary to achieve recovery
under the Act.
Recovery Progress in the Eastern United
States
Wolves in the Great Lakes area 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
within 100 mi (160 km) of Minnesota for
5 successive years. Based on the surveys
conducted since 1998, the wolf
population in Minnesota has exceeded
2,000 individuals over the past 20 years,
and populations in Michigan and
Wisconsin, which are less than 100 mi
(160 km) from the Minnesota
population, have exceeded 100
individuals every year since 1994
(USFWS 2020, Appendix 1). Based on
the criteria set by the Eastern Wolf
Recovery Team in 1992 and reaffirmed
in 1997 and 1998 (Peterson in litt. 1997,
Peterson in litt. 1998, Peterson in litt.
1999a, Peterson in litt. 1999b), this
region contains sufficient wolf numbers
and distribution to ensure the long-term
survival of gray wolves in the Eastern
United States.
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69792
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
The maintenance and expansion of
the Minnesota wolf population has
allowed for the preservation of the
genetic diversity that remained in the
Great Lakes area when its wolves were
first protected in 1974. The Wisconsin–
Michigan wolf population far exceeds
the numerical recovery criterion, even
for a completely isolated second
population. Therefore, even in the
unlikely event that this two-State
population were 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 about 20
years, so if either were somehow to
become isolated, they would remain
viable. Furthermore, each State has
committed to manage its wolf
population above viable population
levels (see Post-delisting Management).
The wolf’s numeric and distributional
recovery criteria for the Eastern United
States have been met.
Recovery Criteria for the NRM
The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan was
approved in 1980 (USFWS 1980, p. i)
and revised in 1987 (USFWS 1987, p. i).
The wolf recovery goal for the NRM was
reevaluated and, when necessary,
modified as new scientific information
warranted (USFWS 1987, p. 12; USFWS
1994, Appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and
Carbyn 1995, p. 26; Bangs 2002, p. 1; 73
FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR
15130–15135, April 2, 2009). The
Service’s resulting recovery goal for the
NRM gray wolf population was: 30 or
more breeding pairs comprising at least
300 wolves equitably distributed among
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming for 3
consecutive years, with genetic
exchange (either natural or, if necessary,
agency managed) between
subpopulations. To provide a buffer
above these minimum recovery levels,
each State was to manage for at least 15
breeding pairs and 150 wolves in midwinter (77 FR 55538–55539, September
10, 2012; 74 FR 15132, April 2, 2009).
Further, the post-delisting monitoring
plan stipulated that three scenarios
could lead us to initiate a status review
and analysis of threats to determine if
relisting was warranted: (1) If the wolf
population in Idaho, Montana, or
Wyoming fell below the minimum NRM
wolf population recovery level of 10
breeding pairs and 100 wolves at the
end of any one year; (2) if the portion
of the wolf population in Montana,
Idaho, or Wyoming falls below 15
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
breeding pairs or 150 wolves at the end
of the year in any one of those States for
3 consecutive years; or (3) if a change
in State law or management objectives
would significantly increase the threat
to the wolf population. For additional
information on NRM wolf recovery
goals and their evolution over time, see
74 FR 15130–15135 and references
therein.
Recovery Progress in the NRM DPS
As indicated in Previous Federal
Actions, wolves in the NRM DPS have
recovered and were delisted (table 1).
The NRM wolf population achieved its
numerical and distributional recovery
goals at the end of 2000 (USFWS et al.
2008, table 4). The temporal portion of
the recovery goal was achieved in 2002
when the numerical and distributional
recovery goals were exceeded for the
3rd successive year (USFWS et al. 2008,
table 4). In 2009, we concluded that
wolves in the NRM DPS far exceeded
recovery goals. We also concluded that
‘‘The NRM wolf population: (1) Has at
least [45] reproductively successful
packs and [450] individual wolves each
winter (near the low point in the annual
cycle of a wolf population); (2) is
equitably distributed within the 100,000
mi2 (250,000 km2) area containing 3
areas of large core refugia (National
Parks, wilderness areas, large blocks of
remote secure public land) and at least
65,725 mi2 (170,228 km2) of suitable
wolf habitat; and (3) is genetically
diverse and has demonstrated
successful genetic exchange through
natural dispersal and human-assisted
migration management between all
three core refugia’’ (74 FR 15133, April
2, 2009). Post-delisting and subsequent
monitoring, and the expansion of the
NRM population into western
Washington, western Oregon, northern
California, and, likely, Colorado
(USFWS 2020, pp. 15–19, 28; see also
Current Distribution and Abundance),
indicate that the wolf population in the
NRM DPS remains well above minimum
recovery levels (see Current Distribution
and Abundance).
Historical Context of Our Analysis
When reviewing the current status of
a species, it is important to understand
and evaluate the effects of lost historical
range on the viability of the species. In
fact, when we consider the status of a
species, we are considering whether the
species is currently (i.e., without the
species’ occupying parts of its historical
range) an endangered species or
threatened species. Range reduction
may result in: Reduced numbers of
individuals and populations; changes in
available resources (such as food) and,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
consequently, carrying capacity;
changes in demographic characteristics
(survival, reproductive rate); changes in
population distribution and structure;
and changes in genetic diversity and
gene flow. These, in turn, can increase
a species’ vulnerability to a wide variety
of threats, such as habitat loss, restricted
gene flow, reduced genetic diversity, or
having all or most of its populations
affected by a catastrophic event. In other
words, past range reduction can reduce
the redundancy, resiliency, and
representation of a species in its current
range, such that a species may meet the
definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or
‘‘threatened species’’ under the Act.
Thus, loss of historical range is not
necessarily determinative of a species’
status; rather, it must be considered in
the context of other factors affecting a
species. In addition to considering the
effects that loss of historical range has
had on the current and future viability
of the species, we must also consider
the causes of that loss of historical
range. If the causes of the loss are
ongoing, then that loss is also relevant
as evidence of the effects of an ongoing
threat.
As indicated above, gray wolves
historically occupied a large portion of
the lower 48 United States (see figure 2).
The range of the gray wolf began
receding after the arrival of Europeans
as a result of deliberate killing of wolves
by humans and government-funded
bounty programs aimed at eradication
(USFWS 2020, pp. 10–13). Further,
many historical habitats were converted
into agricultural land (Paquet and
Carbyn 2003, p. 483), and natural food
sources such as deer and elk were
reduced, eliminated, or replaced with
domestic livestock, which can become
anthropogenic food sources for gray
wolves (Young 1944 in Fritts et al. 1997,
p. 8). The resulting reductions in range
and population were dramatic—by the
1970s, gray wolves occupied only a
small fraction of their historical range
(figure 2). Although the range of the gray
wolf in the lower 48 United States has
significantly expanded since 1978, its
size and distribution remain below
historical levels. The alterations to gray
wolf historical range in the lower 48
United States increased the
vulnerability of gray wolves in the lower
48 United States to a wide variety of
threats that would not be at issue
without such range reduction. We
analyze these potential threats to gray
wolves in the lower 48 United States
below (see Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species).
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
for determining whether a species is an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species.’’ The Act defines an
endangered species as a species that is
‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range,’’ and
a threatened species as a species that is
‘‘likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.’’ The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species’’ because of any of the following
factors:
(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; and
(E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad
categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an
effect on a species’ continued existence.
In evaluating these actions and
conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of
the species, as well as other actions or
conditions that may ameliorate any
negative effects or may have positive
effects.
We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in
general to actions or conditions that are
known to or are reasonably likely to
negatively affect individuals of a
species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes
actions or conditions that have a direct
impact on individuals (direct impacts),
as well as those that affect individuals
through alteration of their habitat or
required resources (stressors). The term
‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either
together or separately—the source of the
action or condition or the action or
condition itself.
However, the mere identification of
any threat(s) does not necessarily mean
that the species meets the statutory
definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or
a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining
whether a species meets either
definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the
species’ expected response, and the
effects of the threats—in light of those
actions and conditions that will
ameliorate the threats—on an
individual, population, and species
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
level. We evaluate each threat and its
expected effects on the species, then
analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole.
We also consider the cumulative effect
of the threats in light of those actions
and conditions that will have positive
effects on the species, such as any
existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. The Secretary
determines whether the species meets
the definition of an ‘‘endangered
species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only
after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected
effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term
‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in
the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened
species.’’ Since publication of our
proposed rule (84 FR 9648, March 15,
2019), the Service codified its
understanding of foreseeable future at
50 CFR 424.11(d) (84 FR 45020). In
those regulations, we explain the term
‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far
into the future as the Services can
reasonably determine that both the
future threats and the species’ responses
to those threats are likely. The Service
will describe the foreseeable future on a
case-by-case basis, using the best
available data and taking into account
considerations such as the species’ lifehistory characteristics, threat-projection
timeframes, and environmental
variability. The Service need not
identify the foreseeable future in terms
of a specific time period. These
regulations did not significantly modify
the Service’s interpretation; rather they
codified a framework that sets forth how
the Service will determine what
constitutes the foreseeable future based
on our longstanding practice.
Accordingly, though these regulations
do not apply to the determinations for
the entities assessed in this final rule
because it was proposed prior to their
effective date, they do not change the
Service’s assessment of foreseeable
future for the entities assessed in our
proposed rule and in this determination.
It is not always possible or necessary
to define foreseeable future as a
particular number of years. Analysis of
the foreseeable future uses the best
scientific and commercial data available
and should consider the timeframes
applicable to the relevant threats and to
the species’ likely responses to those
threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically
relevant to assessing the species’
biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan,
reproductive rates or productivity,
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69793
certain behaviors, and other
demographic factors.
For the purposes of this rule, and
consistent with our proposed rule, 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 wolves within the lower 48
United States. The Great Lakes States of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
have an established history of
cooperating with and assisting in wolf
recovery and have made a commitment,
through legislative actions, to continue
these activities. Washington, Oregon,
California, Colorado, and Utah are also
committed to wolf conservation, as
demonstrated by development of
management plans and/or codification
of laws and regulations protecting
wolves (see Post-delisting Management).
The best available information indicates
that the Great Lakes States, West Coast
States, and central Rocky Mountain
States (Colorado and Utah) are
committed to gray wolf conservation,
and, therefore, we conclude that this
commitment is likely to continue into
the foreseeable future. Further, the NRM
States have, for years, demonstrated
their commitment to managing their
wolf populations at or above recovery
levels and the best available information
indicates that this commitment will
continue into the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Wolves within the lower 48 United
States are currently listed as endangered
under the Act, except wolves in
Minnesota, which are listed as
threatened, and wolves in the NRM
DPS, which were delisted due to
recovery (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009,
and 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012).
In this analysis we evaluate threat
factors currently affecting wolves within
the lower 48 United States and those
that are reasonably likely to have a
negative effect on the viability of wolves
within the lower 48 United States if the
protections of the Act are removed. As
explained in our significant portion of
the range (SPR) final policy (79 FR
37578, July 1, 2014), we take into
account the effect lost historical range
may have on the current and future
viability of a species in the range it
currently occupies and also evaluate
whether the causes of that loss are
evidence of ongoing or future threats to
the species. We do this through our
analysis of the five factors described in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A species’
current condition reflects the effects of
historical range loss, and, because threat
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69794
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
factors are evaluated in the context of
the species’ current condition, historical
range contraction may affect the
outcome of our analysis.
Based on our review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we have identified several
factors that could be significant threats
to wolves within the lower 48 United
States. We summarize our analysis of
these factors, and factors identified at
the time of listing, below. Due to recent
information confirming the presence of
a group of six wolves in extreme
northwest Colorado, and their proximity
to and potential use of habitats within
Utah, we included these States in our
analysis.
Human-Caused Mortality
At the time of listing, human-caused
mortality was identified as the main
factor responsible for the decline of gray
wolves (43 FR 9611, March 9, 1978). An
active eradication program is the sole
reason that wolves were extirpated from
much of their historical range in the
United States (Weaver 1978, p. i).
European settlers attempted to eliminate
the wolf entirely, primarily due to the
real or perceived threats to livestock,
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
(Hampton 1997, pp. 107–108; Beyer et
al. 2009, p. 66; Erb and DonCarlos 2009,
p. 50; Wydeven et al. 2009b, p. 88;
USFWS 2020, pp. 10–13). For example,
in Michigan, an 1838 wolf bounty
became the ninth law passed by the
First Michigan Legislature.
After the gray wolf was listed under
the Act, its protections, along with State
endangered-species statutes, prohibited
the intentional killing of wolves except
under very limited circumstances. Such
circumstances included defense of
human life, scientific or conservation
purposes, and special regulations
intended to reduce wolf depredations of
livestock or other domestic animals.
Aside from the reintroduction of wolves
into portions of the northern Rocky
Mountains, the regulation of humancaused wolf mortality is the primary
reason wolf numbers have significantly
increased and their range has expanded
since the mid-to-late 1970s (Smith et al.
2010, entire; O’Neil et al. 2017, entire;
Stenglein et al. 2018, entire).
The regulation of human-caused
mortality has long been recognized as
the most significant factor affecting the
long-term conservation of wolves.
Human-caused mortality includes both
controllable and uncontrollable sources
of mortality. Controllable sources of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
mortality are discretionary, can be
limited by the managing agency, and
include permitted take, sport hunting,
and direct agency control. Sources of
mortality that will be difficult to limit,
or may be uncontrollable, occur
regardless of population size and
include things such as natural
mortalities, illegal take, and accidental
deaths (e.g., vehicle collisions, capturerelated mortalities). However, if
population levels and controllable
sources of mortality are adequately
regulated, the life-history characteristics
of wolf populations provide natural
resiliency to high levels of humancaused mortality.
Two Minnesota studies provide some
limited insight into the extent of
human-caused wolf mortality before and
after the species’ listing. Examining
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)
evaluated data from a north-central
Minnesota study area and found an
annual human-caused mortality rate of
29 percent from 1980 through 1986,
which includes 2 percent mortality from
legal depredation-control actions.
However, it is difficult to draw
conclusions from comparisons of these
two studies because of differences in
habitat quality, exposure to humans,
prey density, time periods, and study
design. Nonetheless, these figures
indicate that human-caused mortality
decreased significantly once the wolf
became protected under the Act.
Humans kill wolves for a number of
reasons. In locations where people,
livestock, and wolves coexist, some
wolves are killed to resolve conflicts
with livestock and pets (Fritts et al.
2003, p. 310; Woodroffe et al. 2005, pp.
86–107, 345–347). Occasionally, wolves
are killed accidentally by vehicles,
mistaken for coyotes and shot, caught in
traps set for other animals, or subject to
accidental capture-related mortality
during conservation or research efforts
(Bangs et al. 2005, p. 346). A few wolves
have been killed by people who
believed their physical safety was being
threatened. Many wolf killings,
however, are intentional, illegal, and
never reported to authorities.
Although survival can be highly
variable across populations (Fuller et al.
2003, pp. 176–181), recent estimated
annual mortality rates for wolves greater
than 1 year of age are relatively
consistent among some U.S. populations
and range between 20 to 25 percent
(Adams et al. 2008, pp. 11–12; Smith et
al. 2010, p. 625; Cubaynes et al. 2014,
p. 5; O’Neil et al. 2017, p. 9523;
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 104). Outside of
very remote areas and large protected
areas such as Yellowstone and Isle
Royale National Parks, anthropogenic
causes are the greatest source of
mortality for most wolves in the lower
48 United States. Such causes are
estimated to account for 60–70 percent
of all mortalities in the NRM wolf
population (Murray et al. 2010, p. 2518),
Michigan (O’Neil 2017, p. 214) and
Wisconsin (Treves et al. 2017a, p. 27;
Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 108) and nearly
80 percent in Minnesota (Fuller 1989, p.
24). The risk of human-caused mortality
is not uniform, however, and tends to be
highest for dispersing animals (Smith et
al. 2010, pp. 630–631) and for wolves
that occupy less suitable habitats
generally found on the peripheries of
occupied wolf range (Smith et al. 2010,
pp. 630–631; O’Neil et al. 2017, pp.
9524–9528; Stenglein et al. 2018, p.
109).
In the absence of high levels of
human-caused mortality, for example in
Yellowstone and Isle Royale National
Parks, wolf populations tend to be
regulated by density-dependent,
intrinsic mechanisms (Fuller et al. 2003,
pp. 187–188; Cubaynes et al. 2014, pp.
9–11). Outside of such areas, where
anthropogenic influences are greater,
the influence of human-caused
mortality on wolf populations may be
considered either additive (mortality in
excess of the number of deaths that
would have occurred naturally) or
compensatory (mortality that replaces
deaths that would have occurred
naturally). Some studies have
concluded that anthropogenic mortality
may be super-additive (increased
additive mortality beyond the effect of
direct killing itself) due to the effects
increased take may have on the
reproductive dynamics of wolves and
packs (Creel and Rotella 2010, p. 3).
Another study implied super-additive
mortality occurred through increased
legal take, which prompted a concurrent
increase in illegal take that reduced
reproductive output and population
growth rates (Chapron and Treves 2016,
p. 5); however, the claims of that study
have been questioned (Olson et al. 2017,
entire; Pepin et al. 2017, entire; Stein
2017, entire). Another study
documented that harvest mortality was
largely additive to natural mortality and
that evidence for super-additive
mortality was weak in Idaho (Horne et
al. 2019a, pp. 40–41). Murray et al.
(2010, pp. 2522–2523) noted
anthropogenic mortality was partially
compensatory in the NRM wolf
population; however, as population
density increased, human-caused
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
mortality became increasingly additive
(Murray et al. 2010, pp. 2522–2523), a
trend that was also observed in
Michigan (O’Neil 2017, pp. 201–229). In
Wisconsin, Stenglein et al. (2018, pp.
106–108) noted a different trend in
which mortality was largely additive
prior to 2004, whereas it became
partially compensatory after 2004 as
wolves began to occupy most of the
available suitable habitat in the State.
Borg et al. (2014, pp. 7–9) documented
that strong compensatory mechanisms
buffered against long-term populationlevel impacts of breeder loss and pack
dissolution in Denali National Park.
Fuller et al. (2003, p. 186) concluded
that human-caused mortality can
replace up to 70 percent of natural
mortality in wolf populations. Increased
levels of human-caused mortality in
wolf populations can be compensated
for by a reduction in natural mortality
(O’Neil 2017, pp. 201–229), dispersal to
fill social openings (Fuller et al. 2003,
p. 186; Adams et al. 2008, pp. 20–21;
Smith et al. 2010, pp. 630–633; Bassing
et al. 2019, pp. 585–586), or
reproduction (Gude et al. 2012, pp. 113–
114; Schmidt et al. 2017, p. 25).
Similarities in survival rates among wolf
populations subject to different levels of
human-caused and other forms of
mortality (see above for discussion
about survival/mortality rates) indicates
a moderate level of compensation in
mortality occurs in wolf populations. It
further indicates that moderate
increases in human-caused mortality
may not have a large effect on annual
wolf survival (O’Neil 2017, p. 220).
Increased human-caused mortality
may either increase or decrease wolf
dispersal rates depending on various
factors. For example, if wolf harvest is
significant, it can reduce wolf densities
leading to an overall decline in
dispersal events due to a reduction in
the number of individuals available to
disperse, reduced competition for
resources within the pack, or through
direct removal of dispersing animals
(Packard and Mech 1980, p. 144; Gese
and Mech 1991, p. 2949; Adams et al.
2008, pp. 16–18). Trapping, in
particular, may remove the age classes
most likely to disperse because younger,
less experienced wolves are often more
vulnerable to this form of harvest. In a
heavily harvested population with a
significant portion of the harvest from
trapping, long open seasons, and no bag
limits, dispersal rates were observed to
be up to 50 percent less than in
unexploited populations (Webb et al.
2011, pp. 748–749). However, there
appears to be considerable variability in
dispersal rates from harvested
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
populations that likely depends on a
number of factors, including prey
availability, pack size, harvest rates, and
whether or not harvest was biased
toward certain age-classes (Hayes and
Harestad 2000, pp. 43–44; Webb et al.
2011, pp. 748–749). Jimenez et al. (2017,
p. 588) found that increased humancaused mortality (illegal take and
agency lethal control) removed
individual wolves and entire packs, and
thereby provided a constant source of
social openings or vacant habitat for
wolves to recolonize. However, longdistance dispersals still occurred at low
wolf density even when vacant habitat
was nearby. Using data from 197 GPScollared wolves from 65 wolf packs in
Idaho to construct an integrated
population model, Horne et al. (2019a,
p. 40) found that variation in harvest
rates did not translate to changes in the
propensity for wolves to disperse. The
authors speculated that harvest rates in
their study were not high enough to
cause widespread breeding vacancies
and increased dispersal behavior.
In wolf populations that are not
hunted, lethal control of depredating
wolves (see below for discussion) and
illegal take are the two primary
anthropogenic causes of mortality. In
the NRM, Smith et al. (2010, p. 625)
estimated that illegal take accounted for
24 percent of all mortalities (or
approximately 6 percent of the
population); however, 12 percent of the
documented mortalities were attributed
to unknown causes, so it is highly
plausible that the number of wolves
illegally taken may have been higher
(Liberg et al. 2012, p. 914; O’Neil 2017,
pp. 220–221; Treves et al. 2017b, p. 7).
Ausband et al. (2017a, p. 7) used radiocollared wolves to estimate that 8.2
percent of the Idaho wolf population
was illegally killed annually while the
annual rate of illegal take in Michigan
was estimated at approximately 9
percent (O’Neil 2017, p. 214). In
Wisconsin, it was estimated that 9
percent of wolves were killed illegally
(Stenglein et al. 2018; p. 104) while
Stenglein et al. (2015b, p. 1183)
concluded that as many as 400 wolves
were illegally killed but were not
detected between 2003 and 2012.
Another study conducted outside of the
lower 48 United States estimated the
percentage of unknown illegal take that
occurred and estimated that
approximately 69 percent of all
poaching incidents were undocumented
(Liberg et al. 2012, p. 912). Similarly,
Treves et al. (2017b, entire) concluded
that illegal take was the primary cause
of wolf mortality and that the relative
risk of poaching was grossly
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69795
underestimated in both the NRM and
Wisconsin. We acknowledge the
challenges of documenting and
estimating illegal take, and note that
illegal take may have slowed wolf
population growth in the lower 48
United States to some extent (Liberg et
al. 2012, entire; Stenglein et al. 2018, p.
105). However, based on wolf minimum
counts and population estimates
(USFWS 2020, Appendix 1 and 2),
illegal take, whether documented or not,
has not prevented recovery of the
species, the maintenance of viable wolf
populations, or the continued
recolonization of vacant, suitable
habitat.
Vehicle collisions also contribute to
wolf mortality. The total number of wolf
mortalities associated with vehicle
collisions is expected to rise with
increasing wolf populations as wolves
attempt to colonize more humandominated areas that contain a denser
network of roads and vehicular traffic.
However, mortalities associated with
vehicle collisions are unlikely to
increase as a percentage of the total wolf
population if increases occur
concurrently. Regardless, mortalities
from vehicle collisions will likely
continue to constitute a small
proportion of total wolf mortalities.
Neither scientific research nor the use
of wolves for educational purposes are
significant sources of human-caused
mortality. Each of the States in the
current range of gray wolves in the
lower 48 United States conduct
scientific research and monitoring of
wolf populations. Even the most
intensive and disruptive of these
activities (ground or aerial capture for
the purpose of radio-collaring) involves
a very low rate of mortality for wolves
(73 FR 10542, February 27, 2008). We
expect that capture-related mortality
during wolf monitoring, nonlethal
control, and research activities will
remain low, and will have an
insignificant impact on population
dynamics.
The best available information does
not indicate any wolves have been
removed from the wild solely for
educational purposes in recent years.
Wolves that are used for such purposes
are typically privately held, captivereared offspring of wolves that were
already in captivity for other reasons.
However, States may get requests to
place wolves that would otherwise be
euthanized in captivity for research or
educational purposes. Such requests
have been and will continue to be rare,
would be closely regulated by the State
wildlife-management agencies through
the requirement for State permits for
protected species, and would not
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69796
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
substantially increase human-caused
wolf mortality rates.
Some federally listed wolves have
been legally removed by private citizens
in the lower 48 United States through
defense of life or property statutes. It is
a rare occurrence for non-habituated
wild wolves in North America to pose
a threat to humans (McNay 2002, pp.
836–837); nonetheless, on rare
occasions, humans have killed wolves
due to a real or perceived threat to their
safety or the safety of others, which is
permissible even under the Act’s
protections. For example, since wolves
began recolonizing the West Coast
States in 2008, a single wolf has been
killed by a private individual who
claimed self-defense in the federally
listed portion of Washington. Under the
rules that governed Federal wolf
management for nonessential
experimental populations under section
10(j) of the Act in portions of the NRM
DPS (59 FR 60252 and 59 FR 60266,
November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, January
6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008),
private individuals were lawfully
allowed to kill a wolf in defense of
property provided the incident was
immediately reported to the Service and
an investigation confirmed evidence of
an attack. To our knowledge, most
States within occupied wolf range
already have rules and regulations
related to the taking of wildlife when
life or property are threatened and the
taking of wolves under these
circumstances will be regulated under
the same rules post-delisting. Although
the number of wolves lawfully killed in
defense of human life and property by
private individuals may be slightly
higher in areas with greater human or
livestock density and may increase after
delisting as authority for this action
expands, overall this type of mortality is
rare and is not expected to have a
significant impact on gray wolf
populations in the lower 48 United
States. For information related to
defense of life or property mortalities,
refer to the Post-delisting Management
section of this rule for the Great Lakes
area and the Human-caused Mortality in
the NRM DPS section for the NRM DPS.
The use of lethal depredation control
to mitigate wolf-human conflicts or to
minimize risk associated with repeated
livestock depredations will likely
increase in the lower 48 United States
after delisting. Although most wolf
conflicts are rare or one-time incidents
that do not require management action
or may be resolved using preventative or
nonlethal methods, in some instances
lethal control by wildlife management
agencies or private individuals is used
to resolve imminent threats to human
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
life or property or to minimize the risk
of recurrent conflicts. The number of
wolves killed for this purpose in the
lower 48 United States is small when
compared to the greater population (see
information in subsequent paragraph).
With respect to the area of the lower 48
United States currently listed as
endangered (see figure 1), lethal control
of depredating wolves is not currently
authorized; however, after delisting,
State and Tribal wildlife agencies may
choose to use lethal control as a
mitigation response.
Human-Caused Mortality in the
Currently Listed Entities
Lethal control of depredating wolves
was authorized in Minnesota while
wolves were listed under the authority
of 50 CFR 17.40(d) pursuant to section
4(d) of the Act. However, such control
was not authorized in Michigan or
Wisconsin, except (1) as authorized
under section 4(d) when the population
was reclassified to threatened (from
April 13, 2003, to January 31, 2005), (2)
by special permits (from April 1, 2005,
to September 13, 2005, and from April
24, 2006, to August 10, 2006), and (3)
when delisted (from March 12, 2007, to
September 29, 2008, May 4, 2009, to
July 1, 2009, and January 27, 2012, to
December 19, 2014). The depredation
control program in Minnesota killed
between 6 and 216 wolves annually
from 1979 to 2006. The 5-year annual
average of statewide populations for
wolves killed ranged from 26 (2 percent
of the estimated population) to 152 (7
percent of the estimated population)
during that time period (Ruid et al.
2009, p. 287). During the periods when
wolves were managed under the 4(d)
rule in the State, the Minnesota wolf
population continued to grow or remain
stable. During the times that lethal
control of depredating wolves was
authorized in Wisconsin and Michigan,
there was no evidence of resulting
adverse impacts to the maintenance of
a viable wolf population in those States.
In Wisconsin, during the almost 5 years
(cumulative over three different time
periods) that lethal depredation control
was allowed in the State, a total of 256
wolves were killed for this purpose,
including 46 legally shot by private
landowners. A total of 64 wolves were
killed in Michigan (half of these (32)
were legally killed by private
landowners) in response to depredation
events during the same nearly 5-year
period (cumulative over three different
time periods). Following delisting, we
anticipate that wolf depredation control
would occur in Wisconsin and
Michigan consistent with their State
management plans. We anticipate the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
level of mortality due to depredation
control would be similar to what was
observed during previous periods when
wolves were delisted. See the Postdelisting Management section for a more
detailed discussion of legal control of
problem wolves (primarily for
depredation control).
Regulated public harvest is another
form of human-caused mortality that
has occurred in the Great Lakes area
during periods when wolves were
delisted, and will likely occur in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan if
wolves are delisted again. Using an
adaptive-management approach that
adjusts harvest based on population
estimates and trends, the initial
objectives of States may be to reduce or
stabilize wolf populations and then
manage for sustainable populations,
similar to how States manage all other
hunted species. See the Post-delisting
Management section for a more detailed
discussion of legal harvest.
Regulation of human-caused mortality
has significantly reduced the number of
wolf mortalities caused by humans and,
although illegal and accidental killing of
wolves is likely to continue with or
without the protections of the Act, at
current levels those mortalities have had
minimal impact on wolf abundance or
distribution. We assume that legal
human-caused mortality will increase
when wolves are delisted as State
managers continue or have the ability to
implement lethal control to mitigate
repeated conflicts with livestock and
decide whether to incorporate regulated
public harvest to assist in achieving
wolf management objectives in their
respective States. However, the high
reproductive potential of wolves, and
their innate behavior to disperse and
locate social openings or vacant suitable
habitats, allows wolf populations to
withstand relatively high rates of
human-caused mortality (USFWS 2020,
pp. 8–9).
The States of Minnesota, Michigan,
and Wisconsin have committed to
continue to regulate human-caused
mortality so that it does not reduce the
wolf population below recovery levels.
We conclude that the States have
adequate laws and regulations to fulfill
those commitments and ensure that the
wolf population in the Great Lakes area
remains above recovery levels (See Postdelisting Management). Washington,
Oregon, California, Colorado, and Utah
are also committed to conserving wolves
as demonstrated by the development of
management plans and/or codification
of laws and regulations that protect
wolves. Furthermore, each postdelisting management entity (State,
Tribal, and Federal) has experienced
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
and professional wildlife staff to ensure
those commitments can be
accomplished.
Human-Caused Mortality in the NRM
DPS
After gray wolves were afforded
Federal protections under the Act in
1974, an interagency team began
recovery planning for wolves in the
West. The team identified three
recovery areas in the NRM that included
northwest Montana, central Idaho, and
the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA;
USFWS 1987, pp. v, 13). These areas
were selected because they contained
large contiguous blocks of Federal
public lands, had abundant ungulate
populations, and relatively low numbers
of livestock that were seasonally grazed
on Federal allotments. It was further
recognized that control of depredating
wolves would be an important aspect of
the recovery planning process and the
eventual management of gray wolves
(USFWS 1980, pp. 14–15; USFWS 1987,
pp. v–vi, 9, 14–15, 33–35; USFWS 1994,
entire; Bangs et al. 2009, p. 97). In 1994,
the Service designated portions of
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming as two
nonessential experimental population
areas for the gray wolf under section
10(j) of the Act, which facilitated the
1995 and 1996 reintroduction of gray
wolves into these areas and offered
more flexibility to manage conflicts than
was otherwise allowed for an
endangered species (USFWS 1994; 59
FR 60252 and 59 FR 60266, November
22, 1994). Wolves in northwest Montana
retained their classification as
endangered because natural
recolonization from Canada had already
begun in the 1980s (USFWS 1994; 59 FR
60252 and 59 FR 60266, November 22,
1994). In 2005 and again in 2008,
section 10(j) rules governing
management of the nonessential
experimental wolf populations were
revised to clarify terms and allow
limited increases in management
flexibility to mitigate wolf conflicts (for
further information see 70 FR 1286,
January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28,
2008). The information provided below
for the delisted NRM wolf population
includes wolves that inhabit the three
wolf recovery areas in the NRM States
of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and
does not include wolves that have
naturally recolonized portions of
Oregon and Washington within the
NRM unless specifically noted.
After wolf reintroduction, a rapid
increase in the number and distribution
of wolves occurred due to the
availability of high-quality, suitable
wolf habitat in the NRM. Between 1995
and 2008, wolf populations in the NRM
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
increased an average of 24 percent
annually (USFWS et al. 2016, table 6b)
while from 1999 to 2008, total wolf
mortality (includes all forms of known
wolf mortality) averaged approximately
16 percent of the minimum known wolf
population each year (USFWS et al.
2000–2009, entire). Wolf numbers and
distribution stabilized after 2008 as
suitable habitat became increasingly
saturated (74 FR 15160, April 2, 2009).
Between 2009 and 2015, some or all of
the NRM States (depending upon the
Federal status of wolves at that time; see
table 1) began to manage wolves with
the objective of reversing or stabilizing
population growth while continuing to
maintain wolf populations well above
Federal recovery targets. The primary
method used to manage wolf
populations and achieve management
objectives is through regulated public
harvest. As a result, during those years
when legal harvest occurred, total wolf
mortality in the NRM increased to an
average of 29 percent of the minimum
known population (USFWS et al. 2010–
2016, entire), while population growth
declined to an average of approximately
1 percent annually (USFWS et al. 2010–
2016, entire). Where high levels of wolf
mortality occur, the species’
reproductive capacity and dispersal
capability can compensate for mortality
rates of 17 to 48 percent (USFWS 2020,
pp. 8–9), this appears to be the case in
the NRM. As of 2015, the final year of
a combined NRM wolf count due to the
end of federally required post-delisting
monitoring in Idaho and Montana, wolf
populations in the NRM remained well
above minimum recovery levels with a
minimum known population of 1,704
wolves distributed across Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming. An additional
177 wolves were documented in the
NRM portions of Oregon and
Washington at the end of 2015.
Non-human related wolf mortalities
may be biased low because a relatively
small percentage of wolves in the NRM
had known fates. Nonetheless, an
average of 3 percent of known wolf
mortalities were due to non-human
causes (e.g., natural and unknown
causes) through 2008 (USFWS et al.
2000–2009, entire). Although the
variability in the range of non-human
related wolf mortalities declined, the
percent of non-human related wolf
mortalities dropped slightly to an
average of 2 percent of the minimum
known population annually between
2009 and 2015 (USFWS et al. 2010–
2016, entire). Given the low level of
non-human related wolf mortalities
documented in the NRM, even assuming
the estimate is biased low, we conclude
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69797
that the effects of this type of mortality
on wolf populations are not significant.
Outside of very remote or large
protected areas, human-caused
mortality accounts for the majority of
the documented wolf mortalities
annually, and wolves in the NRM are no
exception. Between 1999 and 2008,
when gray wolves were federally listed
(with the exception of February to July
2008), documented human-caused wolf
mortality averaged 13 percent of the
minimum known NRM wolf population
annually (USFWS et al. 2000–2009,
entire) with lethal control of
depredating wolves (which includes
legal take by private individuals) and
illegal take (discussed previously) being
the primary mortality factors. As
expected, human-caused mortality
increased after 2008 as NRM States,
dependent on the Federal status of
wolves, began to manage wolf
populations. As a result, human-caused
mortality increased to an average of 27
percent of the minimum known NRM
wolf population annually between 2009
and 2015 (USFWS et al. 2010–2016,
entire). Since 2009, regulated public
harvest and lethal control of
depredating wolves have been the two
primary mortality factors removing an
average of 17 percent and 9 percent of
the minimum known NRM wolf
population annually, respectively
(USFWS et al. 2010–2016, entire). As
part of post-delisting monitoring in the
NRM, the Service conducted annual
assessments of the NRM wolf
population and noted that it remained
well above Federal recovery levels with
no identifiable threats that imperiled its
recovered status under State
management in 2009 (Bangs 2010,
entire) and 2011 to 2015 (Jimenez 2012,
2013a, 2014, 2015, 2016, entire).
In addition to the annual postdelisting assessments, previous rules (74
FR 15123, April 2, 2009, and 77 FR
55530, September 10, 2012) have
adequately described wolf populationlevel responses to various mortality
factors in the NRM up through 2008.
Regulated harvest and lethal control of
depredating wolves account for the
majority of the known wolf mortalities
in the NRM since 2009 (see above);
therefore, the following discussion
focuses on these two types of mortality.
The management of wolf populations
through regulated harvest had never
been attempted in the lower 48 United
States until 2009 when the NRM States
of Idaho and Montana conducted the
first regulated wolf hunts. To highlight
the adaptive style of management that
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming use to
maintain a recovered wolf population in
the NRM DPS, even though State
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69798
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
objectives include reducing wolf
population growth rates, we have
included a significant amount of detail
regarding the regulatory framework the
States have used to regulate wolf
harvest. This information also
demonstrates wolf population-level
responses and that harvest levels
generally do not increase under
gradually less restrictive regulations in
some States. Lethal take of depredating
wolves by private individuals accounts
for a relatively small percentage of total
wolves removed in the NRM annually
for conflict-related issues. Thus, in
addition to agency control of
depredating wolves, the total number of
wolves lethally removed for depredating
livestock includes wolves killed legally
by private individuals in depredation
situations unless specifically noted.
Although most of the wolves in Oregon
and Washington inhabit the NRM DPS
portion of each State and account for the
majority of the wolf mortalities in any
given year, mortality rates presented
below for these States are based on
statewide totals unless specified
otherwise. For further information
related to the regulatory framework
within each State in the NRM, see the
Management in the NRM DPS and the
Post-Delisting Management in the West
Coast States sections of this rule as well
as previous rules (74 FR 15123, April 2,
2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10,
2012).
Regulated Harvest in Idaho—The
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
(IDFG) has expressed its commitment to
maintaining a viable, self-sustaining
wolf population above minimum
Federal recovery levels, while
minimizing conflicts (Idaho Legislative
Wolf Oversight Committee [ILWOC]
2002, p. 4). Additional goals of wolf
management in Idaho are to ensure
connectivity with wolf populations in
neighboring States and Provinces and to
manage wolves as part of the native
resident wildlife resource, similar to
management of other large carnivores in
the State (ILWOC 2002, p. 18). The State
has indicated that it will only allow
wolf harvest as long as wolves remain
federally delisted and as long as 15 or
more packs are documented in the State.
Wolves were removed from Federal
protections in Idaho in 2009 (74 FR
15123, April 2, 2009), and IDFG
determined that the first regulated,
public hunt of wolves could begin later
that fall.
IDFG provided recommendations for
the 2009–2010 wolf hunting season to
the IDFG Commission, which approved
the recommendations. The total
statewide harvest limit was 220 wolves
distributed across 12 wolf management
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
zones (WMZ). Hunting was the only
legal form of take, and the bag limit was
one wolf per hunter. Successful hunters
were required to report the harvest of a
wolf within 24 hours of take and present
the skull and hide to an IDFG regional
office or conservation officer for
inspection and to have the hide tagged
with an official State export tag within
5 days of harvest. Seasons began in two
WMZs on September 1, another two
WMZs opened on September 15, and
the remaining eight WMZs opened
October 1, 2009; all WMZs remained
open until March 31, 2010, or until
harvest limits were reached in that
specific WMZ. By the end of 2009, 5 of
the 12 WMZs were closed after harvest
limits were met. An additional two
WMZs met harvest limits prior to the
season closing on March 31, 2010. A
total of 181 wolves were harvested
during the 2009–2010 season, and a
minimum count of 870 wolves were
documented at the end of calendar year
2009 (see table 3).
Prior to the start of the 2010–2011
wolf hunting season, a court order
placed wolves back under Federal
protections (75 FR 65574, October, 26,
2010), so no wolf hunting occurred
during that hunting season.
Wolves were again delisted in Idaho
in May 2011 (76 FR 25590, May 5,
2011). Similar to the 2009–2010 hunting
season, a primary objective with harvest
was to reverse wolf population growth
at the State level while limiting harvest
in some WMZs to conserve wolves and
maintain adequate connectivity to wolf
populations in Montana and Wyoming.
As a result, some WMZ modifications
occurred, as well as significant changes
to season rules and regulations that
were approved by the IDFG
Commission. Harvest regulations in
WMZs that bordered Montana and
Wyoming were conservative compared
to other WMZs in Idaho to limit
potential harvest effects during peak
periods of wolf dispersal. Harvest limits
were established in five WMZs where
IDFG expected high hunter success
based on results and experience gained
during the 2009–2010 season and where
it was important to maintain
connectivity between wolf populations
in adjacent States. In the eight
remaining WMZs, where IDFG expected
lower hunter success based on results
and experience gained during the
previous season or where high levels of
wolf-ungulate or wolf-livestock conflicts
occur, no harvest limits were set.
Seasons in all WMZs opened on August
30, 2011, and closed when the harvest
limit was reached in any of the 5 WMZs
that had harvest limits or (1) on March
31 of the following year for 9 of 13
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
WMZs; (2) on December 31, 2011, in the
Beaverhead and Island Park WMZs; and
(3) on June 30, 2012, in the Lolo and
Selway WMZs. Hunting bag limits were
increased to two wolves per calendar
year. Trapping was also approved by the
IDFG Commission as a legal form of take
and was permitted in five WMZs.
Trappers were required to attend a wolf
trapper education class prior to
purchasing wolf trapping tags. Trapping
seasons began November 15, 2011, and
were open through March 31, 2012.
Certified trappers could purchase up to
three wolf trapping tags per season, and
trappers were permitted to use hunting
tags on trapped wolves. Regardless of
method of take, the mandatory reporting
period for successful hunters and
trappers was extended to 72 hours, and
they still had to present the hide and
skull to an IDFG conservation officer or
regional office within 10 days for
inspection and tagging. As part of postdelisting monitoring for Idaho, the
Service evaluated regulatory changes to
Idaho’s wolf harvest seasons to assess
the level of impact to wolves in the
State and determined that, although
harvest would likely increase over the
first year of regulated take, these
changes did not pose a significant threat
to wolves in Idaho and would ensure
wolf numbers remained well above
minimum recovery levels (Cooley 2011,
entire). From this point forward in this
section of the rule, Idaho wolf harvest
totals are presented based on the
calendar year rather than the hunting/
trapping season. In calendar year 2011,
200 wolves were legally harvested in
Idaho (173 by hunting and 27 by
trapping), and 768 wolves were
documented in the State as of December
31, 2011 (see table 3).
Regulatory changes for the 2012–2013
wolf season were designed to increase
take, especially in those areas that had
lower hunter/trapper success and where
high levels of wolf-ungulate or wolflivestock conflicts occur. Trapping was
permitted in one additional WMZ in the
2012–2013 season for a total of six
WMZs where trapping was permitted.
Bag limits were increased in 6 of 13
WMZs from 2 to 5 hunting tags per
hunter per calendar year and from 3 to
5 trapping tags per trapper per season.
The remaining WMZs continue to
permit two hunting tags per individual
(trapping is not permitted in these
WMZs). Season structure was similar to
the previous season except that the
season was extended in the Beaverhead
and Island Park WMZs to January 31
(from December 31) and the start of the
hunting season on private land in the
Panhandle WMZ was changed to begin
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
on July 1 rather than August 31.
Although the Service expected harvest
to increase over previous years, we
determined it was unlikely that these
regulatory changes would result in
Idaho’s wolf population nearing
minimum recovery levels (Cooley 2012,
entire). During calendar year 2012, 329
wolves were legally harvested in Idaho,
and 722 wolves were documented in the
State at the end of 2012 (see table 3).
Relatively minor changes were
approved for the 2013–2014 wolf season
and included harvest on private land
year-round in one WMZ and the
extension of the season end date to June
30 in 2 WMZs (a total of four WMZs
now close on this date). Trapping
seasons were permitted in 3 additional
WMZs, resulting in 9 out of 13 WMZs
that allowed trapping. The Service
determined no official review was
necessary for these regulatory changes
because they would not likely result in
a significant increase in harvest (Cooley
2013, entire). A total of 356 wolves were
harvested during the 2013 calendar
year, a modest increase over 2012 totals,
with 659 wolves documented in the
State at the end of 2013 (see table 3).
Idaho regulations were changed for
the 2014–2015 wolf season to increase
harvest. The Service determined that the
changes would not threaten Idaho’s wolf
population (Cooley 2014, entire). Bag
limits were increased statewide to five
tags per hunter per calendar year or five
tags per trapper per season; trappers
were permitted to use hunting tags for
trapped wolves. Five WMZs had yearround hunting seasons on private
property only, and hunting seasons
closed on June 30 for three WMZs and
portions of two other WMZs. Trapping
was permitted in 12 of 13 WMZs (with
specific regulations for most WMZs),
and trap start dates were moved up to
October 10 (from November 15) for 3
WMZs. Harvest limits remained for 5 of
13 WMZs. A total of 256 wolves were
legally harvested in Idaho during the
2014 calendar year, with 770 wolves
documented in the State at the end of
2014 (see table 3).
Beginning with the 2015–2106 season,
regulations were set for 2-year periods,
although the IDFG Commission could
make emergency regulatory changes
anytime during that period if necessary.
Very few, minor changes occurred
during this biennium compared to the
previous season. As a result, harvest
was very similar to 2014 with 256
wolves harvested during calendar year
2015 and 267 wolves harvested during
2016. A minimum count of 786 wolves
was documented in Idaho at the end of
2015 (see table 3). IDFG transitioned
away from providing minimum counts
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
beginning in 2016 and experimented
with other metrics to evaluate
population trends (see Wolf Population
and Human-Caused Mortality In Idaho
Summary section). One of these
techniques estimated that a minimum of
81 packs was extant in Idaho during
2016 (IDFG 2017, p. 6).
The 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 wolf
seasons saw additional changes, some of
which were designed to reduce the
population by increasing the number of
wolves that could be harvested in Idaho.
Some changes that occurred were:
Extending the mandatory reporting
period for successful hunters and
trappers from 3 days to 10 days; removal
of wolf harvest limits statewide; and no
longer using WMZs to set regulations for
specific regions of the State (instead,
hunt units are grouped based on season
start and end dates as well as any
special regulations that pertain to
specific units). Idaho contains a total of
99 hunt units, and 25 of these had yearround hunting seasons on private land
only; most other hunting seasons began
on August 1 or 30 and ended on March
31, April 30, or June 30. Trapping
seasons began either October 10 or
November 15 and closed on March 15
or 31. Trapping was not permitted in 38
of the 99 hunt units in Idaho. Harvest
increased slightly over previous years,
with 281 wolves harvested in 2017 and
329 wolves during calendar year 2018.
No minimum counts or wolf abundance
estimates were collected during 2017
and 2018.
The 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 wolf
seasons saw minor adjustments to
hunting and trapping regulations.
Hunting and trapping seasons were
similar to the previous 2 seasons;
however, trapping was permitted in all
hunt units except 2 (down from 38 hunt
units previously). Bag limits also
changed from the previous two seasons
and again within the 2019–2020 hunting
season. Current bag limits are a harvest
limit of 15 wolves per hunter per
calendar year and 15 wolves per trapper
per trapping season; trappers continue
to be permitted to use hunting tags for
trapped wolves. Wolf harvest totals for
calendar year 2019 were not available as
of this writing; however, using an array
of remote cameras and a modeling
framework, IDFG estimated that
approximately 1,000 wolves existed in
the State at the end of 2019 (IDFG, pers.
comm., 2020, USFWS 2020, p. 16),
which is well above the recovery target
of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves.
On average, harvest has removed
approximately 21 percent of Idaho’s
known wolf population annually
between 2009 and 2015. Although
annual variations in minimum counts
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69799
were documented, and Ausband et al.
(2015, pp. 418–420) noted a decline in
pup survival that may have affected
recruitment after wolf hunts began in
Idaho, the implementation of regulated
harvest has stabilized wolf population
growth in the State, at least between the
years of 2009 to 2015 (mean population
growth rate: 0 percent; range: ¥11
percent to 17 percent). While minimum
counts were not conducted by IDFG
after 2015, metrics that estimated the
number of packs in the State in 2016
(IDFG 2017, p. 6), similarities in total
harvest in 2016 and 2017, along with a
slight increase in 2018, combined with
regulations providing for increased
hunter/trapper opportunities, indicates
that the wolf population in Idaho has
not deviated significantly from the 786
wolves that were documented in the
State at the end of 2015 (see table 3).
Although not directly comparable to a
minimum count, IDFG estimated that
approximately 1,000 wolves existed in
Idaho at the end of 2019 (IDFG, pers.
comm., 2020).
In an analysis of Idaho wolf harvest
statistics through 2014, hunting
removed more male than female wolves,
pups were trapped in equal proportions
to other age classes, hunting removed a
greater proportion of wolves than
trapping, and there was little change in
hunter/trapper effort over time
(Ausband 2016, entire). Another
analysis noted that most wolves in
Idaho were harvested in October,
incidental to deer and elk hunting
seasons, and that more harvest
opportunities through increased bag
limits and extended season lengths did
not necessarily result in increased
harvest between 2012 and 2016 because
most hunters harvested a single wolf
(IDFG 2017, entire).
The levels of harvest mortality
experienced by Idaho’s wolf population
through 2016 appears to be additive to
other forms of mortality, which
indicates that it can be an effective tool
to manipulate wolf abundance in the
state (Horne et al. 2019a, p. 40).
However, after initial high rates of
harvest post-delisting, wolf harvest rates
moderated between 2012 and 2016,
resulting in average pack sizes similar to
those observed pre-delisting (Horne et
al. 2019a, pp. 38–41). Similarly, both
recruitment and dispersal rates did not
change appreciably from pre-harvest
levels (Horne et al. 2019a, pp. 38–41).
Harvest regulations were changed in
Idaho during the years of this study and
beyond in an attempt to increase
harvest. However, increased hunter
opportunity has not resulted in
significant and continuous increases in
wolf harvest. In fact, following an initial
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69800
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
period of high harvest rates that had
some effect on wolf demographics (see
above for discussion), wolf harvest has
subsequently had minimal overall effect
on the dynamics of wolf populations in
Idaho through 2016 (Horne et al. 2019a,
pp. 37–41).
Depredation Control in Idaho—Wolflivestock depredation management in
Idaho is guided by Idaho Statute (I.S.)
36–1107 and the provisions in the Idaho
Wolf Conservation and Management
Plan (ILWOC 2002). I.S. 36–1107
authorizes the IDFG Director or his
designated authorities to control, trap,
and/or remove animals doing damage to
or destroying any property. Section (c)
of the statute applies specifically to
wolves and encourages the use of
nonlethal methods to prevent or
minimize conflict risk. It also permits
owners of livestock or domestic
animals, their employees, agents, or
agency personnel to lethally remove
wolves molesting or attacking livestock
without the need for a permit from
IDFG. A permit is needed from IDFG to
lethally remove wolves not attacking or
molesting livestock or domestic animals
or pursuant to IDFG wolf harvest rules.
Any wolf taken under this authority
must be reported to IDFG within 10
days and becomes the property of the
state.
Under the IDFG Policy for Avian and
Mammalian Predator Management
(IDFG 2000), where there is evidence
that predation is a significant factor
inhibiting prey populations from
achieving management objectives,
management actions to mitigate the
effects of predators may be developed in
a predation management plan. Initial
management options may include
habitat improvements, changes to
regulations governing take of the
affected species, or regulatory changes
that increase hunter/trapper opportunity
for predators. If these methods are
implemented and do not achieve the
desired management objective, predator
management may be used to reduce
predator populations where predator
effects are most significant. To date,
predator management plans have been
developed for five elk management
zones in Idaho with wolves being one
of, if not the primary, targeted predator
(IDFG 2011, IDFG 2014a, IDFG 2014b,
IDFG 2014c).
Between 2008 and 2011, the Federal
status of wolves in Idaho changed on
several occasions. While wolves in
Idaho were under Federal management
authority, they were managed under a
nonessential experimental population
regulation in the central Idaho (south of
I–90) and the GYA recovery areas (73 FR
4720, January 28, 2008). In addition to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
agency-directed lethal control, this
designation allowed for opportunistic
harassment of wolves by livestock
producers and allowed lethal take of
wolves that were observed attacking
livestock or dogs on private or lawfully
occupied public lands. Wolves that
occupied the northwest Montana
recovery area in the NRM, which
includes a portion of Idaho north of U.S.
Interstate 90, were classified as
endangered and were afforded full
protections under the Act.
The total number of wolves removed
in lethal control actions includes take
from agency actions to mitigate
conflicts, take by private citizens under
a permit or when wolves were killed in
the act of attacking or molesting
livestock, and wolves removed under
the IDFG Policy for Avian and
Mammalian Predator Management
(2000) when wolves were under State
management authority unless otherwise
specified. Minimum wolf counts are
available for Idaho only through 2015,
while records of wolves lethally
removed in conflicts are available
through 2016 (see table 3). Although the
total number of wolves removed in
conflict situations was higher in Idaho
under State authority (2009 and 2011–
2015; n = 465) when compared to a
similar time period under Federal
management (2004–2008 and 2010; n =
325), the annual average percent of
wolves lethally removed did not change
and remained at 7 percent of the
minimum known population. Between
2011 and 2016, 107 wolves were
removed under predation management
plans to benefit ungulate populations.
Wolf-caused sheep depredations
dominate Idaho wolf-livestock conflicts,
and although there has been annual
variability, a general downward trend in
the number of wolf-sheep conflicts has
occurred since 2009 (IDFG 2016, pp.
12–14). Cattle depredations have also
generally declined since 2009.
Wolf Population and Human-caused
Mortality in Idaho Summary—Between
1999 and 2008, the rate of humancaused mortality in Idaho was 9 percent,
which allowed the wolf population to
increase at a rate of approximately 22
percent annually. Since 2009, when
wolves were federally delisted and
primarily under State management
authority (the exception being August
2010 to May 2011), human-caused
mortality increased to 29 percent
annually, which was one of a multitude
of factors that likely contributed to the
stabilization of the wolf population in
Idaho between 2009 and 2015. Although
some variation in annual wolf
abundance was documented, minimum
counts of wolves in Idaho ranged from
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
659 to 786 wolves between 2010 and
2015 (see table 3).
Beginning in 2016, after Idaho’s postdelisting monitoring period ended,
IDFG transitioned away from providing
minimum counts of known wolves and
towards the use of multiple other
methods to track population trends.
These include genetic sampling of
wolves for genetic analysis at den and
rendezvous sites (Stansbury et el. 2014,
entire), mandatory checks of all
harvested wolves, incidental
observations by the public and agency
personnel, monitoring the location and
number of lethal control actions
authorized by IDFG, and limited wolf
tracking via radio transmitters (IDFG
2017, pp. 5–6). More recently, a novel
application of genetic data used
biological samples collected from
harvested wolves to estimate a
minimum number of reproductive packs
that existed in the State in a given year
(Clendenin et al. 2020, entire). A
minimum of 52 and 63 reproductive
packs were subjected to harvest in Idaho
in 2014 and 2015, respectively, which
was similar to what was documented by
IDFG during those years (Clendenin et
al. 2020, pp. 6–10). Additional analyses
conducted by IDFG using remote
cameras deployed across the State
during summer indicated that 81 packs
existed in the State in 2016 (IDFG 2017,
p. 6). Comparing these results to those
of Clendenin et al. (2020, entire)
indicates that not all Idaho packs are
subjected to harvest in all years.
More recently, using an array of
remote cameras and a modeling
framework, IDFG estimated that
approximately 1,000 wolves existed in
the State at the end of 2019 ((IDFG, pers.
comm. 2020). Although not comparable
to previous wolf surveys that used
minimum counts, continued refinement
of the methodology and estimation of
the abundance of wolves in the State
using the modeling framework will
allow for annual evaluations of
abundance and trends over time. Based
on these more recent methods that
evaluate population trends (genetic
analysis of harvested wolves) and
provide a population estimate
(modeling), the wolf population in
Idaho appears to be resilient to the
increased level of human-caused
mortality in the State, indicating that
Idaho wolves remain well above
recovery levels of 10 breeding pairs and
100 wolves and continue to be widely
distributed across the state.
Regulated Harvest in Montana—
Regulated public harvest of wolves in
Montana was first endorsed by the
Governor’s Wolf Advisory Council in
2000 and included in Montana’s Wolf
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Conservation and Management Plan.
Wolf hunting in Montana can be
implemented only when wolves are
federally delisted and under State
management authority and when greater
than 15 breeding pairs were
documented in the State the previous
year. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
(MFWP) developed wolf harvest
strategies that maintain a recovered wolf
population, maintain connectivity with
other subpopulations of wolves in
Idaho, Wyoming and Canada, minimize
wolf-livestock conflicts, reduce wolf
impacts on low or declining ungulate
populations and ungulate hunting
opportunities, and effectively
communicate to all parties the relevance
and credibility of the harvest while
acknowledging the diversity of opinions
and values among interested parties.
The Montana public has the opportunity
for input regarding wolf harvest
recommendations throughout a public
season-setting process prior to adoption
of season regulations by the MFWP
Commission.
To prepare for the potential that
wolves would be delisted and legal
public harvest could be implemented,
MFWP developed wolf harvest
recommendations that would achieve
desired management objectives. The
recommendations were approved, with
some modifications, by the MFWP
Commission in early 2008. Three wolf
management units (WMU), and one
subunit, were established each with a
harvest limit or quota. Wolf hunting
seasons opened September 15 and
remained open until December 31 or
until harvest limits were reached,
whichever occurred first. Hunters could
harvest one wolf per calendar year.
Successful hunters were required to
report their kill within 12 hours of
harvest and present the skull and hide
for inspection by MFWP within 10 days.
MFWP Commission had authority to
initiate emergency season closures if
conditions warranted.
Hunting quotas were developed
through an evaluation of population
parameters including wolf population
status and trends, pack distribution, pup
production, and all mortality factors.
Modeling exercises assessed risk and
harvest effects on Montana’s wolf
population, and all assumptions were
made conservatively. Resulting harvest
limits were considered biologically
conservative (Sime et al. 2010, p. 18)
and included a statewide total of 75
wolves distributed across the three
WMUs.
Due to litigation resulting from
Federal delisting efforts in 2008 (see 73
FR 10514, February 27, 2008), no public
harvest occurred in 2008. Wolves were
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
again removed from Federal protections
in Montana in 2009 (74 FR 15123, April
2, 2009), and MFWP conducted the first
regulated, public hunt of wolves that
fall using the same regulations that were
developed for the 2008 season described
above. A total of 72 wolves were
harvested, and seasons closed statewide
on November 16. Post-hunt evaluations
indicated no biological threats to the
wolf population in Montana resulted
from the harvest, and, as expected, most
hunters harvested wolves
opportunistically while deer and/or elk
hunting (MFWP 2010, entire). Year-end
counts by MFWP documented a
minimum of 524 wolves in the State,
while patch occupancy modeling
estimated that 847 wolves existed across
Montana at the end of 2009 (see table 3;
also see USFWS 2020, p. 16 and the
final paragraph of this section for an
explanation of why minimum wolf
counts and modeled estimates differed).
Prior to the 2010 season, wildlife
managers in Montana refined the WMU
structure in the State to better distribute
harvest resulting in the creation of 14
WMUs, primarily distributed across the
western half of Montana where wolves
exist. With input provided from regional
personnel, a general consensus resulted
in a desired objective to reduce wolf
numbers within biological limits
without jeopardizing Federal recovery
targets of at least 10 breeding pairs and
100 wolves. Using similar modeling
exercises as previous years and an
objective of reversing wolf population
growth, a total quota of 186 wolves
distributed across the 14 WMUs was
approved by the MFWP Commission.
Prior to the start of the 2010 wolf
hunting season, a court order placed
wolves back under Federal protections
(75 FR 65574, October 26, 2010), so no
wolf hunting season took place.
Wolves were again delisted in
Montana in May 2011 (76 FR 25590,
May 5, 2011). Similar to previous years,
a primary objective with harvest was to
reverse wolf population growth. As a
result, archery-only and early backcountry rifle seasons were proposed,
and a quota increase to 220 wolves
distributed across all WMUs was
recommended by MFWP and approved
by the MFWP Commission. Wolf harvest
was not progressing as expected during
the early parts of the hunting seasons
(121 wolves harvested and 2 of 14 WMU
quotas met by December 31, 2011), so
MFWP proposed a season extension
through January 31, 2012, or until WMU
quotas were met. After a public
comment period, the MFWP
Commission approved and adopted a
season extension through February 15,
2012. A total of 166 wolves were
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69801
harvested during the 2011–2012 season,
equaling 75% of the total quota, with 3
of 14 WMUs closing due to quotas being
met (MFWP 2012, entire). Year-end
counts by MFWP documented a
minimum of 653 wolves in the State,
while patch occupancy modeling
estimated that 971 wolves existed across
Montana at the end of 2011 (see table 3).
The 2012–2013 wolf hunting season
saw significant changes to season
structure and regulations that were
designed to increase harvest and reduce
wolf numbers in the State to a
management goal of 425 wolves, more
than twice the Federal recovery goal.
First, some hunt areas were reorganized
to better direct or limit harvest in
certain locations increasing the total
number of WMUs to 17. Other changes
included a statewide general season
rather than a statewide quota with
quotas remaining in WMU 110 and 316
only, which border Glacier and
Yellowstone National Parks,
respectively; a hunting season closing
date of February 28; a trapping season
that would be open from December 15
through February 28; an increase in the
overall bag limit to three wolves per
hunter/trapper per season; consistent
with State statute, the use of electronic
calls to take wolves; and a change in the
mandatory reporting period from 12 to
24 hours after harvest or upon returning
to the trailhead for backcountry hunters/
trappers. All wolf trappers were
required to attend a wolf trapping
educational course to become certified
prior to purchasing a wolf trapping
license and were required to have a
minimum pan tension of 8 pounds in
MFWP Regions 1 and 2 to minimize
nontarget captures. In February 2013,
the Governor signed House Bill 73,
which included language that
authorized the use of electronic calls
and the sale of multiple wolf hunting
licenses. As a result, these MFWP
Commission provisions that were
approved earlier became effective
immediately upon the Governor’s
signing. As part of post-delisting
monitoring for Montana, the Service
evaluated these regulatory changes to
Montana’s wolf hunting and trapping
seasons to assess the level of impact to
wolves in the State and determined that,
although harvest would likely increase
over previous years, these changes did
not pose a significant threat to wolves
in Montana and would ensure wolf
numbers remained well above minimum
recovery levels (Sartorius 2012, entire;
Jimenez 2013b, entire). A total of 225
wolves were harvested during the 2012–
2013 wolf season, with the majority of
hunters and trappers harvesting a single
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69802
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
wolf (MFWP 2013, entire). Year-end
counts by MFWP documented a
minimum of 625 wolves in the State,
while patch occupancy modeling
estimated that 915 wolves existed across
Montana at the end of 2012 (see table 3).
The 2013–2014 wolf hunting and
trapping season saw some minor
changes to seasons that included the
general (hunting) season being extended
to March 15, an increased bag limit of
five wolves in any combination of
general or trapping per hunter/trapper
per season, and the creation of WMU
313 (with a separate quota) north of
Yellowstone National Park. Trappers
were also required to have a minimum
pan tension of 10 pounds in MFWP
Regions 1–5 to reduce incidental
capture of nontarget species. A total of
230 wolves were harvested during the
2013–2014 season, with hunters taking
143 wolves and trappers taking another
87. Even with the increased bag limits,
the majority of successful hunters and
trappers took one wolf (MFWP 2014,
entire). Year-end counts by MFWP
documented a minimum of 627 wolves
in the State, while patch occupancy
modeling estimated that 1,088 wolves
existed across Montana at the end of
2013 (see table 3).
Other than some minor quota changes
to those WMUs that border Glacier and
Yellowstone National Parks, the only
significant change that has occurred
since the 2013–2014 wolf hunting and
trapping season was the decision by the
MFWP Commission prior to the 2017–
2018 seasons to visit wolf season
structure every other year rather than
every year to allow for discussion of
ungulate and wolf seasons at the same
Commission meeting. Wolf harvest in
Montana remained similar to the
previous two seasons when 206 and 210
wolves were harvested during the 2014–
2015 and 2015–2016 seasons,
respectively (MFWP 2015, entire;
MFWP 2016, entire). A slight upward
trend has been observed since with 247
wolves being harvested in the 2016–
2017 season, 255 in 2017–2018, and 295
in 2018–2019 (MFWP 2017, entire;
MFWP 2018, pp. 13–14; Inman et al.
2019, pp. 9–10). Meanwhile, the
minimum known number of wolves in
Montana has ranged between 477 and
633 animals since 2014, while patch
occupancy modeling estimates have
ranged between 814 and 981 wolves
during the same time period (see table
3 for further information). The overall
general trend in method of take was
similar to previous years with hunters
taking approximately two-thirds and
trappers taking one-third of all
harvested wolves in Montana.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
The Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes (CSKT) of the Flathead
Reservation regulate wolf harvest on
their Tribal lands. The CSKT defined
three wolf hunting and trapping zones
on their reservation where, according to
the 2018–2019 regulations, seasons
begin on September 1 and end on either
March 31 or April 30 of the following
year, or until harvest limits are reached
in each zone, whichever occurs first.
Bag and harvest limits are 1 wolf per
hunter/trapper, with a maximum
harvest of 5 wolves total in the Mission
Mountain Zone and 2 wolves per
hunter/trapper with a maximum harvest
of 10 wolves in the Northwest and
South Zones. Trappers are required to
complete a Wolf Trapper Training Class
prior to obtaining a Tribal trapping
permit. Successful hunters/trappers
must present the hide and skull for
inspection and sample collection within
7 days of take. Wolves harvested on the
Flathead Reservation are included in
Montana totals described above and in
table 3.
The Blackfeet Nation provides gray
wolf hunting opportunities for its Tribal
members and descendants. The
Blackfeet Nation is divided into 4
hunting zones and wolf hunting is
allowed in Zones 2 and 3 only; no wolf
hunting is permitted in Zones 1 or 4,
and wolf trapping is not authorized in
any hunting zone. Hunters may
purchase up to three gray wolf hunting
licenses each season. Seasons start on
the third Saturday in October and close
on March 31 of the following year.
Successful hunters must report harvest
and have animals inspected by a game
warden within 24 hours of take. All
harvest totals from the Blackfeet Nation
are included in the Montana totals
described above and in table 3.
Regulated public harvest of wolves in
Montana has removed an average of 22
percent (range: 10–31 percent) of
Montana’s minimum known wolf
population during those years that
harvest occurred and minimum counts
were documented (2009, 2011–2017 in
table 3). The minimum known number
of wolves in Montana also gradually
declined as regulations became less
restrictive with the objective of
reversing wolf population growth in
Montana. Although harvest may have
been a contributing factor, it is also
possible that reduced wolf monitoring
in the State resulted in lower minimum
counts. When wolf harvest was
evaluated using patch occupancy
modeling estimates, which were not
influenced by changes to MFWP survey
effort over time, harvest accounted for
the removal of between 7 and 22 percent
of the population annually. Despite less
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
restrictive harvest regulations, total wolf
harvest has remained relatively
consistent since 2013 (range: 205–259
wolves), and the patch occupancy
modeled estimated wolf population
appears to have stabilized around 800 to
900 wolves since 2014.
Depredation Control in Montana—
The 2001 Montana Legislature passed
Senate Bill 163 (SB163), which
amended several statutes in Montana
Title 87 pertaining to fish and wildlife
species and oversight and Title 81
related to the Montana Department of
Livestock (MDOL) and their
responsibilities related to predator
control (MFWP 2002, pp. 6–9). SB163
called for the removal of wolves from
the Montana list of endangered species
concurrent with Federal delisting. After
removal as State endangered, wolves
were classified as a species in need of
management, which allowed MFWP and
the MFWP Commission to establish
regulations to guide management of the
species. SB163 amended Montana
Statute 87–3–130, which relieved a
person from liability for the taking of a
wolf if it was attacking, killing, or
threatening to kill a person, livestock, or
a domestic dog. SB163 also removed
wolves from the list of species classified
as ‘‘predatory in nature,’’ which are
systematically controlled by MDOL. As
a result, MDOL would work
cooperatively with MFWP to control
wolves in a manner consistent with a
wolf management plan approved by
both agencies.
The primary goal of wolf management
in Montana is to maintain a viable wolf
population and address wolf-livestock
conflicts (MFWP 2002, p. 50). MFWP
encourages the use of preventative and
nonlethal methods and actively
participates and cooperates in many
preventive conflict reduction programs
(Inman et al. 2019, p. 14; Wilson et al.
2017, p. 247). Current rules and
regulations to address wolf-livestock
conflicts provide more opportunity for
livestock producers and/or private
landowners to address wolf-related
conflicts. Nonlethal harassment is
allowed at all times; however, if
nonlethal methods do not discourage
wolves from harassing livestock,
landowners may request a special kill
permit from MFWP that is valid on
lawfully occupied public and private
lands. SB163 also provides
authorization for livestock producers to
kill a wolf without a permit if it is
threatening, attacking, or killing
livestock on either public or private
lands. If private citizens kill a wolf with
or without a permit, they are required to
report the incident to MFWP as soon as
possible, or within 72 hours, and
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
surrender the carcass to MFWP
authorities. If a livestock depredation is
documented, nonlethal or lethal control
may be implemented, as appropriate, by
providing recommendations to the
livestock producer or through agency
actions.
Between 2008 and 2011, the Federal
status of wolves in Montana changed on
several occasions. While wolves were
under Federal management authority,
wolves throughout most of Montana
were managed under a revised section
10(j) rule for the central Idaho and GYA
nonessential experimental wolf
population in the NRM (73 FR 4720,
January 28, 2008). In addition to agencydirected lethal control, this allowed for
opportunistic harassment of wolves by
livestock producers and allowed take of
wolves that were observed attacking
livestock or dogs on private or lawfully
occupied public lands. Wolves that
occupied the northwest Montana
recovery area in the NRM were
classified as endangered and were
afforded full protections under the Act.
The Blackfeet Nation and CSKT wolf
management plans each provide similar
management responses based on
potential wolf conflict scenarios that
may occur on their respective
reservations (see table 1 in Blackfeet
Tribal Business Council [BTBC] 2008, p.
7; see table 1 in CSKT 2015, p. 11). In
most instances, initial management
responses will emphasize preventative
and nonlethal methods to resolve
conflicts (BTBC 2008, pp. 6–7; CSKT
2015, pp. 10–11). If these methods are
unsuccessful at resolving the conflict,
more aggressive techniques, including
agency-directed lethal control, may be
implemented until the conflict is
resolved. Wolves removed through
lethal control actions to resolve
livestock conflicts on these reservations
have been included in the Montana
totals referenced below.
In Montana, most livestock
depredations occur on private land
(Inman et al. 2019, p. 11; DeCesare et al.
2018, pp. 5–11), and, although a slight
increase has occurred in recent years, a
general overall downward trend in the
number of verified wolf depredations
has occurred since 2009 (Inman et al.
2019, p. 1). This general downward
trend in the number of depredations has
tracked closely with the time period
wolves have been under State
management authority in Montana. A
concurrent decline in the percentage of
Montana wolves lethally removed in
depredation control actions (includes
agency and private citizen removals) has
also occurred in Montana. Between the
years of 2002 to 2008 plus 2010,
corresponding to the years wolves were
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
primarily under Federal authority, 512
wolves were removed to address
conflicts with livestock. As a percentage
of the minimum known population
during that time period, an average of 15
percent of Montana’s wolf population
was removed to address wolf-livestock
conflicts annually. When wolves were
primarily under State management
authority, 597 wolves were removed
between 2009 and 2017 (excluding
2010; MFWP switched to reporting wolf
population estimates based on patch
occupancy modeling estimators only
beginning in 2018 so no minimum
count was available for 2018). Although
a greater number of wolves were lethally
removed under State authority, the
average percentage of wolves removed
annually declined to 9 percent of the
minimum known wolf population
during this time period. Since 2013, the
percent of Montana’s wolf population
removed for depredation control has not
exceeded 8 percent, and was as low as
5 percent of the minimum known
population in 2015. Using population
estimates based on patch occupancy
modeling, the percentage of the wolf
population removed annually to resolve
wolf-livestock conflicts has not
exceeded 5 percent since 2013 and has
been as low as 3 percent in 2015.
Wolf Population and Human-caused
Mortality in Montana Summary—Since
2009, despite increases in both humancaused and total mortality, the wolf
population in Montana has continued to
increase on average 2 percent annually
based on both minimum counts and
patch occupancy modeling (POM)
estimates. Between 2009 and 2017, the
rate of human-caused mortality in
Montana was 32 percent and ranged
between 23 and 41 percent of the
minimum known population. When
other causes of mortality were included,
total mortality generally equaled 1 to 2
percentage points higher than humancaused mortality. Wolf abundance
estimates using POM was higher than
minimum counts of known individuals,
and as a result, estimated mortality rates
were lower for the POM estimated wolf
population in Montana (table 3). Based
on POM estimates, the rate of humancaused mortality ranged between 17 and
29 percent and averaged 23 percent
since 2009. When other forms of
mortality were included, total mortality
in Montana averaged 24 percent since
2009 based on POM population
estimates. The wolf population in
Montana appears to be resilient to these
levels of human-caused and total
mortality and, based on POM, has
stabilized between 800–900 animals in
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69803
4 of the past 5 years (the outlier being
an estimate of 981 wolves in 2015).
Regulated Harvest in Wyoming—
Wyoming Statute 23–1–304 provides
authority for the Wyoming Game and
Fish Commission (WGFC) to promulgate
rules and regulations related to the
management of wolves in Wyoming
where they are classified as trophy game
animals. Per WGFC Chapter 21
regulations that govern the management
of wolves in Wyoming, wolves are
classified as trophy game animals in the
northwest part of the State, where the
majority of the wolves reside, and
predators in the remainder of Wyoming.
Wolf harvest is regulated by WGFC
Chapter 47 regulations in the wolf
trophy game management area
(WTGMA), whereas wolves may be
taken by any legal means year-round
and without limit in the predator area
as provided by Wyoming Statute 23–2–
303(d), 23–3–103(a), 23–3–112, 23–3–
304(b), 23–3–305, and 23–3–307. Wolf
hunting regulations within the WTGMA
are evaluated and revised annually
based on current population objectives
and past years’ demographic and
mortality information. An internal
review and an extensive public input
process occur prior to finalization of
WGFC Chapter 47 regulations.
Wolves were federally delisted in the
NRM on March 28, 2008 (73 FR 10514,
February 27, 2008). In anticipation of
the first regulated wolf hunt in
Wyoming history, the Wyoming Game
and Fish Department (WGFD) drafted
Chapter 47 regulations to guide the 2008
wolf hunting season. A total mortality
limit of 25 wolves was distributed
across 4 wolf hunt areas in the WTGMA,
and seasons began October 1 and ended
November 15 in 1 hunt area and
November 30 in the remaining 3 hunt
areas, or when the mortality limit was
reached in that specific hunt area,
whichever occurred first. Firearms and
archery were the only legal forms of
take, and the bag limit was one wolf per
hunter per calendar year. Successful
hunters were required to report their
take within 24 hours of harvest and
were also required to present the hide
and skull to a WGFD employee within
5 days of harvest for inspection and
sample collection. On July 18, 2008, the
U.S. Federal Court in Missoula,
Montana, issued a preliminary
injunction that immediately reinstated
the protections of the Act for gray
wolves in the NRM, pending the
issuance of a court opinion. On October
14, 2008, the court vacated the final
delisting rule and remanded it back to
the Service. As a result, no regulated
wolf hunting occurred in Wyoming
during the 2008 season. However, when
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69804
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
wolves were federally delisted between
March 28 and July 18, 11 wolves were
taken in the predator area (Jimenez et al.
2009, p. 31).
Wolves remained under Federal
protections and were managed by the
Service in Wyoming until 2012 when
they were removed from the List (77 FR
55530, September 10, 2012). In
anticipation of potential delisting in
2012, Chapter 47 regulations for wolf
hunting seasons were approved by the
WGFC in April 2012. To better direct
harvest to areas with a greater potential
for wolf-livestock or wolf-ungulate
conflict while concurrently providing
for lower harvest in core areas where
potential conflict was low, WGFD
designated 11 wolf hunt areas within
the WTGMA along with a 12th hunt
area as a seasonal WTGMA where
wolves are classified as a trophy game
animal from October 15 through the last
day of February, but are classified as
predators outside of this time period.
Mortality limits were developed for
each hunt area with an objective to
reduce the Wyoming wolf population,
outside of national parks and the Wind
River Indian Reservation (WRR), to
approximately 172 wolves and 15
breeding pairs by the end of the
calendar year. A total WTGMA
mortality limit of 52 wolves was
distributed across the 12 wolf hunt
areas, and both legal and illegal harvest
during open seasons counted towards
mortality quotas. Wolf hunting seasons
opened in most hunt areas on October
1 (October 15 in the seasonal WTGMA)
and ended on December 31 or when the
mortality quota was reached, whichever
came first, in all hunt areas. Although
take was not regulated in the predator
area, successful hunters were required
to report the take of any wolf or wolves
in this area within 10 days of harvest.
Bag limits, method of take, and
reporting requirements were the same as
under the 2008 wolf hunting
regulations. Mortality limits were
reached in 6 of 12 wolf hunt areas prior
to season end dates, and a total of 42
wolves (41 legal, 1 illegal) was
harvested in the WTGMA (WGFD et al.
2013, p. 19). Twenty-five additional
wolves were harvested in the predator
area (WGFD et al. 2013, p. 21). In the
WTGMA, the age distribution of
harvested wolves was nearly equal
between adults, subadults, and pups,
and approximately equal numbers of
males and females were harvested
(WGFD et al. 2013, p. 19). A minimum
of 186 wolves were documented in
Wyoming outside of YNP and the WRR,
with an additional 91 wolves
documented in YNP and WRR for a total
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
of 277 wolves documented in the
entirety of Wyoming at the end of 2012
(see table 3).
Chapter 47 regulations for the 2013
wolf hunting season were approved by
the WGFC in July 2013. Total mortality
limits within the WTGMA were
designed to reduce the Wyoming wolf
population, outside national parks and
the WRR, to 160 wolves by the end of
the calendar year (WGFD et al. 2014, p.
19). Total mortality limits were again
distributed across the 12 wolf hunt areas
and, compared to 2012 mortality limits,
were reduced by half to a total of 26
wolves that could legally be taken
within the WTGMA. One hunt area had
a mortality limit of zero and, thus, never
opened during the 2013 season. All
other regulations remained unchanged
from the 2012 season. A total of 24
wolves (23 legal, 1 illegal) were
harvested during the wolf hunting
season, with 8 of 11 open wolf hunt
areas reaching mortality limits and
closing before the season end dates
(WGFD et al. 2014, p. 21). Again, little
difference was observed between the
gender and sex of harvested wolves, but
young wolves outnumbered adults in
the 2013 harvest. An additional 39
wolves were taken in the predator zone,
and voluntary submission of tissue
samples was high (WGFD et al. 2014, p.
24). A minimum of 199 wolves were
documented in Wyoming outside of
YNP and the WRR, with an additional
107 wolves documented in YNP and
WRR, for a total of 306 wolves
documented in the entirety of Wyoming
at the end of 2013 (see table 3).
On September 23, 2014, the United
States District Court for the District of
Columbia vacated the 2012 final rule (77
FR 55530, September 10, 2012), which
delisted wolves in Wyoming. Thus,
wolves in Wyoming were immediately
placed back under the Federal
protections of the Act and were again
managed by the Service. On April 25,
2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit reversed the
vacatur of the 2012 final rule for wolves
in Wyoming. In response, the Service
published a direct final rule (82 FR
20284, May 1, 2017) again removing the
protections of the Act for wolves in
Wyoming and reverting management
authority back to State, Tribal, and
Federal authority dependent upon
jurisdictional boundaries. As a result of
the changes in legal status, no wolf
hunting occurred in Wyoming between
2014 and 2016.
Regulations for the 2017 wolf hunting
season were approved by the WGFC in
July 2017. The primary objective was to
reduce the wolf population to a total of
160 wolves outside of national parks
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and the WRR by the end of the calendar
year. All other regulations being the
same as previous years, a total wolf
mortality limit of 44 wolves was
distributed across 12 wolf hunt areas in
the WTGMA. Mortality limits were met
in 10 of 12 wolf hunt areas prior to wolf
hunting end dates, and a total of 44
wolves were harvested (43 legal, 1
illegal; WGFD et al. 2018, p. 14).
Mortality limits were exceeded in three
hunt areas because two wolves were
harvested on the same day when a quota
of one wolf remained in those areas.
More females than males were
harvested, but sex and gender of
harvested wolves were similar (WGFD
et al. 2018, p. 14). An additional 33
wolves were harvested in the predator
area where harvest of males and females
was similar, but more adults were
harvested compared to other age classes
(WGFD et al. 2018, p. 16). A minimum
of 238 wolves were documented in
Wyoming outside of YNP and the WRR,
with an additional 109 wolves
documented in YNP and WRR, for a
total of 347 wolves documented in the
entirety of Wyoming at the end of 2017
(see table 3). As part of post-delisting
monitoring, the Service evaluated the
status of the wolf population in
Wyoming and determined that wolf
numbers remained well above recovery
targets of at least 10 breeding pairs and
100 wolves statewide, and no significant
threats were identified that would
jeopardize the recovered status of
wolves in Wyoming (Becker 2018a,
entire).
The objective of the 2018 wolf
hunting season was to reduce the wolf
population in Wyoming, outside of
national parks and the WRR, to 160
wolves by the end of the calendar year.
A number of moderate changes to the
2018 wolf hunting regulations were
approved by the WGFC in July 2018. To
better direct hunter effort, two new hunt
areas were delineated from existing
hunt areas, which created a total of 14
hunt areas within the WTGMA.
Mortality limits were combined for hunt
areas 6 and 7 as well as hunt areas 8,
9, and 11 because packs that use these
areas regularly cross back and forth
across hunt area boundaries. Total wolf
harvest limits within the WTGMA were
increased to 58 wolves, and hunting
seasons opened 1 month earlier on
September 1 in all hunt areas, with the
exception of the seasonal WTGMA.
Hunters could purchase up to two wolf
tags per calendar year, thus could
harvest up to two wolves per calendar
year. Reporting requirement changes
included: (1) Successful hunters have 3
days to present the skull and hide of a
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
harvested wolf to a designated WGFD
employee or location for registration
and (2) if a wolf is harvested in a
designated wilderness area, the pelt and
skull will be presented to a designated
WGFD employee or location within 3
days of returning from the wilderness or
within 10 days of the harvest date,
whichever occurs first.
The Service evaluated these
regulatory changes and determined that
they were unlikely to significantly
increase harvest or jeopardize
Wyoming’s wolf population (Becker
2018b, entire). Four of 14 hunt areas met
mortality limits prior to season ending
dates with 2 hunt areas recording no
harvest. A total of 43 wolves (39 legal,
4 illegal) were harvested during the
hunting season with harvest distributed
more equally across all 4 months when
compared to previous seasons (WGFD et
al. 2019, p. 17). Sex of harvested wolves
was nearly equal, but a higher number
of adults were taken in 2018 compared
to younger age classes (WGFD et al.
2019, p. 17). Forty-two additional
wolves were taken in the predator area
of Wyoming with adults being the
primary age class of wolves taken
(WGFD et al. 2019, p. 18). A minimum
of 196 wolves were documented in
Wyoming outside of YNP and the WRR,
with an additional 90 wolves
documented in YNP and WRR, for a
total of 286 wolves documented in the
entirety of Wyoming at the end of 2018
(see table 3). After evaluating wolf
population parameters for 2018, the
Service concluded that Wyoming’s wolf
population remained well above the
recovery targets of at least 10 breeding
pairs and 100 wolves statewide with no
significant threats identified (Becker
2019, entire).
The objective of the 2019 wolf
hunting season was to stabilize the wolf
population in Wyoming, outside of
national parks and the WRR, at 160
wolves by the end of the calendar year.
The WGFC approved a mortality limit of
34 wolves distributed across the 14 hunt
areas within the WTGMA. The only
significant change was that the season
in hunt area 13 was extended to March
31, 2020, or until the harvest limit was
reached, whichever came first, to
increase hunting opportunity. Twentysix wolves were harvested (25 legal, 1
illegal) during the hunting season with
similar numbers of male and female
wolves as well as age classes taken.
However, the temporal distribution of
harvest was heavily skewed towards the
months of September and October, with
zero wolves taken in December (WGFD
et al. 2020, pp. 15–17). Twenty-three
additional wolves were taken in the
predatory animal area during 2019. A
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
minimum of 201 wolves were
documented in Wyoming outside of
YNP and the WRR, with an additional
110 wolves documented in YNP and
WRR, for a total of 311 wolves
documented in the entirety of Wyoming
at the end of 2019 (see table 3).
Wyoming has done, and continues to
do, a suitable job of adaptively
managing harvest using wolf
demographic information including
minimum counts and levels of other
mortality factors from past years.
Adaptive management will continue to
be an important part of wolf
management in Wyoming due to a lower
abundance of wolves in the State
compared to Idaho and Montana and
because recent data indicates that a
greater proportion of juvenile wolves
have been harvested during the months
of September and October compared to
November and December when adults
and subadults make up the majority of
harvest (WGFD et al. 2020, p. 17).
Contrary to what Ausband (2016, p. 501)
demonstrated for juvenile wolves taken
during the trapping season in Idaho, this
indicates that juvenile wolves in
Wyoming are more vulnerable to hunter
harvest, at least during the early months
of hunting seasons. Continued high
rates of juvenile mortality could affect
recruitment (Ausband et al. 2015, pp.
418–420), resulting in population
declines if wolf populations are not
monitored closely and adaptively
managed to ensure they remain above
minimum recovery levels. We anticipate
monitoring by WGFD will be sufficient
to detect significant changes in
population status and that regulatory
changes will be made to address any
concerns as necessary.
Pending the Governor’s signature, the
WGFC recently approved Chapter 47
wolf harvest recommendations for the
2020–2021 season. The two primary
regulatory changes for the upcoming
season included an increase in the total
harvest limit to 52 wolves within the
WTGMA and a September 15 season
start date for all hunt areas (with the
exception of hunt area 12, which will
continue to open October 15). Although
increased harvest limits could result in
continued high levels of juvenile
harvest, later season start dates may
reduce the number of juvenile wolves
harvested during the initial months of
the season. All other regulations are the
same as previous years.
On the WRR, wolves are classified as
a trophy game animal where legal take
could occur during a regulated hunting
or trapping season. Regulated take was
not permitted on the WRR until 2019
when the Eastern Shoshone and
Northern Arapaho Joint Business
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69805
Council approved the first regulated
wolf hunting season. A total harvest
limit of six wolves was distributed
evenly across two hunt areas. The wolf
hunting season began on December 1,
2019, and closed on February 28, 2020,
or until the harvest limit was reached in
either hunt area, whichever occurred
first. Mandatory reporting was required
within 48 hours of harvest. No wolves
were harvested on the WRR during the
2019–2020 season (WGFD et al. 2020,
p. 24).
As described previously, the Federal
status of wolves in Wyoming has
changed on several occasions since
2009. Overall, during those years when
wolves were under State management
authority (including 2008 and 2014
when wolves were legally harvested in
the predator area, but no regulated
hunting season occurred in the WTGMA
due to litigation), an average of 12
percent of Wyoming’s wolf population
was removed annually through harvest.
If 2008 and 2014 are removed (the years
that harvest was limited to the predatory
animal area) and we evaluate regulated
harvest only, an average of 15 percent of
the wolf population in Wyoming was
removed annually through harvest.
Based on WGFD’s adaptive management
approach to managing wolves and wolf
harvest, wolf populations in Wyoming
have remained well above minimum
recovery levels since 2002, regardless of
whether they have been under State or
Federal management authority.
Depredation Control in Wyoming—
Federal wolf management in Wyoming
was guided by a nonessential
experimental population special rule
under section 10(j) of the Act (59 FR
60266, November 22, 1994). After
wolves were relisted in 2008, wolf
management in the central Idaho and
GYA recovery areas of the NRM reverted
back to special rules published for the
nonessential experimental population of
wolves (73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008)
because all States and some Tribes
within these recovery areas had Serviceapproved wolf plans (see description of
take allowed under the 2008 10(j) rules
described above). However, after
reexamining Wyoming’s laws and wolf
management plan, the Service deemed
them unsatisfactory for the continued
conservation of wolves in the State (74
FR 15123, April 2, 2009). As a result,
Federal wolf management in Wyoming
(outside of YNP and WRR) reverted back
to the more restrictive special rules
under section 10(j) of the Act published
in 1994 (59 FR 42108, August 16, 1994).
Under the 1994 10(j) rule, landowners
on their private land and owners of
domestic livestock (defined as cattle,
sheep, horses, and mules) lawfully
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69806
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
using public lands could
opportunistically harass wolves in a
non-injurious manner. Livestock
producers were also able to legally take
adult wolves on their private property if
they were caught in the act of killing,
wounding, or biting livestock, provided
the incident was reported within 24
hours and there was evidence of the
attack. If livestock depredations were
documented, the Service could conduct
lethal control actions or issue a permit
to a livestock producer or permittee
grazing public lands to take an adult
wolf or wolves caught in the act of
killing, wounding, or biting livestock.
This section 10(j) rule applied to wolf
management in Wyoming between April
2009 and September 2012 and again
between September 2014 and April
2017.
When wolves were under State
management authority in Wyoming,
Wyoming Statute (W.S.) 23–1–304
provided authority for the WGFC to
promulgate rules and regulations related
to the management of wolves in
Wyoming where they are classified as
trophy game animals. WGFC Chapter 21
regulations guide the management of
wolves in the State within the WTGMA.
Through education and outreach
provided by WGFD, emphasis is
directed towards conflict prevention
and minimization of depredation risk
(WGFC 2011, p. 30). However, when
depredations do occur, agency response
is evaluated on a case-by-case basis and
may include no action, nonlethal
control if it is deemed appropriate or the
landowner requests it, capture and
radio-collaring a wolf or wolves,
issuance of a lethal take permit to the
property owner, or agency-directed
lethal control. The use of lethal force to
resolve wolf-livestock conflicts by
WGFD and their designated agents or
private citizens is authorized under
W.S. 23–1–304, W.S.23–3–115, and
WGFC Chapter 21 regulations. However,
lethal control will not be used, and any
take permits that have been issued may
be revoked, if wolf removal threatens
the recovered status of wolves in the
State.
Under W.S. 23–3–115 and WGFC
Chapter 21 Section 6(a), any wolf in the
act of doing damage to private property
may be taken and killed by the owner
provided the carcass is not removed
from the site of the kill so an
investigation can be completed and take
is reported within 72 hours. If livestock
depredations have been confirmed,
WGFD or their authorized agents may
conduct lethal control efforts to mitigate
conflicts. WGFD may also issue a lethal
take permit to the owner of the livestock
or domestic animals, or their designees.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Permits may be issued for a period of up
to 45 days or until the number of wolves
specified on the permit, up to two
wolves, are killed, whichever occurs
first. Permits may be renewed if deemed
necessary. Lethal take permits will be
issued only within the WTGMA.
In Wyoming, lethal control of
depredating wolves increased
concurrent with increases in wolf
numbers and distribution as wolves
recolonized available suitable habitat
and began to occupy more moderate to
less suitable habitat. Under Service
direction, management of depredating
wolves became more aggressive towards
chronically depredating packs in the
mid to late 2000s, which moderated the
number of depredations and subsequent
wolf removals so that the number of
depredations no longer tracked with
wolf population growth. Between 1995
and 2008, as a percentage of the total
wolf population, 8 percent of the known
Wyoming wolf population was removed
annually. From 2009 to the present, the
percentage of Wyoming’s known wolf
population lethally removed to resolve
conflicts with livestock has increased
slightly to 11 percent, but has been more
variable with a slightly higher
percentage of wolves removed under
Federal authority (13 percent; range: 8–
22 percent) when compared to State
management authority (11 percent;
range: 7–12 percent). As has been
observed in Montana, since 2017 when
Federal protections were most recently
removed for wolves in Wyoming, the
total number of wolves and the
percentage of the population lethally
removed to resolve livestock conflicts
has declined to 30 wolves, which equals
approximately 7 percent of the
minimum known wolf population in
2019 (WGFD et al. 2020, p. 3). Similarly,
the total number of damage claims and
compensation payments for wolf-caused
livestock losses has declined as wolves
have been under State management
authority (WGFD 2020a, p. 16).
Generally, Wyoming has a higher
percentage of packs involved in
livestock depredations annually with
more depredations occurring on public
lands than Idaho or Montana (WGFD et
al. 2020, pp. 20–21). Seasonal trends in
depredations are similar to other States
that have a high percentage of livestock
seasonally grazed on public lands where
a slight increase in depredations occurs
during early spring, coinciding with
calving season, followed by a slight
drop then an increase during the late
summer months of July, August, and
September (WGFD et al. 2020, pp. 21–
22).
In addition to wolf control for
livestock depredations, WGFC Chapter
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
21 Section 6(c) provides WGFD
authorization to lethally remove wolves
should it be determined that they are
causing unacceptable impacts to
wildlife or when wolves displace elk
from State-managed feedgrounds.
Displaced elk may result in damage to
privately stored crops, commingling
with domestic livestock, or human
safety concerns due to their presence on
public roadways. To date, no wolves
have been removed in Wyoming under
these provisions. However, in some
cases, WGFD has used regulated public
harvest of wolves to better direct
sportsmen and -women to areas where
it was believed wolves may be causing
negative impacts to wildlife.
Since 2008, dependent on the Federal
status of wolves in Wyoming, wolf
management on the WRR has been
guided by the amended 2008 10(j) rules
for the nonessential experimental
population of wolves in the Greater
Yellowstone Area (73 FR 4720, January
28, 2008) or the provisions of a Serviceapproved WRR wolf management plan
(Eastern Shoshone and Northern
Arapaho Tribes 2008, entire). Under
Federal or Tribal management authority,
lethal take by private citizens or
agencies is authorized if a wolf or
wolves are caught in the act or if it is
deemed necessary to resolve repeated
conflicts with livestock. To date, a
single wolf has been removed within the
external boundaries of the WRR to
mitigate conflicts with livestock. This
wolf was included in the above totals
when discussing lethal wolf control in
Wyoming.
Wolf Population and Human-caused
Mortality in Wyoming Summary—As
expected, during those years when
wolves were removed from Federal
protections, human-caused mortality
increased in Wyoming as WGFD
implemented regulated harvest to
manage wolf populations within the
WTGMA. The WGFD set a population
objective of 160 wolves within the
WTGMA and has adaptively managed
harvest to achieve this objective. Since
2009, during those years when wolves
were federally listed (including years
when harvest occurred under predator
status only), the average rate of humancaused mortality was 14 percent. The
average rate increased to 28 percent
annually during those years when
WGFD managed wolf populations with
regulated public harvest. This
management resulted in an overall
negative growth rate for the wolf
population in Wyoming during those
years wolves were under State authority
(an approximate 5 percent population
decline on average during those years
when wolves were federally delisted).
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
This gradual decline was expected as
WGFD began to use harvest to meet wolf
population objectives within the
WTGMA (77 FR 55553, September 10,
2012). However, the observed decline is
not expected to last because WGFD will
continue to adaptively manage harvest
to stabilize the wolf population at 160
wolves within the WTGMA (WGFD et
al. 2020, p. 14), as has been evidenced
by a slight increase in the statewide
minimum wolf count in 2019 (see table
3). Minor variations around the average
number of wolves removed in agency
control actions, combined with other
forms of mortality (i.e., illegal take,
natural causes, vehicle collisions, and
unknown causes), can influence
whether or not desired population
objectives are achieved within the
WTGMA, so annual adjustments to
harvest limits will continue to be made
accordingly in order to achieve WGFD
management objectives and still
maintain the recovered status of wolves
in Wyoming.
Managers in YNP and the WRR have
not set population objectives and have,
for the most part, allowed wolves to
naturally regulate. As a result, the
number of wolves in YNP appear to
have reached an equilibrium and have
fluctuated slightly around 100 wolves
for the past 10 years, while the number
of wolves on the WRR has varied
between 10 and 20 over the same time
period. Regardless of how different
agencies manage wolves, wolf
populations have remained well above
the Federal recovery targets of at least
10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves
statewide, and we expect them to stay
above this level because various
jurisdictions in the State continue to
coordinate to manage for a sustainable
population of wolves in Wyoming.
Regulated Harvest in Oregon—No
regulated hunting or trapping of wolves
is authorized in Oregon.
Depredation Control in Oregon—In
Oregon, an integrated approach to
minimize wolf depredation risk has
been implemented that incorporates
both proactive and corrective measures.
The primary objective of ODFW when
addressing wolf-livestock conflicts is to
continue to implement a three-phased
approach based on population
objectives that minimizes conflicts with
livestock while ensuring conservation of
wolves in the State (ODFW 2019, p. 44).
This phased approach to wolf
management emphasizes preventive and
nonlethal methods in Phase I and
provides for increased management
flexibility when the wolf population is
in Phase III. Presently, wolves
inhabiting the West Wolf Management
Zone (WWMZ) are managed under
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Phase I guidelines in the Oregon Wolf
Conservation and Management Plan and
associated rules, whereas wolves in the
East Wolf Management Zone (EWMZ)
are managed under Phase II guidelines.
Wolves remain federally protected in
the entirety of the WWMZ, whereas
wolves in the EWMZ are federally
protected in half of the management
zone and are under State management
authority in the other half (see figure 1,
ODFW 2020, p. 3). Nonlethal methods
will be prioritized to address wolf
conflicts with livestock regardless of
wolf population status (ODFW 2019, p.
45); however, lethal control may be
authorized only in the eastern half of
the EWMZ where they are under State
management authority per OAR 635–
110–0030.
Under Phase III wolf management
(OAR 635–110–0030), lethal force may
be used by property owners, livestock
producers, or their designated agents to
kill a wolf that is in the act of biting,
wounding, killing, or chasing livestock
or working dogs. If nonlethal methods
were implemented following
depredation events, but were
unsuccessful at deterring recurrent
depredations, ODFW may also issue a
lethal take permit of limited duration to
a livestock producer to kill a wolf.
Similarly, ODFW, or their agents, may
conduct lethal removal on private and
public lands to minimize recurrent
depredation risk. If wolves are taken by
private citizens, take must be reported
to ODFW within 24 hours. The ODFW
Commission may also authorize
controlled take in specific areas to
address long-term, recurrent
depredations or significant wolfungulate interactions.
Since 2009, agency-directed lethal
control has resulted in the removal of 16
wolves in Oregon over an 11-year
period. Additionally, two wolves have
been legally taken by livestock
producers or their designated agents
when they were caught in the act of
attacking livestock in 2016 (ODFW
2017, p. 11) and a herding dog in 2019
(ODFW 2020, p. 11). As a percentage of
the total population of wolves in
Oregon, lethal control of depredating
wolves has removed an average of 2
percent of Oregon’s wolf population
annually (range: 0 to 13 percent). This
amount is much lower than was
documented in Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming during Service-directed wolf
recovery in the NRM. No wolves have
been removed in Oregon as a result of
ODFW issuing a permit to a landowner
or a livestock producer after two
confirmed depredations or by controlled
take through Commission authorization.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69807
Wolf Population and Human-caused
Mortality in Oregon Summary—Known
human-caused mortality from all causes
has resulted in the death of 40 wolves
in Oregon since 2009. On average,
human-caused mortality, inclusive of all
sources, removes approximately 4
percent of the total wolf population in
Oregon each year (range: 0 to 13
percent), which represents the lowest
rate of human-caused mortality among
States in the NRM. Since 2010, humancaused mortality has not exceeded 10
percent of the statewide wolf population
in any given year, which has provided
Oregon wolves the opportunity to
increase at an average rate of 27 percent
annually. As suitable wolf habitat in the
northeast part of the State has become
increasingly saturated, population
growth has slowed somewhat and has
ranged between 10 to 15 percent growth
since 2017. Dispersing wolves from
resident Oregon packs have recolonized
portions of western Oregon as well as
northern California and southeastern
Washington.
In 2015, using an individual-based
population model and vital rate
estimates obtained from the literature
for established or exploited wolf
populations, ODFW documented a 0, 3,
and 5 percent chance of conservation
failure (defined as fewer than 4 breeding
pairs) over a 5-, 10-, and 50-year period,
respectively (ODFW 2015a, pp. 30–33).
Further simulations suggested that as
the wolf population in Oregon
continued to increase, the risk of
conservation failure concurrently
declined. Rates of human-caused
mortality up to 15 percent resulted in
positive population growth, while rates
of 20 percent caused population
declines (ODFW 2015a, pp. 30–33).
These rates of human-caused mortality
were in addition to natural and other
causes of mortality that were held
constant and estimated at 12 percent.
This resulted in a total mortality rate of
27 to 32 percent with which Oregon’s
wolf population would continue to
increase or slightly decrease,
respectively. These total mortality rates
and their effects on wolf population
growth in Oregon are comparable to
wolf populations elsewhere (see NRM
discussion above and USFWS 2020, p.
8). The rates of human-caused and total
mortality in Oregon’s wolf population
are currently well below the thresholds
described above and are estimated at 4
and 5 percent, respectively (see table 3).
Mortality rates at this level provide
ample opportunity for continued
positive population growth and
recolonization of suitable habitat in the
State.
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69808
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Regulated Harvest in Washington—To
date, the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has not
authorized and implemented regulated
wolf harvest in the delisted portion of
the State; however, the Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation
(CTCR) and Spokane Tribe of Indians
(STI) initiated regulated wolf harvest for
Tribal members on Tribal lands only
beginning in 2012 and 2013,
respectively. Seasons have gradually
become less restrictive to allow for
increased hunter opportunity on CTCR
Tribal lands. In 2019, the CTCR adopted
wolf hunting regulations that allowed
for year-round harvest with no bag
limits (CCT Code Title 4 Natural
Resources and Environment, Chapter 4–
1, and Resolution 2019–255). Trapping
is also permitted and seasons begin on
November 1 and close February 28 with
no bag limits on amount of take. As of
December 31, 2019, 12 wolves have
been legally harvested on CTCR lands
since 2012.
Regulated wolf harvest is also allowed
for Tribal members on the Spokane
Indian Reservation in Washington. As
stated previously, regulated wolf harvest
began in 2013 and, similar to CTCR, has
been designed to increase hunter
opportunity, although the level of take
has remained relatively low. At present,
annual allowable take is a maximum of
10 wolves that may be harvested within
the calendar year. If the maximum
allowable take is reached, the season
will close until the start of the next
calendar year. Trapping and/or snaring
on the Spokane Reservation is allowed
by special permit only, issued by the
STI Department of Natural Resources,
and is open from October 1 through
February 28. Between 2013 and 2019, 10
wolves have been legally harvested on
the Spokane Indian Reservation.
Despite less restrictive regulations for
harvest on Tribal lands in Washington,
the total number of wolves legally
harvested has been relatively low and
has had minimal impact on wolf
populations in the State (see table 3).
Since 2012 when regulated take began,
an average of 3 percent of the total
statewide wolf population in
Washington has been legally harvested
annually (range: 0 to 4 percent).
Depredation Control in Washington—
A primary goal of wolf management in
Washington is to minimize livestock
losses in a way that continues to
provide for the recovery and long-term
perpetuation of a sustainable wolf
population (Wiles et al. 2011, p. 14).
Nonlethal management of wolf conflicts
is prioritized in the State (Wiles et al.
2011, p. 85; WDFW 2017, pp. 2–9).
WDFW personnel work closely with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
livestock producers to implement
conflict prevention measures suitable to
each producers’ operation. Interested
livestock producers may also enter into
a Depredation Prevention Cooperative
Agreement with WDFW, which
provides a cost-share for the
implementation of conflict prevention
tools (WDFW et al. 2020, p. 24).
In the eastern one-third of
Washington where wolves are federally
delisted and under the management
authority of WDFW, State law (RCW
77.12.240) provides WDFW authority to
implement lethal control to resolve
repeated wolf-livestock conflicts when
other methods were deemed
unsuccessful in deterring depredations.
The WDFW wolf-livestock and
interaction protocol provides specific
guidelines for when lethal control may
be implemented (WDFW 2017, pp. 14–
15). When lethal control is
implemented, WDFW uses an
incremental removal approach followed
by an evaluation period to determine
the effectiveness of any control action
(WDFW 2017, p. 15).
Under State law (RCW 77.36.030 and
RCW 77.12.240), administrative rule
(WAC 220–440–080), and the provisions
of the Wolf Conservation and
Management Plan, WDFW may permit a
livestock producer or their authorized
employees in the federally delisted
portion of the State to lethally remove
wolves caught in the act of attacking
livestock on private property or lawfully
used public grazing allotments after a
documented livestock depredation
caused by wolves. Furthermore, WAC
220–440–080 provides authority for
owners of domestic animals and their
immediate family members or
designated agents to kill one gray wolf
without a permit in the delisted part of
Washington if the wolf is attacking their
animals (caught-in-the-act rule). Any
wolf removed under these provisions
must be reported to WDFW within 24
hours of take and the carcass must be
surrendered to the agency.
Lethal control of depredating wolves
was first used to mitigate wolf conflicts
with livestock in 2012 when WDFW
removed 7 wolves. Between 2013 and
2019, as Washington’s wolf population
continued to increase in number and
expand in range, WDFW has used lethal
control to resolve wolf conflicts with
livestock in 5 of 7 years. In total, 31
wolves have been removed by WDFW
due to conflicts with livestock between
2008, when wolves were first
documented in the State, and 2019.
No wolves have been legally removed
under authority of a lethal take permit
issued to a livestock producer after a
documented depredation. However, four
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
wolves have been killed by owners of
domestic animals under the caught-inthe-act rule, two each in 2017 and 2019.
The goal of wolf-livestock conflict
management on the Colville Reservation
is to resolve conflicts before they
become chronic (Colville Confederated
Tribes Fish and Wildlife Department
[CCTFWD] 2017, p. 24). Potential
livestock depredations on the Colville
Reservation will be investigated by
CCTFWD personnel. The CCTFWD
personnel will work with livestock
owners proactively and reactively to
prevent and/or resolve conflicts as they
arise (CCTFWD 2017, p. 24). To date, no
wolves have been removed to resolve
conflicts with livestock on the Colville
Reservation.
The effect of agency-directed and
private individual lethal control on
Washington’s wolf population has been
relatively minor to date. Overall, the
percentage of wolves removed annually
through lethal control in Washington is
less than what was documented in the
core of the NRM in the years following
wolf reintroduction. In Washington, as a
percent of the minimum known
population, an average of 4 percent of
the total statewide wolf population has
been removed due to conflicts with
livestock annually (range: 0 to 12
percent; see table 3).
Analyses of factors that contribute to
wolf-livestock conflicts in Washington
indicate that, in general, areas having a
high abundance of livestock (Hanley et
al. 2018a, pp. 8–10) or high densities of
both wolves and livestock (Hanley et al.
2018b, pp. 8–11) are at higher risk for
conflict. Also, persistent wolf presence
has not been documented in some
Washington counties with the highest
risk of wolf-livestock conflicts based on
cattle abundance alone (Hanley et al.
2018a, p. 10), thus the potential exists
for increased levels of conflict as wolves
continue to recolonize portions of the
State. Similar to Wyoming, but contrary
to what has been documented in
Montana and Idaho, most livestock
depredations in Washington have
occurred on public grazing allotments
(Hanley et al. 2018a, pp. 8–10) where
greater challenges exist to minimize
conflict risk.
Wolf Population and Human-caused
Mortality in Washington Summary—
Since 2008 when wolves were first
documented in Washington, humancaused mortality has been responsible
for the average removal of 9 percent of
the known wolf population annually;
and has fluctuated between 6 percent
and 11 percent of the known population
annually since 2013 (see table 3). Over
a similar time period, the mean total
wolf mortality rate has been 10 percent
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
and ranged between 7 percent and 13
percent since 2013 (see table 3).
According to the Washington Wolf
Conservation and Management Plan,
wolf recovery will be achieved when a
minimum of 15 breeding pairs are
equitably distributed across 3 wolf
recovery areas in the State for 3
consecutive years or when 18 breeding
pairs are documented for a single year
(Wiles et al. 2011, pp. 58–70). Analyses
indicate that once recovery is achieved,
Washington’s wolf population would be
relatively resilient to increases in
human-caused mortality provided a low
level of dispersal from outside the State
continues (Maletzke et al. 2015, p. 7).
Concurrent with increased rates of
human-caused mortality, wolf numbers
and distribution have continued to
increase in Washington, although the
rate of increase has slowed somewhat in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
recent years (WDFW et al. 2020, pp. 12–
20). Since 2010, wolf populations have
increased an average of 26 percent
annually as dispersing wolves
originating from both inside and outside
of Washington continue to recolonize
vacant suitable habitat in the State.
Population growth has been most rapid
in the eastern Washington recovery area
due to its proximity to large wolf
populations in the NRM and Canada.
However, as suitable habitat in eastern
Washington has become increasingly
saturated with wolves, statewide
population growth has declined in
recent years (WDFW et al. 2020, pp. 12–
20) and has ranged between 3 and 15
percent since 2017. Increases in wolf
abundance and distribution continue at
a moderate pace in the North Cascades
recovery area. Documentation of
dispersing individuals continues in the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69809
Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast
recovery area, but, to date, confirmation
of a resident pack has not occurred.
Slow recolonization of this recovery
area was anticipated by WDFW (Wiles
et al. 2011, p. 69). Factors that may be
contributing to the lack of documented,
resident wolves in southwest
Washington may include its distance
from large wolf population centers and
the availability of intervening suitable
habitat between it and those population
centers. However, with continued
positive population growth and
relatively low levels of human-caused
mortality, substantial opportunities
remain for dispersing wolves to
recolonize vacant suitable habitat in
Washington even though this may occur
at a slower pace than some expect.
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
ER03NO20.019
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69810
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Effects on Wolf Social Structure and
Pack Dynamics
Although wolf populations typically
have a high rate of natural turnover
(Mech 2006a, p. 1482), increased
human-caused mortality may negatively
affect the pack dynamics and social
structure of gray wolves. However, we
do not expect these effects will have a
significant impact at the population
level due to the life-history
characteristics of gray wolves. In most
instances, only the dominant male and
female in a pack breed. Consequently,
the death of one or both of the breeders
may negatively affect the pack (via
reduced pup survival/recruitment or
pack dissolution) or the population as a
whole (by reduced recruitment, reduced
dispersal rates, or a reduction or
reversal of population growth), but these
effects are context-dependent. The
availability of replacement breeders and
the timing of mortality can moderate the
consequences of breeder loss on both
the pack and the population (Brainerd et
al. 2008, entire; Borg et al. 2014, entire;
Schmidt et al. 2017, entire; Bassing et al.
2019, entire). In populations that are at
or near carrying capacity, where breeder
replacement and subsequent
reproduction occurs relatively quickly,
population growth rate and pack
distribution and occupancy is largely
unaffected by breeder loss (Borg et al.
2014, pp. 6–7; Bassing et al. 2019, pp.
582–584). Breeder replacement and
subsequent reproduction in colonizing
populations greater than 75 wolves was
similar to that of core populations at or
near carrying capacity, whereas small
recolonizing populations (<75 wolves)
took about twice as long to replace
breeders and subsequently reproduce
(Brainerd et al. 2008, pp. 89, 93).
Therefore, the effects of breeder loss
may be greatest on small recolonizing
gray wolf populations. In some cases
where extremely high rates of humancaused mortality were intentionally
used to drastically reduce wolf
populations, immigration from
neighboring areas was found to be the
most important determinant in the
speed with which wolf populations
recovered (Bergerud and Elliot 1998, pp.
1554–1559, 1562; Hayes and Harestead
2000, pp. 44–46).
In the short term, increased humancaused mortality can result in lower
natality rates (the number of pups
produced) and pup survival in
individual packs due to an overall
reduction in pack size and the loss of
one or both breeders (Schmidt et al.
2017, pp. 14–18; Ausband et al. 2017a,
pp. 4–6). However, wolf populations
respond to decreased densities resulting
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
from increased human-caused mortality
by increasing reproductive output
(Schmidt et al. 2017, pp. 14–18). This
could partially explain the fact that the
reduction in pack sizes observed in
Idaho after wolf hunts began was shortlived, as pack sizes rebounded to levels
documented prior to the initiation of
hunting seasons and mid-year
recruitment of young was similar during
periods of harvest versus without
(Horne et al. 2019a, pp. 37–38). In
another study, breeding female turnover
increased polygamy within packs while
breeding male turnover reduced
recruitment of female pups, although
the mechanisms for the latter were
unknown (Ausband et al. 2017b, pp.
1097–1098). Mortality of breeding gray
wolves was more likely to lead to pack
dissolution and reduced reproduction
when mortality occurred very near to, or
during, the breeding season (Borg et al.
2014, p. 8, Ausband et al. 2017a, pp. 4–
5) and when pack sizes were small
(Brainerd et al. 2008, p. 94; Borg et al.
2014, pp. 5–6). Nonetheless, harvest had
no effect on the frequency of breeder
turnover in Idaho (Ausband et al. 2017b,
p. 1097) and little evidence of pack
dissolution was found in a heavily
harvested wolf population with frequent
breeder loss in southwestern Alberta
(Bassing et al. 2019, pp. 584–585).
Bryan et al. (2015, pp. 351–354)
indicated that high rates of humancaused mortality resulted in
physiological changes to wolves that
increased levels of cortisol as well as
reproductive hormones. The authors
suggest these results were indicative of
social disruptions to the pack that
affected the rate of female pregnancy or
psuedopregnancy and the number of
interindividual interactions among male
wolves (Bryan et al. 2015, pp. 351–352).
However, it was unknown if these
physiological changes affected overall
fitness (i.e., reproductive and
population performance) of the affected
wolf population or if other factors
contributed equally to, or more than,
wolf harvest (Bryan et al. 2015, pp. 351–
354). Boonstra (2012, entire) suggested
that chronic stress in wildlife was rare,
but could be considered adaptive in that
it benefits the affected species, which
allows it to adapt to changing
conditions to maintain, or improve,
long-term fitness. Indeed, Bryan et al.
(2015, p. 351) suggested that the
physiological changes observed in the
stressed wolf population could be
considered adaptive and beneficial to
the wolf when dealing with the specific
stressors. Due to the inherent challenges
associated with interpreting the specific
causes and effects of stress in wildlife,
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69811
experimental field studies that evaluate
potential factors contributing to
observed increases in stress and their
associated positive or negative effects on
wildlife populations are warranted
(Boonstra 2012, p. 10).
Overall, gray wolf pack social
structure is very adaptable and resilient.
Breeding members can be quickly
replaced from either within or outside
the pack, and pups can be reared by
another pack member should their
parents die (USFWS 2020, p. 7).
Consequently, wolf populations can
rapidly overcome severe disruptions,
such as intensive human-caused
mortality or disease, provided
immigration from either (or both) within
the affected population or from adjacent
populations occurs (Bergerud and Elliot
1998, pp. 1554–1559; Hayes and
Harestad 2000, pp. 44–46; Bassing et al.
2019, entire). Although we acknowledge
that breeder loss can and will occur in
the future regardless of Federal status,
we conclude that the effects of breeder
loss on gray wolves in the lower 48
United States is likely to be minimal as
long as adequate regulatory mechanisms
are in place to ensure a sufficiently large
population is maintained.
The Role of Public Attitudes
In general, human attitudes toward
wolves vary depending upon how
individuals value wolves in light of real
or perceived risks and benefits
(Bruskotter and Wilson 2014, entire). An
individual who views wolves as
threatening is likely to have a more
negative perception than an individual
who believes wolves are beneficial. This
perception may be directly influenced
by an individual’s proximity to wolves
(Houston et al. 2010, pp. 399–401;
Holsman et al. 2014, entire; Carlson et
al. 2020, pp. 4–6), personal experiences
with wolves (Houston et al. 2010, pp.
399–401; Browne-Nunez et al. 2015, pp.
62–69), or indirect factors such as social
influences (e.g., news and social media,
internet, friends, relatives) and
governmental policies (Houston et al.
2010, pp. 399–401; Treves and
Bruskotter 2014, p. 477, Browne-Nunez
et al. 2015, pp. 62–69; Olson et al. 2014,
entire; Chapron and Treves 2016, p. 5;
Lute et al. 2016, pp. 1208–1209; Carlson
et al. 2020, pp. 4–6). Consequently,
wolves often invoke deep-seated issues
related to identity, fear, knowledge,
empowerment, and trust that are not
directly related to the issues raised in
this rulemaking (Naughton-Treves et al.
2003, pp. 1507–1508; Madden 2004, p.
250; Madden and McQuinn 2014, pp.
100–102; Browne-Nunez et al. 2015, p.
69; Carlson et al. 2020, pp. 4–6). Due to
these known human attitudes, in our
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69812
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
1978 rule reclassifying wolves, we
acknowledged that regulations
prohibiting the killing of wolves, even
wolves that may be attacking livestock
and pets, could create negative
sentiments about wolves and their
recovery under the protections of the
Act. We acknowledge that public
attitudes towards wolves vary with
demographics, change over time, and
can affect human behavior toward
wolves, including poaching (illegal
killing) of wolves (See Kellert 1985,
1990, 1999; Nelson and Franson 1988;
Kellert et al. 1996; Wilson 1999;
Browne-Nun˜ez and Taylor 2002;
Williams et al. 2002; Manfredo et al.
2003; Naughton-Treves et al. 2003;
Madden 2004; Mertig 2004; Chavez et
al. 2005; Schanning and Vazquez 2005;
Beyer et al. 2006; Hammill 2007;
Schanning 2009; Treves et al. 2009;
Wilson and Bruskotter 2009; Shelley et
al. 2011; Treves and Martin 2011;
Treves et al. 2013; Madden and
McQuinn 2014; Hogberg et al. 2016;
Lute et al. 2016).
Surveys have indicated that overall
public support for legal, regulated wolf
hunting is relatively high, but negative
attitudes about wolves persist and
overall tolerance for wolves remains low
(Browne-Nunez 2015 pp. 62–69;
Hogberg et al. 2016, pp. 49–50; Lute et
al. 2016, pp. 1206–1208; Lewis et al.
2018, entire). Hogberg et al. (2016, p. 50)
documented an overall decline in
tolerance for wolves after public harvest
occurred in Wisconsin, which indicates
that hunting may not be the most
effective policy to increase tolerance for
the species (Epstein 2017, entire).
However, Hogberg et al. (2016, p. 50)
also documented that 36 percent of
respondents self-reported an increase in
their tolerance towards wolves after
wolf hunting began in Wisconsin.
Similarly, a survey conducted in
Montana (Lewis et al. 2018, entire)
found that while overall tolerance
remained low compared to a similar
survey from 2012, it had slightly
increased over time as the State has
continued to manage wolves primarily
through public harvest. Furthermore,
statements made by interviewees
regarding hunting and trapping of
wolves in Montana indicate that, if
those management options were no
longer available to them, their tolerance
and acceptance of the species would
likely decline, resulting in increased
polarization of opinions about wolves
(Mulder 2014, p. 68). These studies
suggest that the passage of time (which
may be considered equivalent to an
individual getting used to having
wolves on the landscape even though
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
wolves may still be disliked) and the
belief that State management provides
more opportunities for an individual to
assist with wolf population management
are two factors, of many, that may
slowly increase tolerance for wolves.
Although general trends in overall
attitudes towards wolves are most often
obtained through surveys, BrowneNunez et al. (2015, p. 69) cautioned that
these surveys often do not capture the
complexity of attitudes that more
personal survey techniques, such as
focus groups, allow. Furthermore,
Decker et al. (2006, p. 431) stressed the
importance of providing details about
situational context when evaluating
human attitudes towards specific
wildlife management actions.
Human attitudes may be indicative of
behavior (Bruskotter and Fulton 2012,
pp. 99–100). Thus, it has been theorized
that if tolerance for a species is low or
declining, the likelihood for illegal
activity towards that species may
increase. Individual attitudes and
behaviors may then be manifested by
actions directed towards the species. In
the case of wolves, if an individual feels
they have limited management options
to mitigate a real or perceived conflict,
they may be more likely to act illegally
in an attempt to address the conflict.
Indeed, using empirical data from
Wisconsin, researchers studied trends in
the illegal killing of wolves and
documented that rates of illegal take of
wolves in the State was higher during
periods of less management flexibility
(e.g., during periods when wolves were
federally protected) when compared to
more flexible State management that
permitted lethal control of depredating
wolves as a mitigation response (Olson
et al. 2014, entire). Another study
contradicted these results and indicated
that illegal take of wolves increased
during periods of State management in
Wisconsin and Michigan because, the
authors argued, the perceived value of
wolves declined as agencies increased
culling activities (Chapron and Treves
2016, entire). However, this analysis has
since been refuted by Olson et al. (2017,
entire) and Pepin et al. (2017, entire).
Furthermore, Stein (2017, entire)
reanalyzed the same data but included
variation in reproductive rates and
concluded that the use of lethal
depredation control to mitigate wolflivestock conflicts decreased the
likelihood of illegal take.
Strong emotions and divergent
viewpoints about wolves and wolf
management will continue regardless of
the Federal status of the species. We
expect that some segments of the public
will be more tolerant of wolf
management at the State level because
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
it may be perceived by some as more
flexible than Federal regulation,
whereas other segments may continue to
prefer Federal management due to a
perception that it is more protective.
State wildlife agencies have professional
staff dedicated to disseminating
accurate, science-based information
about wolves and wolf management.
They also have experience in managing
wildlife to maintain long-term
sustainable populations with
enforcement staff to enforce State
wildlife laws and regulations. To be
more inclusive of constituents with
different values, several States,
including Washington and Wisconsin,
have convened advisory committees to
engage multiple stakeholder groups in
discussing and addressing present and
future management in their respective
States (WDFW 2020, entire; WI DNR
2020, entire). As the status and
management of the gray wolf evolves,
continued collaboration between
managers and researchers to monitor
public attitudes toward wolves and their
management will help guide State
conservation actions.
Human-Caused Mortality Summary
Despite human-caused wolf mortality,
wolf populations have continued to
increase in both number and range since
the mid-to-late 1970s (Smith et al. 2010,
entire; O’Neil et al. 2017, entire;
Stenglein et al. 2018, entire). Although
legal mortality (primarily in the form of
legal harvest and lethal control) will
increase in the Great Lakes area after
delisting, as has occurred within the
NRM states of Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming, we do not expect that this
will have a significant effect on the wolf
population in this area. We also do not
expect to see significant increases in
human-caused mortality in the West
Coast States primarily because those
States have regulatory mechanisms in
place that balance wolf management
and wolf conservation. Similarly, we do
not expect that current, or potentially
increased, levels of human-caused
mortality post-delisting will have a
significant effect on the recolonization
and establishment of wolves in the
central Rocky Mountain States due to
the life-history characteristics of wolves
and their ability to recolonize vacant
suitable habitat. Furthermore, the
central Rocky Mountain States have
existing laws and regulations to
conserve wolves, and Utah has a
management plan that will be
implemented post-delisting to guide
wolf management in the State. Based on
knowledge gained about wolf
population responses to increases in
human-caused mortality during past
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
delisting efforts in the Great Lakes area,
as well as the currently delisted NRM
wolf population, we expect to see an
initial population decline followed by
fluctuations around an equilibrium
resulting from slight variations in birth
and death rates. Further, compensatory
mechanisms in wolf populations
provide some resiliency to perturbations
caused by increased human-caused
mortality. Wolves have evolved
mechanisms to compensate for
increased mortality, which makes
populations resilient to perturbations.
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
will use adaptive management to
respond to wolf population fluctuations
to maintain populations at sustainable
levels well above Federal recovery
requirements defined in the Revised
Recovery Plan. Because wolf population
numbers in each of these three States
are currently much higher than Federal
recovery requirements, we expect to see
some reduction in wolf populations in
the Great Lakes area when they are
delisted as States implement lethal
depredation control and decide whether
to institute wolf hunting seasons with
the objective of stabilizing or reversing
population growth. However, the States
have plans in place to achieve their goal
of maintaining wolf populations well
above Federal recovery targets (see Postdelisting Management).
The 2019 State management plan for
Oregon and the 2016 plan for California
do not include population-management
goals (Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW) 2019, p. 17; California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) 2016a, p. 12). While the 2011
Washington State management plan
does not include populationmanagement goals, it includes recovery
objectives intended to ensure the
reestablishment of a self-sustaining
population of wolves in Washington
(Wiles et al. 2011, p. 9). We expect these
States will manage wolves through
appropriate laws and regulations to
ensure recovery objectives outlined in
their respective wolf management plans
are achieved. The State management
plan for Utah, which will be
implemented when wolves are federally
delisted statewide, will guide
management of wolves until 2030 or
until at least two breeding pairs occur
in the State for two consecutive years,
or until the assumptions of the plan
change. For additional information on
management plans and objectives in
California, Oregon, Washington, and
Utah, see Post-delisting Management.
Habitat and Prey Availability
Gray wolves are habitat generalists
(Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 163) and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
once occupied or transited most of the
United States, except the Southeast. To
identify areas of suitable wolf habitat in
the lower 48 United States, researchers
have used models that relate the
distribution of wolves to characteristics
of the landscape. These models have
shown the presence of wolves is
correlated with prey density, livestock
density, landscape productivity, winter
rainfall, snow, topography, road density,
human density, land ownership, habitat
patch size, and forest cover (e.g.,
Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. 284–292;
Mladenoff et al. 1999, pp. 41–43; Carroll
et al. 2006, p. 542; Oakleaf et al. 2006,
pp. 558–559; and Hanley et al. 2018a,
pp. 6–8). Aside from direct and indirect
measures of prey availability and
livestock density, these environmental
variables are proxies for the likelihood
of wolf-human conflict and the ability of
wolves to escape human-caused
mortality. Therefore, predictions of
suitable habitat generally depict areas
with sufficient prey, where humancaused mortality is likely to be
relatively low due to limited human
access, high amounts of escape cover, or
relatively low numbers of wolf-livestock
conflicts. We consider suitable habitat
to be areas containing adequate wild
ungulate populations (e.g., elk and
deer), adequate habitat cover, and areas
with low enough wolf-human conflict
(which generally precipitates humancaused wolf mortality) to allow
populations to persist (see Mech 2017,
pp. 312–315).
Much of the area currently occupied
by wolves corresponds to what is
considered suitable wolf habitat in the
lower 48 United States as modeled by
Oakleaf et al. (2006, entire), Carroll et al.
(2006, entire), Mladenoff et al. (1995,
entire), and Mladenoff et al. (1999,
entire). Habitat and population models
indicate that, if human-caused wolf
mortality can be sufficiently limited,
wolves will likely continue to
recolonize areas of the Pacific
Northwest (Maletzke et al. 2015, entire;
ODFW 2015b, entire) and California
(Nickel and Walther 2019, pp. 386–389);
and could become established in the
central and southern Rocky Mountains
(Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27, 31–32), and
the Northeast (Mladenoff and Sickley
1998, p. 3). While it is also possible for
wolves to recolonize other non-forested
portions of their historical range in the
Midwest (Smith et al. 2016, entire),
relatively high densities of livestock and
limited hiding cover for wolves (forests)
in this region are likely reasons that
wolves have failed to recolonize this
area (Smith et al. 2016, pp. 560–561).
In addition to suitable habitat, we
assessed prey availability based on
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69813
population estimates and population
targets provided by State wildlife
agencies, as well as land management
activities that might affect prey
populations (see below). Prey
availability is a primary factor in
sustaining wolf populations. Each State
within wolf-occupied range manages its
wild ungulate populations sustainably.
States employ an adaptive-management
approach that adjusts hunter harvest in
response to changes in big game
population numbers and trends when
necessary, and predation is one of many
factors considered when setting seasons.
We acknowledge the continued spread
of chronic wasting disease (CWD)
among cervids in North America and
provide some additional information
here regarding our current state of
knowledge of this emerging disease and
potential impacts to wolf prey. CWD is
a contagious prion disease that affects
hoofed animals, such as deer, elk, and
moose, is neurodegenerative, rapidly
progressive, and always fatal (reviewed
by Escobar et al. 2020, entire). Prions are
the proteinaceous infection agents
responsible for prion diseases (Escobar
et al. 2020, p. 2) that are hardy in the
environment and can remain infective
for years to decades (reviewed by
Escobar et al. 2020, p. 8). CWD was first
identified in a Colorado research facility
in the 1960s, and in wild deer in 1981
(CDC 2020, unpaginated). CWD
continues to spread in North America
(Escobar et al. 2020, p. 24) and is
currently confirmed in 24 States (CDC
2020, unpaginated). Within the current
range of the gray wolf, CWD has been
confirmed in Montana, Wyoming,
Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan (CDC 2020, unpaginated).
While CWD has caused population
declines of deer and elk in some areas
(e.g., Miller et al. 2008, pp. 2–6;
Edmunds et al. 2016, p. 12; DeVivo et
al. 2017, entire), the prevalence of the
disease across the landscape is not
evenly distributed and there is still
much to learn about CWD prevalence,
the spatial distribution of the disease,
transmission, and the elusive properties
of prions (Escobar et al. 2020, pp. 7–13).
State wildlife agencies—all of whom
have a vested interest in maintaining
robust populations of deer, elk, and
moose—have developed surveillance
strategies and management response
plans to minimize and mitigate this
threat to cervids to the maximum extent
practicable (CPW 2018, entire; MFWP
2019a, entire; WGFD 2020b, entire; MI
DNR and MDARD 2012, entire; WI DNR
2010, entire; MN DNR 2019, entire;
IDFG 2018, entire). Simulation models
predict that predation by wolves and
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69814
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
other carnivores can lead to a significant
reduction in the prevalence of CWD
infections across the landscape (see
Hobbs 2006, p. 8; Wild et al. 2011, pp.
82–88), thereby slowing its spread,
partially because large carnivores
selectively prey on CWD-infected
individuals (Krumm et al. 2010, p. 210).
However, in areas of high disease
prevalence, prion epidemics can
negatively affect local prey populations
even with selective predation pressure
(Miller et al. 2008, p. 2). How prey
populations are altered by the
emergence of CWD at larger geographic
scales remains to be determined (Miller
et al. 2008, p. 2). While some have
speculated that wolves and other
carnivores may be vectors for spreading
the disease—or, conversely, slowing the
spread of the disease—neither has been
empirically shown in the wild (Escobar
et al. 2020, p. 10).
Great Lakes Area: Suitable Habitat
Various researchers have investigated
habitat suitability for wolves in the
central and eastern portions of the
United States. 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;
1999, pp. 39–43; Harrison and Chapin
1997, p. 3; 1998, pp. 769–770;
Mladenoff and Sickley 1998, pp. 1–8;
Wydeven et al. 2001, pp. 110–113; Erb
and Benson 2004, p. 2; Potvin et al.
2005, pp. 1661–1668; Mladenoff et al.
2009, pp. 132–135; Smith et al. 2016,
pp. 559–562).
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-caused 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 mi
per mi2 (0.6 to 0.7 km per km2) (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 mi2 (0.45 km
per km2) (Mladenoff et al. 1995, p. 289).
Later work showed that during early
colonization wolves selected some of
the lowest road density areas, but as the
wolf population grew and expanded,
wolves accepted areas with higher road
densities (Mladenoff et al. 2009, pp.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
129–136). Research in the Upper
Peninsula 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 Upper Peninsula. In
Minnesota, a combination of road
density and human density is used by
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (MN DNR) to model suitable
habitat. Areas with a human density up
to 20 people per mi2 (8 people per km2)
are suitable if they also have a road
density less than 0.8 mi per mi2 (0.5 km
per km2). Areas with a human density
of less than 10 people per mi2 (4 people
per km2) are suitable if they have road
densities up to 1.1 mi per mi2 (0.7 km
per km2) (Erb and Benson 2004, table 1).
Smith et al. (2016, p. 560) relied mainly
on road density and human population
density to assess potential wolf habitat
across the central United States, and
thus may show exaggerated potential for
wolf colonization, especially in the
western Great Plains that lack forest
cover.
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-caused wolf
mortality. A rural area with more roads
generally has a greater human density,
more vehicular traffic, greater access by
hunters and trappers, more farms and
residences, and more domestic animals.
As a result, there is a greater likelihood
that wolves in such an area will
encounter humans, domestic animals,
and various human activities. These
encounters may result in wolves being
hit by motor vehicles, being subjected to
government control actions 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). Stenglein et al. (2018, p. 106)
demonstrated that in the core of wolf
range and in high-quality habitat,
survival rate ranged 0.78–0.82. At the
edge of wolf range and into more
marginal habitat, survival rates declined
to 0.49–0.61 (Stenglein et al. 2018, p.
106). Also, natural mortality was more
prevalent in core habitat, whereas there
was a shift to a prominence of
human-caused mortality in more
marginal habitat (Stenglein et al. 2018,
p. 107).
Some researchers have used a road
density of 1 mi per mi2 (0.6 km per km2)
of land area as an upper threshold for
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 mi2 (0.45
km per km2) 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 mi2 (0.6 km per km2)
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).
The predictive ability of this model was
questioned (Mech 2006b, entire; Mech
2006c, entire) and responded to
(Mladenoff et al. 2006, entire), and an
updated analysis of Wisconsin pack
locations and habitat was completed
(Mladenoff et al. 2009, entire). This
model maintains that road density is
still an important indicator of suitable
wolf habitat; however, lack of
agricultural land is also a strong
predictor of habitat that wolves occupy.
Wisconsin researchers view areas
with greater than 50 percent probability
of wolf pack colonization and
persistence 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 (Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WI
DNR) 1999, 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 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 areas (Mech
1989, pp. 387–388; Wydeven et al. 2001,
p. 112). It appears that essentially all
suitable habitat in Minnesota is now
occupied, range expansion has slowed,
and the wolf population within the
State has stabilized (Erb and Benson
2004, p. 7; Erb and DonCarlos 2009, pp.
57, 60; Erb et al. 2018, pp. 5, 8). 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 (MN DNR
2001, appendix III).
Recent surveys for Wisconsin wolves
and wolf packs show that wolves have
recolonized the areas predicted by
habitat models to have low, moderate,
and high probability of occupancy
(primary and secondary wolf habitat).
The late-winter 2017–2018 Wisconsin
wolf survey identified packs occurring
throughout the central Wisconsin forest
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
area (Wolf Management Zone 2) and
across the northern forest zone (Zone 1),
with highest pack densities in the
northwest and north-central forest (WI
DNR 2018, entire). In Michigan, wolf
surveys in winter 2017–2018 continue
to show wolf pairs or packs (defined by
Michigan DNR as two or more wolves
traveling together) in every Upper
Peninsula County (MI DNR 2018,
entire).
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 Lower Peninsula 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
this area could support 46 to 89 wolves
while another study estimated that 110–
480 wolves could exist in the northern
Lower Peninsula (Potvin 2003, p. 39). A
recent study that assessed potential den
habitat and dispersal corridors in the
northern Lower Peninsula determined
that 736 mi2 (1,906 km2) of high-quality
den habitat existed in the region, but the
landscape has low permeability for wolf
movement (Stricker et al. 2019, pp. 87–
88). The northern Lower Peninsula is
separated from the Upper Peninsula by
the Straits of Mackinac, whose 4-mile
(6.4-km) width freezes during mid- and
late-winter in some years. In recent
years there have been two documented
occurrences of wolves in the northern
Lower Peninsula, but there has been no
indication of persistence beyond several
months. Prior to those occurrences, the
last recorded wolf in the Lower
Peninsula was in 1910.
These northern Lower Peninsula
patches of potentially suitable habitat
contain a great deal of private land, are
small in comparison to the occupied
habitat on the Upper Peninsula and in
Minnesota and Wisconsin, and are
intermixed with agricultural areas and
areas of higher road density (Gehring
and Potter 2005, p. 1240). The Gehring
and Potter study (2005, p. 1239)
predicted 850 mi2 (2,198 km2) of
suitable habitat (areas with greater than
a 50 percent probability of wolf
occupancy) in the northern Lower
Peninsula. Potvin (2003, p. 21), using
deer density in addition to road density,
believes there are about 3,090 mi2 (8,000
km2) of suitable habitat in the northern
Lower Peninsula. Gehring and Potter
(2005, p. 1239) exclude from their
calculations those northern Lower
Peninsula low-road-density patches that
are less than 19 mi2 (50 km2), while
Potvin (2003, pp. 10–15) does not limit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
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 mi2 (25,600 km2) of
contiguous suitable habitat is needed for
a viable isolated gray wolf population,
and half that area (5,000 mi2 or 12,800
km2) is needed to maintain a viable wolf
population that is subject to wolf
immigration from a nearby population
(USFWS 1992, pp. 25–26). Therefore,
continuing wolf immigration from the
Upper Peninsula may be necessary to
maintain a future northern Lower
Peninsula population.
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 western Great Lakes area
can be determined by considering four
factors: Road density, human density,
prey base, and area. An adequate prey
base is an absolute requirement. In
much of the western Great Lakes area,
with the exception of portions of the
Upper Peninsula of Michigan where
deep snow causes deer to congregate
(yard-up) during winter, thereby
limiting deer distribution and
availability, white-tailed deer densities
are well above management objectives
set forth by the States, causing the other
factors to become the determinants of
suitable habitat. Road density and
human density frequently are highly
correlated; therefore, road density is
often used as a 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 establish
territories in areas of small, isolated
patches of suitable habitat.
Great Lakes Area: Prey Availability
Deer (prey) decline, due to succession
of habitat and severe winter weather,
was identified as a threat at the time of
listing. Wolf density is heavily
dependent on prey availability (for
example, expressed as ungulate
biomass, Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 170–
171), and the primary prey of wolves in
the Great Lakes area is white-tailed deer,
with moose being the second most
important prey (DelGiudice et al. 2009,
pp. 162–163). Prey availability is high in
the Great Lakes area; white-tailed deer
populations in the region have
fluctuated (in response to natural
environmental conditions) throughout
the wolf recovery period, but have been
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69815
consistently at relatively high densities
(DelGiudice et al. 2009, p. 162).
Conservation of white-tailed deer and
moose in the Great Lakes area is a high
priority for State conservation agencies.
As MN DNR points out in its wolfmanagement plan (MN DNR 2001, p.
25), it manages ungulates to ensure a
harvestable surplus for hunters,
nonconsumptive users, and to minimize
conflicts with humans. To ensure a
harvestable surplus for hunters, MN
DNR must account for all sources of
natural mortality, including loss to
wolves, and adjust hunter harvest levels
when necessary. For example, after
severe winters in the 1990’s, MN DNR
modified hunter harvest levels to allow
for the recovery of the local deer
population (MN DNR 2001, p. 25). In
addition to regulating the human
harvest of deer and moose, MN DNR
also plans to continue to monitor and
improve habitat for these species.
Land management activities carried
out by other public agencies and by
private landowners 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.
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 primary
wolf range.
In Wisconsin, the statewide post-hunt
white-tailed deer population estimate
for 2017 was approximately 1,377,100
deer, approximately 2 percent higher
than in 2016 (Stenglein 2017, pp. 1–4).
In the Northern Forest Zone of the State,
the post-hunt population estimate has
ranged from approximately 250,000 deer
to more than 400,000 deer since 2002,
with an estimate of 405,300 in 2017.
Three consecutive mild winters and
limited antlerless harvest may explain
the population growth in the northern
deer herd in 2017. The Central Forest
Zone post-hunt population estimates
have been largely stable since 2009 at
60,000–80,000 deer on average, with an
estimate of 79,000 in 2017. The Central
Farmland Zone deer population has
increased since 2008, and the 2017 posthunt deer population estimate was
368,100. For a third year in a row, the
2017 post-hunt deer population estimate
in the Southern Farmland Zone
exceeded 250,000 deer.
Because of severe winter conditions
(persistent, deep snow) in the Upper
Peninsula, deer populations can
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69816
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
fluctuate dramatically from year to year.
In 2016, 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
2016, p. 16). Additionally, the Michigan
wolf-management plan addresses
maintaining a sustainable population of
wolf prey (MI DNR 2015, pp. 29–31).
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.
NRM DPS: Suitable Habitat
We refer the reader to our 2009 and
2012 final delisting rules (74 FR 15123,
April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September
10, 2012), which contain detailed
analyses of suitable wolf habitat in the
northern Rocky Mountains. A summary
of those analyses is provided below.
The northern Rocky Mountains
contain some of the best remaining
suitable habitat for wolves in the
Western United States (Carroll et al.
2006, figure 6). The region contains
relatively large blocks of undeveloped
public lands and some of the largest
blocks of wilderness in the coterminous
United States. Suitable wolf habitat in
the region is characterized by public
land with mountainous, forested habitat
that contains abundant year-round wild
ungulate populations, low road density,
low numbers of domestic livestock that
are only present seasonally, few
domestic sheep, low agricultural use,
and few people (Carroll et al. 2006, pp.
536–548; 2006, pp. 27–31; Oakleaf et al.
2006, pp. 555–558). Unsuitable wolf
habitat is typically the opposite (i.e.,
private land, flat open prairie or desert,
low or seasonal wild ungulate
populations, high road density, high
numbers of year-round domestic
livestock including many domestic
sheep, high levels of agricultural use,
and many people).
Based on a wolf habitat model
(Oakleaf et al. 2006, pp. 555–559) that
considered roads accessible to twowheel and four-wheel drive vehicles,
topography (slope and elevation), land
ownership, relative ungulate density
(based on State harvest statistics), cattle
(Bos sp.) and sheep density, vegetation
characteristics (ecoregions and land
cover), and human density, there is an
estimated 65,725 mi2 (170,228 km2) of
suitable habitat in Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming. Generally, suitable habitat is
located in western Montana west of I–
15 and south of I–90; Idaho north of I–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
84; and northwest Wyoming (see figure
1 in 73 FR 63926, October 28, 2008).
The current distribution of wolves in
the northern Rocky Mountains generally
mirrors Oakleaf et al.’s (2006, p. 559)
prediction of suitable habitat, indicating
that it is a reasonable approximation of
where suitable habitat exists.
NRM DPS: Prey Availability
We refer the reader to our 2009 and
2012 final delisting rules (74 FR 15123,
April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September
10, 2012), which contain analyses of
prey availability in the northern Rocky
Mountains. A summary of those
analyses, with updated information on
ungulate numbers and references to
ungulate management plans, is provided
below.
Wild ungulate prey in the NRM is
composed mainly of elk, but also
includes deer, moose, and—in the
Greater Yellowstone Area—bison.
Bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and
pronghorn antelope also are common
but relatively unimportant as wolf prey.
In total, State population estimates
indicate that, in Idaho, there are
approximately 100,000 elk (IDFG 2014d,
p. 1), between 250,000 to 325,000 mule
deer (IDFG 2019a, p. 1), and an
unknown, but large, number of whitetailed deer (IDFG 2019b, entire); in
Montana, there are approximately
134,000 elk (MFWP 2020a, p. 3), over
300,000 mule deer (MFWP 2020b, p. 1),
and almost 200,000 white-tailed deer
(MFWP 2020c, p. 1); and, in
Yellowstone National Park, there are
approximately 10,000–20,000 elk in
summer, 4,000 elk in winter (NPS
2020a, entire), tens of thousands of elk
outside of YNP in northwest Wyoming
(WGFD 2019a, b, c, d, entire), 5,000
bison (NPS 2020b, entire), and an
additional 396,000 mule deer in the
State (Mule Deer Working Group 2018,
p. 1). The States in the NRM have
successfully managed resident ungulate
populations for decades. Since we
delisted the NRM, these States have
continued to maintain relatively high
densities of ungulate populations along
with a large, well distributed, and
recovered wolf population. State
ungulate management plans commit
them to maintaining ungulate
populations at densities that will
continue to support a recovered wolf
population well into the foreseeable
future (For examples of State ungulate
management plans and adaptive harvest
strategies, see IDFG 2014d, 2019a,
2019b, entire; MFWP 2001, 2014,
entire).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
West Coast States: Suitable Habitat
In Washington, wolves are expected
to persist in habitats with similar
characteristics to those identified by
Oakleaf et al. (2006 in Wiles et al. 2011,
p. 50) and as described above. Several
modeling studies have estimated
potentially suitable wolf habitat in
Washington with most predicting
suitable habitat in northeastern
Washington, the Blue Mountains, the
Cascade Mountains, and the Olympic
Peninsula. Total area estimates in these
studies range from approximately
16,900 mi2 (43,770 km2) to 41,500 mi2
(107,485 km2) (Wiles et al. 2011, pp. 51,
53; Maletzke et al. 2015, p. 3).
The Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW) developed a map of
‘‘potential gray wolf range’’ as part of its
recent status review of wolves in Oregon
(ODFW 2019, Appendix D). The model
used predictors of wolf habitat
including land-cover type, elk range,
human population density, road
density, and land types altered by
humans; they chose to exclude public
land ownership because wolves will use
forested cover on both public and
private lands (ODFW 2019, p. 147).
Approximately 41,256 mi2 (106,853
km2) were identified as potential wolf
range in Oregon. The resulting map
coincides well with the current
distribution of wolves in Oregon. The
ODFW estimates that wolves occupy
31.6 percent of the potential wolf range
in the east management zone (the
majority of wolves here are under State
management) and 2.7 percent of
potential wolf range in the western
management zone (all wolves here are
under Federal management) (ODFW
2019, p. 153).
Habitat models developed for the
northern Rocky Mountains (e.g., Oakleaf
et al. 2006, entire; Larsen and Ripple
2006, entire; Carroll et al. 2006, entire)
may have limited applicability to
California due to differences in
geography, distribution of habitat types,
distribution and abundance of prey,
potential restrictions for movement, and
human habitation (CDFW 2016b, pp.
154, 156). Despite these challenges,
CDFW used these models to determine
that wolves are most likely to occupy
three general areas: (1) The Klamath
Mountains and portions of the northern
California Coast Ranges; (2) the southern
Cascades, the Modoc Plateau, and
Warner Mountains; and (3) the Sierra
Nevada Mountain Range (CDFW 2016b,
p. 20). These areas were identified as
having a higher potential for wolf
occupancy based on prey abundance,
amount of public land ownership, and
forest cover, whereas other areas were
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
less suitable due to human influences
(CDFW 2016b, p. 156). Using a different
approach and modeling technique,
Nickel and Walther (2019, pp. 387–398)
largely affirmed CDFW’s conclusions
regarding areas maintaining a high
potential for wolf recolonization. As
wolves continue to expand into
California, models may be refined to
better estimate habitat suitability and
the potential for wolf occupancy.
fluctuations in habitat suitability as a
result of logging, burning, and grazing.
Across the West, including California,
mule deer populations have been
declining since the late 1960s due to
multiple factors including loss of
habitat, drought, predation, and
competition with livestock, but, as
noted above, deer are a secondary prey
when elk are present (CDFW 2016b, p.
147).
West Coast States: Prey Availability
The Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife recently conducted a
Wildlife Program 2015–2017 Ungulate
Assessment to identify ungulate
populations that are below management
objectives or may be negatively affected
by predators (WDFW 2016, entire). The
assessment covers white-tailed deer,
mule deer, black-tailed deer, Rocky
Mountain elk, Roosevelt elk, bighorn
sheep, and moose (WDFW 2016, p. 12).
Washington defines an at-risk ungulate
population as one that falls 25 percent
below its population objective for 2
consecutive years and/or one in which
the harvest decreases by 25 percent
below the 10-year-average harvest rate
for 2 consecutive years (WDFW 2016, p.
13). Based on available information, the
2016 report concludes that no ungulate
populations in Washington were
considered to be at-risk (WDFW 2016, p.
13).
In Oregon, 20 percent of Roosevelt elk
populations are at or above management
objectives; however, the populations
within the western two-thirds of Oregon
are generally stable (ODFW 2019, p. 66).
Rocky Mountain elk are above
management objectives in 63 percent of
populations and are considered to be
stable or increasing across the State
(ODFW 2019, p. 66). Mule deer and
black-tailed deer populations peaked in
the mid-1900s and have since declined,
likely due to human development,
changes in land use, predation, and
disease (ODFW 2019, p. 66). Whitetailed deer populations, including
Columbian white-tailed deer, are small,
but are increasing in distribution and
abundance (ODFW 2019, p. 69). In
Oregon, deer are a secondary prey item
when elk are present (ODFW 2019, pp.
57, 61).
In California, declines of historical
ungulate populations were the result of
overexploitation by humans dating back
to the 19th century (CDFW 2016b, p.
147). However, elk distribution and
abundance have increased due to
implementation of harvest regulations,
reintroduction efforts, and natural
expansion (CDFW 2016b, p. 147). Mule
deer also experienced overexploitation,
but were also more likely subject to
Central Rocky Mountains: Suitable
Habitat
Models developed to assess habitat
suitability and the probability of wolf
occupancy indicate that Colorado
contains adequate habitat to support a
population of wolves, although the
number of wolves the State could
support is variable.—Based on mule
deer and elk biomass, a pack size of
between 5 and 10 wolves, and a
reduction in available winter range due
to increased snow depths, Bennett
(1994, pp. 112, 275–280) estimated that
the probable wolf population size in
Colorado would range between 407 and
814 wolves. Carroll et al. (2003, entire)
examined multiple models to evaluate
suitable wolf habitat, occupancy, and
the probability of wolf persistence given
various landscape changes and potential
increases in human density in the
southern Rocky Mountains, which
included portions of southeast
Wyoming, Colorado, and northern New
Mexico. Using a resource selection
function (RSF) model developed for
wolves in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem and projecting it to Colorado,
Carroll et al. (2003, pp. 541–542)
identified potential wolf habitat across
north-central and northwest Colorado
and also in the southwestern part of the
State. RSF model predictions indicate
that Colorado could support an
estimated 1,305 wolves with nearly 87
percent of wolves occupying public
lands in the State. Carroll et al. (2003,
entire) also used a dynamic model that
incorporated population viability
analysis to evaluate wolf occupancy and
persistence based on current conditions
as well as potential changes resulting
from increased road and human
densities in the future. The dynamic
model based on current conditions
predicted similar distribution and wolf
population estimates as the RSF model;
however, as predicted, as road and
human densities increased in Colorado,
the availability of suitable habitat and
the estimated number of wolves that
habitat could support declined (Carroll
et al. 2003, pp. 541–543).
An evaluation by Switalski et al.
(2002, p. 9) indicated that the most
likely avenues for dispersing wolves to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69817
enter Utah from Idaho and Wyoming
were via the Bear River Range and
Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area
in the northern part of the State. A wolf
habitat suitability model was developed
for Utah to identify areas most likely to
support wolf occupancy in the State
(Switalski et al. 2002, pp. 11–15). The
model evaluated five habitat
characteristics that included estimates
of prey abundance, estimates of road
density, proximity to year-round water
sources, elevation, and topography.
Although the resulting model identified
primarily forested and mountainous
areas of Utah as suitable wolf habitat, an
area over 13,900 mi2 (36,000 km2), it
was highly fragmented as a result of
high road densities. Nonetheless, six
relatively large core areas of contiguous
habitat were identified that ranged in
size from approximately 127 mi2 to
2,278 mi2 (330 km2 to 5,900 km2)
(Switalski et al. 2002, p. 13). Although
these estimates should be considered
maximums, it was estimated that the six
core areas have the potential to support
up to 214 wolves and the entirety of
Utah could theoretically support over
700 wolves (Switalski et al. 2002, pp.
15–16). Without concerted efforts to
minimize human-caused mortality and
with low levels of immigration from
neighboring populations, wolves
recolonizing Utah would likely exist in
small numbers and increase slowly,
which could elevate local extinction
risk (Switalski et al. 2002, p. 16).
An analysis similar to that of Carroll
et al. (2003, entire) was conducted for
the entirety of the Western United States
and indicated that high-quality wolf
habitat exists in Colorado and Utah, but
that wolves recolonizing Colorado and
Oregon would be most vulnerable to
landscape changes because these areas
lack, and are greater distances from,
large core refugia (Carroll et al. 2006,
pp. 33–36). The authors proposed that
habitat improvements, primarily in the
form of road removal or closures, could
mitigate these effects (Carroll et al. 2006,
p. 36). Switalski et al. (2002, pp. 12–13)
and Carroll et al. (2003, p. 545) also
cautioned that model predictions may
be inaccurate because they did not
account for the presence of livestock
and the potential use of lethal removal
to mitigate wolf conflicts, which may
affect wolf persistence and distribution
in some areas of Colorado and Utah.
Central Rocky Mountains: Prey
Availability
Colorado Parks and Wildlife manages
ungulate populations using Herd
Management Plans which establish
population objective minimums and
maximums for each ungulate herd in the
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69818
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
State (Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2019,
unpaginated). The Herd Management
Plans consider both biological and
social factors when setting herd
objective ranges. All of the following
information on ungulates is from the
2019 Colorado Parks and Wildlife
ungulate summary report (Colorado
Parks and Wildlife 2019, entire). Similar
to other western States, mule deer in
Colorado have declined due to a
multitude of factors since the 1970s to
a statewide population estimate of
433,100 animals in 2018, which was
well below the minimum statewide
population objective of 500,450. In
2018, of 54 mule deer herds in the State,
23 were below their population
objective minimum with the western
part of the State being the most affected.
In contrast, elk populations in Colorado
are stable with a winter population
estimate of 287,000 elk in 2018.
Although 22 of 42 elk herds are above
the maximum population objective, the
ratio of calves per 100 cows (a measure
of overall herd fitness) has been on the
decline in some southwestern herd
units, and research has been initiated to
determine potential causes. Moose are
not native to Colorado, so to create
hunting and wildlife viewing
opportunities, Colorado Parks and
Wildlife transplanted moose to the State
beginning in 1978 and has since
transplanted moose on four other
occasions through 2010. In 2018, the
moose population was estimated at
3,200 animals and continues to increase
as moose expand into new areas of the
State. In summary, while deer and elk
numbers are down from their peak
populations in some parts of Colorado,
they still number in the hundreds of
thousands of individuals, and the State
is actively managing populations to
meet objectives. In addition, as of the
latest estimates, elk numbers exceed
their population objectives in 22 of 42
herds (Colorado Parks and Wildlife
2019, p. 8). Introduced moose provide
an additional potential food resource for
wolves in some parts of the State.
The Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources manages ungulate
populations by establishing population
objectives at the herd unit level and
directing management efforts, primarily
through public harvest, to achieve
population goals for each herd unit. The
summation of herd unit objectives can
be considered a statewide objective for
the species. Since a population decline
during the winter of 1992–1993, mule
deer populations in Utah have shown a
generally increasing overall trend with a
2018 estimate of 372,500 animals in the
State, an average increase of 1.6 percent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
annually (Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources 2019, unpaginated). This
estimate is 82 percent of the long-term
statewide objective of 453,100 mule
deer. The biggest threats to mule deer in
Utah are habitat degradation and loss
combined with unfavorable weather
conditions (Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources 2019, unpaginated). Elk
populations in Utah have increased
from an average of slightly over 60,000
from 1995 to 2005 to an average
estimate of slightly over 80,000 between
2012 and 2017 (Bernales et al. 2018, pp.
104–105). The 2017 statewide elk
population estimate was 80,955 elk,
which is marginally higher than the
population objective of 78,215 elk.
Moose are relatively recent migrants to
Utah, first being documented in the
early 1900s. Since that time, moose have
dispersed, or been transplanted, to
occupy suitable habitats primarily in the
north half of the State. In Utah, moose
are susceptible to habitat limitations
caused by increasing densities and, as a
result, are proactively managed at
appropriate densities to prevent
population declines caused by habitat
limitations due to high moose densities
(Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
2017, unpaginated). Moose populations
in Utah are estimated on a 3-year cycle,
and as of 2016, an estimated 2,469
moose inhabited the State. Switalski et
al. (2002, p. 18) suggested that a wolf
population of 200 animals would not
have a significant effect on ungulate
populations in Utah; however, although
the magnitude of effects would be
difficult to predict, some local herd
units may be disproportionately affected
by wolves. In summary, deer and elk
populations in Utah are increasing
(Bernales et al. 2018, pp. 104–105; Utah
Division of Wildlife Resources 2019,
unpaginated), and habitat models
estimate that the State is theoretically
capable of supporting several hundred
wolves if wolf-human conflicts can be
addressed (Switalski et al. 2002, pp. 15–
16).
Habitat and Prey Availability Summary
Sufficient suitable habitat exists in the
Lower 48 United States to continue to
support wolves into the future. Current
land-use practices throughout the vast
majority of the species’ current range in
the United States do not appear to be
affecting the viability of wolves. We do
not anticipate overall habitat changes
will occur at a magnitude that would
affect gray wolves across their range in
the lower 48 United States, because
wolves are broadly distributed in two
large metapopulations and are able to
withstand high levels of mortality due
to their high reproductive capacity and
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
vagility (the ability of an organism to
move about freely and migrate) (Fuller
et al. 2003, p. 163; Boitani 2003, pp.
328–330). Further, much of the area
occupied by gray wolves occurs on
public land where wolf conservation is
a priority and conservation plans have
been adopted to ensure continued wolf
persistence (see Federal Lands
discussion under Management in the
NRM DPS and Post-delisting
Management) (73 FR 10538, February
27, 2008).
Prey availability is an important factor
in maintaining wolf populations. Native
ungulates (e.g., deer, elk, and moose) are
the primary prey within the range of
gray wolves in the lower 48 United
States. Each State within wolf-occupied
range manages its wild ungulate
populations sustainably. States employ
an adaptive-management approach that
adjusts hunter harvest in response to
changes in big game population
numbers and trends when necessary,
and predation is one of many factors
considered when setting seasons. While
we are aware of CWD as an emerging
contagious disease threat to deer and
elk, the ultimate impact of CWD and its
prevalence across the landscape are still
largely unknown. To address this
emerging threat, States have developed
robust surveillance and response plans
for CWD to minimize and mitigate
impacts.
Disease and Parasites
Although disease and parasites were
not identified as a threat at the time of
listing, a wide range of diseases and
parasites has been reported for the gray
wolf, and several of them have had
temporary impacts during the recovery
of the species in the lower 48 United
States (Brand et al. 1995, p. 419; WI
DNR 1999, p. 61, Kreeger 2003, pp. 202–
214; Bryan et al. 2012, pp. 785–788;
Stronen et al. 2011, entire). Although
some diseases may be destructive to
individuals, most of them seldom have
long-term, population-level effects
(Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 176–178; Kreeger
2003, pp. 202–214). All States that
presently have wolf populations also
have some sort of disease-monitoring
program that may include direct
observation of wolves to assess potential
disease indicators or biological sample
collection with subsequent analysis at a
laboratory. Although Washington has
not submitted biological samples for
analysis, samples have been collected
and laboratory analysis is planned for
the future (Roussin 2018, pers. comm.).
Also, in the central Rocky Mountain
States, Colorado Parks and Wildlife
adopted the recommendations of the
Colorado Wolf Management Working
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Group (see Post De-listing Management)
to conduct basic monitoring and
surveillance of wolf health via general
assessments of captured wolves,
necropsies performed on dead wolves,
and analysis of biological samples
(Colorado Wolf Management Working
Group 2004, p. 37). The Utah Division
of Wildlife Resources developed
guidelines to ensure the proper
collection and preservation of biological
samples, which can be used to assess
overall wolf health, disease, and
parasite loads (UDWR 2020, pers
comm).
Canine parvovirus (CPV) infects
wolves, domestic dogs (Canis
familiaris), foxes (Vulpes vulpes),
coyotes, skunks (Mephitis mephitis),
and raccoons (Procyon lotor). Canine
parvovirus has been detected in nearly
every wolf population in North America
including Alaska (Bailey et al. 1995, p.
441; Brand et al. 1995, p. 421; Kreeger
2003, pp. 210–211; Johnson et al. 1994,
pp. 270–272; ODFW 2014, p. 7), and
exposure in wolves is thought to be
almost universal. Nearly 100 percent of
the wolves handled in Montana
(Atkinson 2006, pp. 3–4), Yellowstone
National Park (Smith and Almberg 2007,
p. 18), Minnesota (Mech and Goyal
1993, p. 331), and Oregon (ODFW 2017,
p. 8) had blood antibodies indicating
nonlethal exposure to CPV. Clinical
CPV is characterized by severe
hemorrhagic diarrhea and vomiting,
which leads to dehydration, electrolyte
imbalances, debility, and shock and
may eventually lead to death.
Based on data collected 1973–2004 in
northeastern Minnesota, Mech et al.
(2008, p. 824) concluded that CPV
reduced pup survival, subsequent
dispersal, and the overall rate of
population growth of wolves in
Minnesota (a population near carrying
capacity in suitable habitat). After the
CPV became endemic in the population
(around 1979), the population
developed immunity and was able to
withstand severe effects from the
disease (Mech and Goyal 1993, pp. 331–
332). These observed effects are
consistent with results from studies in
smaller, isolated populations in
Wisconsin and on Isle Royale, Michigan
(Wydeven et al. 1995, entire; Peterson et
al. 1998, entire), but indicate that CPV
also had only a temporary effect in a
larger population.
Canine distemper virus (CDV) is an
acute disease of carnivores that has been
known in Europe since the sixteenth
century and infects canids worldwide
(Kreeger 2003, p. 209). This disease
generally infects pups when they are
only a few months old, so mortality in
wild wolf populations might be difficult
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
to detect (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 420–
421). There have been few documented
cases of mortality from CDV among wild
wolves; for example, it has been
documented in two littermate pups in
Manitoba (Carbyn 1982, pp. 111–112),
in two Alaskan yearling wolves
(Peterson et al. 1984, p. 31), in seven
Wisconsin wolves (five adults and two
pups) (Thomas in litt. 2006; Wydeven
and Wiedenhoeft 2003, p. 20;
Wiedenhoeft et al. 2018, p. 5), and in at
least two wolves in Michigan (Beyer
2019, pers. comm.). Carbyn (1982, pp.
113–116) concluded that CDV was
partially responsible for a 50-percent
decline in the wolf population in Riding
Mountain National Park (Manitoba,
Canada) in the mid-1970s. Studies in
Yellowstone National Park have shown
that CDV outbreaks can contribute to
short-term population effects through
significantly reduced pup survivorship,
though these effects may be offset by
other factors influencing reproductive
success (Almberg et al. 2009, p. 5;
Almberg et al. 2012, p. 2848; Stahler et
al. 2013, pp. 227–229). Serological
evidence indicates that exposure to CDV
is high among some wolf populations—
29 percent in northern Wisconsin and
79 percent in central Wisconsin from
2002 to 2003 (Wydeven and
Wiedenhoeft 2003, pp. 23–24, table 7)
and 2004 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft
2004, pp. 23–24, table 7), and similar
levels in Yellowstone National Park
(Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18).
Exposure to CDV was first documented
in Oregon in 2016 (n=3; ODFW 2017, p.
8), but no mortalities or clinical signs of
the disease were observed. The
continued strong recruitment in
Wisconsin and elsewhere in North
American wolf populations, however,
indicates that while distemper may
cause population-level decreases in the
short term, it is not likely a significant
cause of mortality over longer periods
(Almberg et al. 2009, p. 9; Brand et al.
1995, p. 421).
Lyme disease, caused by a spirochete
bacterium, is spread primarily by deer
ticks (Ixodes dammini). Host species
include humans, horses (Equus
caballus), dogs, white-tailed deer, mule
deer, elk, white-footed mice
(Peromyscus leucopus), eastern
chipmunks (Tamias striatus), coyotes,
and wolves. A study of wolves in
Wisconsin found exposure to Lyme
disease in 65.6 percent of individuals,
with exposure increasing during the
period from 1985 to 2011 (Jara et al.
2016, pp. 5–9). Clinical symptoms have
not been reported in wolves, but based
on impacts seen in other mammals,
individuals can likely experience
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69819
debilitating conditions, perhaps
contributing to their mortality; however,
Lyme disease is not considered to be a
significant factor affecting wolf
populations (Kreeger 2003, p. 212; Jara
et al. 2016, p. 13).
Mange has been detected in wolves
throughout North America (Brand et al.
1995, pp. 427–428; Kreeger 2003, pp.
207–208). Mange mites (Sarcoptes
scabeii) infest the skin of the host,
causing irritation due to feeding and
burrowing activities. This causes
intense itching that results in scratching
and hair loss. Mortality may occur due
to exposure, primarily in cold weather,
emaciation, or secondary infections
(Almberg et al. 2012, pp. 2842, 2848;
Knowles et al. 2017, entire; Kreeger
2003, pp. 207–208). Mange mites are
spread from an infected individual
through direct contact with others or
through the use of common areas. In a
long-term Alberta 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, pp.
427–428). Mange has been shown to
temporarily affect wolf population
growth-rates in some areas (Kreeger
2003, p. 208), but not others (Wydeven
et al. 2009b, pp. 96–97). In Montana and
Wyoming, the percentage of packs with
mange fluctuated between 3 and 24
percent annually from 2003 to 2008
(Jimenez et al. 2010, pp. 331–332;
Atkinson 2006, p. 5; Smith and Almberg
2007, p. 19). In packs with the most
severe infestations, pup survival
appeared low, and some adults died
(Jimenez et al. 2010, pp. 331–332);
however, evidence indicates infestations
do not normally become chronic
because wolves often naturally
overcome them.
Dog-biting lice (Trichodectes canis)
commonly feed on domestic dogs, but
can infest coyotes and wolves (Schwartz
et al. 1983, p. 372; Mech et al. 1985, p.
404). The lice can attain severe
infestation levels, particularly in pups.
The worst infestations can result in
severe scratching, irritated and raw skin,
substantial hair loss particularly in the
groin, and poor condition. While no
wolf mortality has been confirmed,
death from exposure and/or secondary
infection following self-inflicted trauma
caused by inflammation and itching
may be possible. Dog-biting lice were
confirmed on two wolves in Montana in
2005, on a wolf in south-central Idaho
in early 2006 (USFWS et al. 2006, p. 15;
Atkinson 2006, p. 5; Jimenez et al. 2010,
pp. 331–332), and in 4 percent of
Minnesota wolves in 2003 through 2005
(Paul in litt. 2005), but their infestations
were not severe. Dog-biting lice
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69820
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
infestations are not expected to have a
significant impact even at a local scale.
Other diseases and parasites,
including rabies, canine heartworm,
blastomycosis, bacterial myocarditis,
granulomatous pneumonia, brucellosis,
leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis,
hookworm, coccidiosis, canine
hepatitis, canine adenovirus-1, canine
herpesvirus, anaplasmosis, ehrlichiosis,
echinococcus granulosus, and oral
papillomatosis have been documented
in wild wolves, but their impacts on
future wild wolf populations are not
likely to be significant (Almberg et al.
2009, p. 4; Almberg et al. 2012, pp.
2847, 2849; Brand et al. 1995, pp. 419–
429; Bryan et al. 2012, pp. 785–788;
Hassett in litt. 2003; Jara et al. 2016, p.
13; Johnson 1995, pp. 431, 436–438;
Knowles et al. 2017, entire; Mech and
Kurtz 1999, pp. 305–306; Thomas in litt.
1998, Thomas in litt. 2006, WI DNR
1999, p. 61; Foreyt et al. 2009, p. 1208;
Kreeger 2003, pp. 202–214).
Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding
There were no genetic concerns for
the gray wolf identified at the time of
listing. Improved genetic techniques
since then have vastly improved our
understanding of population genetics
and the potential consequences of range
and population contraction and
expansion. For example, research has
firmly established that genetic issues
such as inbreeding depression can be a
significant concern in small wild
populations, with potentially serious
implications for population viability
(Frankham 2010, entire). Inbreeding is
caused by the mating of close relatives
and can result in increased prevalence
or expression of deleterious mutations
within a population, leading to various
negative effects on fitness, referred to as
inbreeding depression (see Robinson et
al. 2019, entire, and references therein).
Inbreeding depression, as evidenced
by physiological anomalies or other
effects on fitness, has been documented
in wild wolf populations, including
Scandinavian wolves (Vila et al. 2003,
entire; Raikkonen et al. 2013, entire;
Akesson et al. 2016, p. 4746), Mexican
wolves (Asa et al. 2007, entire;
Fredrickson et al. 2007, entire; Robinson
et al. 2019, entire), and Isle Royale
wolves (Hedrick et al. 2019, entire;
Robinson et al. 2019, entire). In each of
these cases, the population size or
number of founders was very small, and
the population was completely or nearly
completely isolated over several
generations.
Although inbreeding depression has
been documented in wolves, there are
signs that wolves are adept at avoiding
inbreeding when possible (vonHoldt et
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
al. 2008, entire). Reintroduced and
naturally expanding populations in the
northern Rocky Mountains showed low
levels of inbreeding even in the
Yellowstone and Idaho populations,
which were begun with a limited
number of founders (vonHoldt et al.
2008, entire; vonHoldt et al. 2010, pp.
4416–4417). Moreover, in both the
Scandinavian wolves and Mexican
wolves, many of the effects of
inbreeding depression were mitigated
by relatively small influxes of additional
wolves (i.e., new genetic material) into
the population (Vila et al. 2003, entire;
Fredrickson et al. 2007, entire; vonHoldt
et al. 2008, p. 262; vonHoldt et al. 2010,
p. 4421; Akesson et al. 2016, entire;
Wayne and Hedrick 2011, entire).
Harding et al. (2016, p. 154), in an
examination of recovery goals for
Mexican wolves, provides a list of wolf
populations that experienced notably
low numbers but later recovered and are
increasing or stable.
Aside from the unique situation on
Isle Royale, where infrequent migrations
to the island appear to have been too
limited to reduce the effects of
inbreeding depression (Hedrick et al.
2014, entire; Hedrick et al. 2019, entire),
we are not aware of any instances of
inbreeding or inbreeding depression
within the lower 48 United States,
though there are indications that
inbreeding may have occurred during
the course of recovery in the Great Lakes
area (Fain et al. 2010, p. 1760).
Although Leonard et al. (2005, entire)
examined historical genetic diversity
and concluded that a significant amount
has likely been lost, current populations
have high levels of genetic diversity in
the Great Lakes area (Koblmu¨ller 2009,
p. 2322; Fain et al. 2010, p. 1758;
Gomez-Sanchez et al. 2018, p. 3602),
including an analysis of samples from
Minnesota that indicated large effective
population sizes 4 over a long period
(Robinson et al. 2019. p. 2). In fact,
likely due to connectivity with wolves
in Canada, there is no evidence of a
population bottleneck in Minnesota.
Instead, the range reduction and
subsequent expansion seems to more
accurately resemble contraction of a
larger range rather than an isolated
bottleneck (Koblmu¨ller et al. 2009, p.
2322; Rick et al. 2017, p. 1101).
Similarly, wolves in Washington,
Oregon, and California can trace most of
their ancestry to populations in the
northern Rocky Mountains that have
4 Effective population size is the size of an
idealized, randomly mating population that
experiences genetic drift, or the random loss of
alleles, at the same rate as the population of
interest.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
been shown to have high genetic
diversity, low levels of inbreeding, and
connectivity with the large Canadian
wolf population to the north (Forbes
and Boyd 1996, entire; Gomez-Sanchez
et al. 2018, p. 3602; vonHoldt et al.
2008, entire; vonHoldt et al. 2010,
entire).
An important factor for maintaining
genetic diversity can be connectivity or
effective dispersal between populations
or subpopulations (Raikonnen et al.
2013, entire; Wayne and Hedrick 2011,
entire). As noted in the final delisting
rule for the northern Rocky Mountains,
connectivity was an important factor in
ensuring the long-term viability of that
metapopulation (74 FR 15123, April 2,
2009). Similarly, the potential lack of
connectivity between Wyoming’s
population and the rest of the
metapopulation in the northern Rocky
Mountains was noted as a concern in
the subsequent delisting rule for
Wyoming (77 FR 55530, September 10,
2012). To address those concerns, Idaho
and Montana each signed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with the Service that committed to
monitoring and managing the
population to ensure sufficient
connectivity (Groen et al. 2008, entire).
Wyoming signed a nearly identical
MOU in 2012, prior to the final rule
delisting wolves there (Talbott and
Guertin 2012, entire). With each MOU,
a range of management options, up to
and including translocation of
individual wolves, was made available
to address any noted deficiencies in
effective dispersal, thereby mitigating
concerns of negative genetic effects due
to delisting those wolves. Such
measures have not been necessary since
the MOUs were signed, and are unlikely
to become necessary in the future, as
natural dispersal within the
metapopulation has been and is
expected to remain sufficient.
Connectivity has been investigated in
other parts of the species’ range as well.
In the Great Lakes area, dispersal and
interbreeding appears to be occurring
both among Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan and also between these States
and the population in Canada (Fain et
al. 2010, p. 1758; Wheeldon et al. 2010,
p. 4438). In the West Coast States,
wolves have dispersed from Montana,
Idaho, and the Greater Yellowstone area
to form packs in Oregon and
Washington (Jimenez et al. 2017, entire;
Hendricks et al. 2018, entire), while
individuals from Oregon and
Washington have dispersed both within
and across their respective State borders
as well as to California, other northern
Rocky Mountains States, and Canada to
join existing packs or to find a mate and
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
form a new pack (USFWS 2020, pp. 16–
18). In addition, the presence of
admixed coastal/northern Rocky
Mountain individuals in Washington
indicates that coastal wolves or their
admixed progeny have dispersed
successfully from Canada into the State
(Hendricks et al. 2018, entire) and are
living in Washington’s interior.
Delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48
United States may have the effect of
reducing connectivity among the more
central areas of the large
metapopulations in the Great Lakes area
or the Western United States and more
peripheral areas in those or other States.
Such a reduction might be caused by
increased mortality of dispersing
individuals (Smith et al. 2010, p. 627)
or of individuals in established packs on
the periphery of occupied range (O’Neil
et al. 2017b, p. 9525; Stenglein et al.
2018, pp. 104–106; Mech et al. 2019, pp.
62–63) and could result in decreased
genetic diversity and increased
likelihood of inbreeding in those
peripheral packs if they become
isolated. Rick et al. (2017, entire)
examined genetic diversity and
structuring in Minnesota prior and then
following a year of harvest during the
period when wolves were delisted in
the State. The results showed no
difference in genetic diversity, a slight
increase in large-scale genetic
structuring, and some differences in the
geography of effective dispersal.
Because the study contained only 2
years of data, however, it is difficult to
draw conclusions about long-term
effects or to discern the cause or causes
of the observed differences.
We acknowledge that some level of
genetic effects to wolf populations is
likely to occur following delisting and
may include changes in genetic
diversity or population structuring
(Allendorf et al. 2008, entire). These
changes, however, are not likely to be of
such a magnitude that they pose a
significant threat to the species.
Available evidence indicates that
continued dispersal, even at a lower
rate, within and among areas of the
lower 48 United States should be
adequate to maintain sufficient genetic
diversity for continued viability.
Increased effects to smaller, peripheral
populations are certainly possible as
wolves continue to disperse and
recolonize areas within their historical
range, but evidence of inbreeding
avoidance (vonHoldt et al. 2008, entire)
and the demonstrated benefits of even
relatively low numbers of effective
dispersers (Wayne and Hedrick 2011,
entire; Vila et al. 2003, entire; Akesson
et al. 2016, entire) indicate that
instances of inbreeding depression
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
would not likely be widespread or
impact the larger population. The
maintenance of genetic diversity could
also be enhanced in core populations
due to moderate increases in humancaused mortality that results in more
social openings being created and filled
by dispersing individuals. Moreover, the
genetic isolation of peripheral packs or
individual wolves is not likely to impact
the larger metapopulations from which
those individuals originated.
Management plans in place in States in
the Great Lakes area, for example, will
likely ensure that connectivity within
those areas remains sufficiently high to
avoid potential genetic impacts.
Effects of Climate Change
Effects of climate change were not
identified as threats at the time of
listing. There is research indicating that
climate change could affect gray wolves
through impacts to prey species
(Hendricks et al. 2018, unpaginated;
Weiskopf et al. 2019, entire) or
increased exposure to diseases such as
Lyme disease (Jara et al. 2016, p. 13),
but the best available information does
not indicate that climate change is
causing negative effects to the viability
of the gray wolf in the lower 48 United
States, or that it is likely to do so in the
future.
Vulnerability to climate change is
often gauged by factors such as
physiological tolerance, habitat
specificity, and adaptive capacity,
which includes dispersal capability
(Dawson et al. 2011, p. 53). Throughout
their circumpolar distribution, gray
wolves persist in a variety of ecosystems
with temperatures ranging from ¥70 °F
to 120 °F (¥57 °C to 49 °C) (Mech and
Boitani 2003, p. xv). Gray wolves are
highly adaptable animals and are
efficient at exploiting food resources
available to them. Although Weiskopf et
al. (2019, entire) noted that the ungulate
community in the Great Lakes area may
shift as moose decline and deer increase
due to climate change, there is no
indication that prey would become
limiting for wolves. In assessing climate
change impacts to wildlife in the
northern Rocky Mountains, McKelvey
and Buotte (2018, p. 360) note that
wolves, because of their generalist,
adaptable life history, are not likely to
be strongly affected by climate. Despite
the likelihood of wolves being exposed
to the effects of climate change, due to
their life history and plasticity or
adaptability, we do not expect that gray
wolves will be negatively impacted. For
a full discussion of potential impacts of
climate change on wolves, see the final
delisting rule for the gray wolf in
Wyoming (77 FR 55597–55598,
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69821
September 10, 2012). The best available
information does not indicate that any
research conducted since the 2012 rule
significantly changes that analysis.
Cumulative Effects
When threats occur together, one may
exacerbate the effects of another,
causing effects not accounted for when
threats are analyzed individually. Many
of the threats to the gray wolf in the
lower 48 United States and gray wolf
habitat discussed above are interrelated
and could be synergistic, and thus may
cumulatively affect the gray wolf in the
lower 48 United States beyond the
extent of each individual threat. For
example, a decline in available wild
prey could cause wolves to prey on
more livestock, resulting in a potential
increase in human-caused mortality.
However, although the types,
magnitude, or extent of cumulative
impacts are difficult to predict, the best
available information does not
demonstrate that cumulative effects are
occurring at a level sufficient to
negatively affect gray wolf populations
within the lower 48 United States. We
anticipate that the threats described
above will be sufficiently addressed
through ongoing management measures
that are expected to continue postdelisting and into the future. The best
scientific and commercial data available
indicate that the vast majority of gray
wolves occur within one of two
widespread, large, and resilient
metapopulations and that threat
factors—either individually or
cumulatively—are not currently
resulting, nor are they anticipated to
result, in reductions in gray wolf
numbers or habitat at a level sufficient
to significantly affect gray wolf
populations within the lower 48 United
States.
Ongoing and Post-Delisting State,
Tribal, and Federal Wolf Management
In addition to considering threats to
the species, our analysis of a species
status under section 4 of the Act must
also account for those efforts made by
States, Tribes, or others to protect the
species. Evaluating these efforts is
particularly important for the gray wolf
because the primary threat to their
viability is unregulated human-caused
mortality. States, Tribes, and Federal
land management agencies have
extensive authorities to regulate humancaused mortality of wolves. Below, we
evaluate ongoing State, Tribal, and
Federal management of wolves in the
recovered NRM DPS, as well as
anticipated State, Tribal, and Federal
management of wolves that we are
delisting in this final rule. Due to recent
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69822
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
information confirming the presence of
a group of six wolves in extreme
northwest Colorado, and their proximity
to and potential use of habitats within
Utah, we include evaluations of the
Colorado Wolf Management
Recommendations and the Utah Wolf
Management Plan.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Management in the NRM DPS
As part of both the 2009 and 2012
delisting rules (74 FR 15123, April 2,
2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10,
2012), the Service determined that the
States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming
had laws, regulations, and management
plans in place that met the requirements
of the Act to maintain their respective
wolf populations within the NRM DPS
above recovery levels into the
foreseeable future. Similarly, Tribal and
Federal agency plans were also
determined to contribute to the recovery
of the gray wolf in those States. In this
section we provide a brief summary of
past and present management of gray
wolves in the NRM States of Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming. We also
include relevant updates to Tribal plans
that apply exclusively to the eastern
one-third of both Washington and
Oregon, areas previously delisted due to
recovery. Other State and Federal
management that applies statewide in
Washington and Oregon is included in
the Post-delisting Management section
of this final rule. Specific information
on regulated harvest and other sources
of human-caused mortality are
described in the Human-Caused
Mortality section of this final rule.
State Management
Before the delisting of wolves in the
NRM DPS, it was long recognized that
the future conservation of a delisted
wolf population in the NRM depended
almost solely on State regulation of
human-caused mortality. In 1999, the
Governors of Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming agreed that regional
coordination in wolf management
planning among the States, Tribes, and
other jurisdictions was necessary. They
signed a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) to facilitate cooperation among
the three States to develop adequate
State wolf management plans so that
delisting could proceed. In this
agreement, which was renewed in April
2002, all three States committed to
maintain at least 10 breeding pairs and
100 wolves per State.
In 2009, the Service determined that
Idaho and Montana had State laws,
management plans, and regulations that
met the requirements of the Act to
maintain their respective wolf
populations within the NRM DPS above
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
recovery levels into the foreseeable
future (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). A
similar determination was made for
Wyoming in 2012 (77 FR 55530,
September 10, 2012). The three States
agreed to manage above the recovery
level, and to adapt their management
strategies and adjust allowable rates of
human-caused mortality should the
population be reduced to near recovery
levels per their management objectives.
State management has maintained wolf
numbers well above minimal recovery
levels and, combined with wolves’
reproductive and dispersal capabilities,
has maintained the recovered status of
the NRM DPS. The State laws and
management plans balance the level of
wolf mortality, primarily human-caused
mortality, with the wolf population
growth rate to achieve desired
population objectives. Management by
the NRM States maintains a robust wolf
population in each core recovery area
because they each contain manmade or
natural refugia from human-caused
mortality (e.g., National Parks,
wilderness areas, and remote Federal
lands) that guarantee those areas remain
the stronghold for wolf breeding pairs
and source of dispersing wolves in each
State. Similarly, State ungulate
management plans provide a
commitment to maintain ungulate
populations at densities that will
continue to support a recovered wolf
population, as well as recreational
opportunities for the public, well into
the future.
Idaho—Wolves in Idaho are managed
under the 2002 Idaho Wolf Conservation
and Management Plan (IWCMP; Idaho
Wolf Legislative Wolf Oversight
Committee 2002, entire). The gray wolf
was classified as endangered by the
State until March 2005, when the Idaho
Fish and Game Commission (IDFG
Commission) reclassified the gray wolf
as a big game animal (74 FR 15168,
April 2, 2009). Hunting and trapping are
both legal means of taking gray wolves
throughout Idaho (IDFG 2017, p. 4). The
IWCMP states that wolves will be
protected against illegal take as a big
game animal in Idaho (Idaho Wolf
Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee
2002, p. 19).
Under the IWCMP, IDFG is the
primary manager of wolves, and as
such, will maintain a minimum of 15
packs of wolves to maintain a margin of
safety over the Service’s minimum
recovery target of 10 breeding pairs and
100 wolves. IDFG is committed to
managing wolves as a native species in
the State to maintain a viable selfsustaining population that will not
require relisting under the Act. Public
harvest is used as a management tool
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
when there are 15 or more packs in
Idaho to help mitigate conflicts with
livestock producers or big game
populations.
The IDFG manages both ungulates
and carnivores, including wolves, to
maintain viable populations of each.
Ungulate harvest focuses on
maintaining sufficient prey populations
to sustain quality hunting and healthy,
viable wolf and other carnivore
populations. In addition, the Mule Deer
Initiative and the Clearwater Elk
Initiative were implemented in the mid2000s to improve populations of both
species. These improvements provide
benefits to carnivores and hunters.
Idaho’s regulatory framework of State
laws, wolf management plans, and
implementing regulations maintains the
wolf population well above recovery
minimums, assuring maintenance of the
State’s numerical and distributional
share of a recovered NRM wolf
population well into the future.
Montana—In Montana, statutes and
administrative rules categorize the gray
wolf as a ‘‘Species in Need of
Management’’ under the Montana
Nongame and Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1973 (MCA 87–5–
101 to 87–5–123). Classification as a
‘‘Species in Need of Management’’ and
the associated administrative rules
under Montana State law create the
legal mechanism to protect wolves and
regulate human-caused mortality
(including regulated public harvest)
beyond the immediate defense of life/
property situations. Illegal humancaused mortality is prosecuted under
State law and regulations issued by
Montana’s Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
(MFWP) Commission. At present, the
MFWP Commission evaluates wolf
hunting regulations every other year to
allow for discussion of ungulate and
wolf seasons at the same Commission
meeting (see Human-Caused Mortality
section of this final rule).
In August 2003, MFWP completed a
Final EIS pursuant to the Montana
Environmental Policy Act and
recommended that the Updated
Advisory Council alternative be selected
as Montana’s Final Gray Wolf
Conservation and Management Plan
(MFWP 2003, entire). The Record of
Decision (ROD) was amended in 2004,
to select the ‘‘Contingency’’ alternative
to allow flexibility while wolves were
still federally listed and to provide a
transition to State management upon
Federal delisting (MFWP 2004, entire).
Under the management plan, the wolf
population is maintained above the
recovery level of 10 breeding pairs and
100 wolves by managing for at least 15
breeding pairs and 150 wolves. Wolves
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
are not deliberately confined to any
specific geographic areas of Montana,
nor is the population size deliberately
capped at a specific level. However,
wolf numbers and distribution are
managed adaptively based on ecological
factors, wolf population status, conflict
mitigation, and social tolerance. The
plan and Administrative Rules commit
MFWP to implement its management
framework in a manner that encourages
connectivity among resident wolves in
Montana as well as wolf populations in
Canada, Idaho, and Wyoming to
maintain metapopulation structure in
the NRM. Overall, wolf management
includes population monitoring, routine
analysis of population health,
management in concert with prey
populations, law enforcement, control
of domestic animal/human conflicts,
implementation of a wolf-damage
mitigation and reimbursement program,
research, information dissemination,
and public outreach.
The MFWP has and will continue to
manage wild ungulates according to
Commission-approved policy direction
and species management plans. MFWP
strives to manage ungulates in a way
that continues to provide for
recreational hunting opportunities yet
maintains sufficient prey to support the
full suite of large carnivores in the State
including a recovered wolf population.
The Montana wolf plan and
regulatory framework is designed to
maintain a recovered wolf population
and minimize conflicts with other
traditional activities in Montana’s
landscape. Montana continues to
implement the commitments it has
made in its current laws, regulations,
and wolf plan to provide the necessary
regulatory mechanisms to assure
maintenance of the State’s numerical
and distributional share of a recovered
NRM wolf population well into the
future.
Wyoming—The Wyoming Game and
Fish Department (WGFD) and Wyoming
Game and Fish Commission (WGFC)
manage wolves under the 2011
Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan
(WGFC 2011, entire), as amended in
2012 (WGFC 2012, entire). Under this
plan, wolves in the northwestern
portion of the State are managed as
trophy game animals year-round in the
Wolf Trophy Game Management Area
(WTGMA), which encompasses
approximately 15,000 mi2 (38,500 km2).
Wolves are designated as predatory
animals in the remainder of the State.
Wolf harvest in the WTGMA is
regulated by WGFC Chapter 47
regulations. Because wolf management
in northwest Wyoming falls under
different Federal, State, and Tribal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
jurisdictions, the Service agreed to
allow WGFD to maintain a minimum of
10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves
within the WTGMA. Yellowstone
National Park (YNP) and the Wind River
Indian Reservation combined would
maintain at least 5 breeding pairs and 50
wolves, so that the totality of
Wyoming’s wolf population is managed
at or above 15 breeding pairs and 150
wolves (which provides the buffer above
the 10 breeding pair and 100 wolf
recovery level). Further, Wyoming wolf
management regulations commit to the
management of wolves so that genetic
diversity and connectivity issues do not
threaten the population. To accomplish
this, WGFC Chapter 21 regulations
provide for a seasonal expansion of the
WTGMA from October 15 through the
end of February to facilitate natural
dispersal of wolves between Wyoming
and Idaho (WGFC 2011, figure 1, pp. 2,
8, 52).
Wolves that are classified as predators
are regulated by the Wyoming
Department of Agriculture under title
11, chapter 6 of the Wyoming Statutes.
Under this statute, wolves may be taken
year-round by any legal means without
a license, but any harvest must be
reported to WGFD within 10 days of
take. As we have previously concluded
(73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR
15123, April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530,
September 10, 2012), wolf packs are
unlikely to persist in portions of
Wyoming where they are designated as
predatory animals. However, the
WTGMA is large enough to support
Wyoming’s management goals and a
recovered wolf population.
To ensure the goal of at least 10
breeding pairs and at least 100
individuals in the area directly under
State management is not inadvertently
compromised, Wyoming maintains an
adequate buffer above minimum
population objectives. A large portion of
Wyoming’s wolf population exists in
areas outside the State’s control (e.g.,
YNP and the Wind River Indian
Reservation). The wolf populations in
YNP and the Wind River Indian
Reservation further buffer the
population above the minimum
recovery goal, ensuring the State meets
the required management level of 15
breeding pairs and 150 wolves.
The Wyoming wolf plan is used by
WGFD and WGFC in setting annual
hunting quotas and limiting controllable
sources of mortality (see Human-Caused
Mortality section). Wyoming’s
regulatory framework, including the
wolf plan, State statutes, and
regulations, assures maintenance of the
State’s numerical and distributional
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69823
share of a recovered NRM wolf
population well into the future.
Tribal Management and Conservation of
Wolves
In the NRM DPS, there are
approximately 20 Tribes and about
12,719 mi2 (32,942 km2) (3 percent) of
the area is Tribal land. Of the Tribes
within the NRM DPS, the Wind River,
Blackfeet, Flathead, and The
Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Indian Reservations have wolf
management plans. Currently, a small
number of wolf packs have their entire
territories on Tribal lands in the NRM
DPS. While Tribal lands provide habitat
for wolf packs in the NRM, these lands
represent a small proportion of the
overall recovered wolf population in the
NRM DPS. However, Tribes have
various treaty rights, such as wildlife
harvest, in areas of public land where
many wolf packs live. The NRM States
agreed to incorporate Tribal harvest into
their assessment of the potential surplus
of wolves available for public harvest in
each State, each year, to ensure that the
wolf population is maintained above
recovery levels. The exercise of Tribal
treaty rights to harvest wolves does not
significantly impact the wolf population
or reduce it below recovery levels due
to the small portion of the wolf
population that could be affected by
Tribal harvest or Tribal harvest rights.
Specific information on regulated
harvest and other sources of humancaused mortality on Tribal lands are
described in the Human-Caused
Mortality section of this final rule.
Below we describe past and present
management of gray wolves on Tribal
lands in the NRM States of Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming. We also
include relevant updates to Tribal plans
that apply exclusively to the eastern
one-third of both Washington and
Oregon, areas previously delisted due to
recovery.
Wind River Indian Reservation—The
Wind River Indian Reservation (WRR)
typically contains a small number of
wolves relative to the remainder of
Wyoming (approximately 10–20 wolves
annually for the past 10 years). The
WRR adopted a wolf management plan
in 2007 (Eastern Shoshone and Northern
Arapaho Tribes, 2007, entire) and
updated it in 2008 (Eastern Shoshone
and Northern Arapaho Tribes, 2008,
entire). Wolves are managed as game
animals on the Wind River Indian
Reservation (Eastern Shoshone and
Northern Arapaho Tribes 2008, pp. 3, 9).
The Eastern Shoshone and Northern
Arapaho Tribes govern this area and the
Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal Fish and
Game Department manage wildlife on
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69824
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
the WRR with assistance from the
Service’s Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Office in Lander,
Wyoming.
Wyoming claims management
authority of non-Indian fee title lands
and on Bureau of Reclamation lands
within the external boundaries of the
WRR. Thus, wolves are classified as
game animals within about 80 percent
of the reservation and as predators on
the remaining 20 percent (Hnilicka in
litt. 2020). To date, predator status has
had minimal impact on wolf
management and abundance on the
WRR because these inholdings tend to
be concentrated on the eastern side of
the reservation in habitats that are less
suitable for wolves (Eastern Shoshone
and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2008, p. 5,
figure 1).
Under the plan, any enrolled member
can shoot a wolf in the act of attacking
livestock or dogs on Tribal land,
provided the enrolled member supplies
evidence of livestock or dogs recently
(less than 24 hours) wounded, harassed,
molested, or killed by wolves, and a
designated agent is able to confirm that
the livestock or dogs were wounded,
harassed, molested, or killed by wolves
(Eastern Shoshone and Northern
Arapaho Tribes 2008, p. 8). The plan
also allows the Tribal government to
remove ‘‘wolves of concern’’ defined as
wolves that attack livestock, dogs, or
livestock herding and guarding animals
once in a calendar year or any domestic
animal twice in a calendar year (Eastern
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes
2008, p. 8).
As described above, the WRR alone is
not considered essential to maintaining
a recovered wolf population in
Wyoming, but through cooperative
management among the tribes, WGFD,
and YNP, the goal is to continue to
maintain a recovered wolf population
into the future.
Blackfeet Indian Reservation—Wolves
on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation
exist on the Reservation’s western
boundary, which has a high predicted
probability of use (MFWP 2019b, p. 8).
The Blackfeet Tribe Wolf Management
Plan was finalized in 2008 (BTBC 2008,
entire). Wolves on the Blackfeet
Reservation are classified as big game
animals and are managed by Blackfeet
Fish and Wildlife Department similar to
other wildlife species on the reservation
(BTBC 2008, p. 4). The plan does not
specify maximum or minimum
population sizes. Rather it is driven by
wolf behavior and the level of conflict.
The goal of the plan is to manage wolves
on the Blackfeet Reservation in Montana
to provide for their long-term
persistence. This is accomplished by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
minimizing wolf-human conflict while
incorporating cultural values and beliefs
(BTBC 2008, p. 3). For example, low
levels of conflict with a high wolf
population will be tolerated without
resulting in efforts to reduce the wolf
population (BTBC 2008, p. 4). Lethal
control may be used for wolves that
repeatedly kill livestock (BTBC 2008,
pp. 4–5).
The objectives of the plan are: (1)
Provide training for Tribal game
wardens and Blackfeet Fish and
Wildlife Department personnel; (2)
incorporate culture and traditions into
wolf management; (3) educate Blackfeet
Reservation residents on wolf biology,
ecology, and management; (4)
investigate and resolve wolf-human
conflicts; (5) report and record wolfhuman conflicts; (6) mitigate losses
associated with wolf activity; (7)
conduct effective monitoring of the wolf
plan and revise as needed; and (8)
collect wolf population status and
health information (BTBC 2008, pp. 3–
4). These objectives appear to be
consistent with the goal of the plan for
long-term persistence of wolves on the
Blackfeet Reservation.
Flathead Indian Reservation—The
Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes Tribal Wildlife Management
Program finalized a wolf management
plan for the Flathead Indian Reservation
in western Montana in 2015 (CSKT
2015, entire). Wolf activity on the
reservation is concentrated in the
western half and southern boundary
(CSKT 2015, p. 7), with at least three
packs using portions of the reservation.
These wolves are included in totals
reported in Montana’s annual reports.
The management of wolves is
coordinated with State and Federal
agencies with the goal of long-term
persistence of wolves in Montana and
preventing the need for Federal
relisting, while minimizing conflicts
between wolves and humans and
adverse impacts to big game (CSKT
2015, p. 8).
The objectives of the plan are: (1)
Include cultural beliefs of Tribes into
wolf management; (2) develop
management prescriptions with wolf
ecology and behavior in mind; (3)
educate residents of the reservation on
wolf ecology and management; (4) work
cooperatively with State and Federal
agencies to monitor and manage wolf
conflicts regionally; (5) monitor and
manage wolf impacts on ungulates; (6)
monitor, manage, and minimize wolflivestock conflicts; and (7) include
human safety as a potential management
concern (CSKT 2015, p. 8)
Similar to management on the
Blackfeet Indian Reservation, the
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Flathead Indian Reservation wolf plan
does not specify maximum or minimum
population sizes. Rather it is driven by
wolf behavior and the level of conflict.
For example, low levels of conflict with
a high wolf population will be tolerated
without efforts to reduce the wolf
population (CSKT 2015, p. 9). Lethal
control may be used for wolves that
threaten human safety or kill livestock
or domestic animals (CSKT 2015, p. 9).
However, trapping and hunting of
wolves is not part of the management
plan, but it may be considered by the
Tribal Council in the future (CSKT
2015, p. 9).
The Flathead Indian Reservation wolf
management plan will be reviewed at
the end of 5 years of implementation
(CSKT 2015, p. 15). We are not aware
of any updates or revisions to the plan
at this time. Management of wolves on
the Flathead Indian Reservation, in
coordination with State and Federal
agencies, is expected to continue to
contribute to the long-term persistence
of wolves in Montana.
Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation—The Confederated Tribes
of the Colville Reservation is located in
north-central Washington. At the end of
2019, the minimum wolf count was 37
wolves in five packs on the Colville
Reservation (WDFW et al. 2020, p. 3).
The CCTFWD Gray Wolf Management
Plan was finalized in 2017 and guides
management and conservation of gray
wolf populations and their prey on the
Colville Reservation (CCTFWD 2017, p.
5). The goals of the plan include
developing a strategy for maintaining
viable wolf populations while also
maintaining healthy ungulate
populations to support the cultural and
subsistence needs of Tribal members
and their families (CCTFWD 2017, p.
20). The plan also seeks to resolve wolflivestock conflicts early to avoid
escalation (CCTFWD 2017, p. 24).
Under the CCTFWD wolf plan,
management actions include: (1)
Monitor gray wolf populations; (2)
monitor ungulate response to gray wolf
recolonization; (3) educate Tribal
members and general public about
wolves; (4) use population goals to
develop an annual harvest allocation;
(5) investigate, document, provide
support to reduce resource or property
damage; (6) report annual wolf
management; (7) establish a wildlife
parts distribution protocol; (8)
coordinate on regional wolf
management concerns; and (9) review
and/or modify Tribal Codes to actively
manage gray wolves (CCTFWD 2017,
pp. 30–32).
With the subsistence culture of the
Colville Tribal members, the impacts of
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
wolves on ungulate populations are an
important aspect of the plan (CCTFWD
2017, p. 20). As such, if wolves are
determined to be a significant source of
reduced ungulate population growth,
measures will be considered to preserve
the subsistence culture of Colville Tribal
Members (CCTFWD 2017, p. 22).
Implementation of the CCTFWD gray
wolf management plan promotes
informed decision making to balance
the benefits wolf recovery and
maintenance of existing ungulate
populations that are important to
Colville Tribal members.
Management on Federal Lands
Federal lands in the NRM States of
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are
primarily lands managed by National
Park Service, National Wildlife Refuge
System, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau
of Land Management. Wolf management
on these lands is similar to that
described previously in our 2009 and
2012 delisting rules (74 FR 15123, April
2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10,
2012) and elsewhere in this final rule.
The National Park Service Organic
Act and National Park Service policies
provide protection following Federal
delisting for wolves located within park
boundaries. Within National Park
System units, hunting is not allowed
unless the authorizing legislation
specifically provides for hunting.
National Wildlife Refuges operate under
individual Comprehensive Conservation
Plans, which guide their management.
Hunting wolves is not allowed on
National Wildlife Refuge lands (https://
www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/map/).
Wolves occurring in National Parks and
on National Wildlife Refuges in the
NRM States are monitored in
coordination with the wildlife agencies
in those States. Some wolves in
protected areas, such as National Park
Service land or the National Wildlife
Refuge System, may be vulnerable to
hunting and other forms of humancaused mortality when they leave these
Federal land management units.
Overall, National Park Service and
National Refuge Lands manage their
lands in such a way to provide
sufficient habitat for wildlife, including
wolves and their prey, and these lands
will continue to be adequately managed
for multiple uses including for the
benefit of wildlife.
Federal law indicates land managed
by the Forest Service and the Bureau of
Land management shall be managed to
provide habitat for fish and wildlife.
Wilderness areas are afforded the
highest protections of all Forest Service
lands. Within Forest Service lands,
including Wilderness Areas and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Wilderness Study Areas (which are
generally Forest Service lands), the
Forest Service typically defers to States
on hunting decisions (16 U.S.C. 480,
528, 551, 1133; 43 U.S.C. 1732(b)). The
primary exception to this deference is
the Forest Service’s authority to identify
areas and periods when hunting is not
permitted (43 U.S.C. 1732(b)). However,
even these decisions must be developed
in consultation with the States. Thus,
most State-authorized hunting occurs on
State and Federal public lands like
National Forests, Wilderness Areas, and
Wilderness Study Areas. Bureau of Land
Management lands are managed
similarly to Forest Service lands. This
final rule does not alter the current
management on lands under the
jurisdiction of the Forest Service or
Bureau of Land Management. The Forest
Service and Bureau of Land
Management have a demonstrated
capacity and a proven history of
providing sufficient habitat for wildlife,
including wolves and their prey, and
these lands will continue to be
adequately managed for multiple uses
including for the benefit of wildlife.
Summary of Management in the NRM
DPS
Past and ongoing State, Tribal, and
Federal management has provided, and
continues to provide, long-term
maintenance of the recovered NRM wolf
population. Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming implement wolf management
in a manner that also encourages
connectivity among wolf populations
(Groen et al. 2008, entire; WGFC 2011,
pp. 26–29, 52, 54; Talbott and Guertin
2012, entire). The coordination and
management of wolves above
population targets by State, Tribal, and
Federal agencies provides protections
against potential unforeseen or
uncontrollable sources of mortality such
that they do not compromise the gray
wolf’s recovered status in the NRM.
Post-Delisting Management
State Management in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan
During the 2000 legislative session,
the Minnesota Legislature passed wolfmanagement provisions addressing wolf
protection, taking of wolves, and
directing the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (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 in early 2001
(MN DNR 2001, entire). The MN DNR
plans to update the Wolf Management
Plan in the near future, and will create
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69825
a new advisory committee and use a
public process to help inform the
update.
The Wisconsin Natural Resources
Board approved the Wisconsin Wolf
Management Plan in October 1999. 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
updates were completed and received
final Natural Resources Board approval
on November 28, 2006 (WI DNR 2006a,
entire).
In late 1997, the Michigan Wolf
Recovery and Management Plan was
completed and received the necessary
State approvals. That plan focused on
recovery of a small wolf population,
rather than long-term management of a
large wolf population, and addressing
the conflicts expected to result as a
consequence of successful wolf
restoration. The Michigan Department
of Natural Resources (MI DNR) revised
its original wolf plan and created the
2008 Michigan Wolf Management Plan
in recognition of a shift in its focus from
the recovery of an endangered species to
the management of wolf–human
conflicts. The 2008 plan addressed the
biological and social issues associated
with wolf management in Michigan at
that time. Since then, wolf management
in Michigan has continued to evolve,
and the MI DNR again updated its wolfmanagement plan in 2015 (MI DNR
2015, entire). The 2015 updates reflect
the biological and social issues
associated with the increased
population size and distribution of
wolves in the State, although the four
principal goals of the 2008 plan remain
the same. The complete text of the
Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota
wolf-management plans can be found on
our website (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
The following sections discuss the
individual state management plans and
depredation control that took place
while gray wolves were listed in the
State, as well as expected post-delisting
depredation control and potential
public harvest. Wolves have also been
removed for health and human safety
concerns while they were listed. The
number of wolves taken for this purpose
is few in any given year, however, thus
it will not be discussed for individual
state summaries.
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-
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69826
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
management law enacted in 2000 (MN
DNR 2001, Appendix I). In 2000, the
Minnesota legislature passed the Wolf
Management Act (Minn. Stat. sections
97B.645–48). That statute specifically
requires the MN DNR to adopt a wolf
management plan that includes, among
other factors, the goal of ensuring the
‘‘long-term survival of wolves in
Minnesota.’’ It requires preparation of a
wolf management plan, establishes gray
wolf zones, prohibits the taking of
wolves in violation of Federal law,
prohibits the harassment of gray wolves,
and authorizes the destruction of
individual wolves threatening human
life and posing imminent threats to
cattle or domestic pets. Finally, the Act
establishes a civil penalty for the
unlawful take, transport, or possession
of a wolf in violation of Minnesota’s
game and fish laws. The Wolf
Management Act and the Minnesota
Game and Fish Laws constitute the basis
of the State’s authority to manage
wolves. The Plan’s stated goal is ‘‘to
ensure the long-term survival of wolves
in Minnesota while addressing wolf–
human conflicts that inevitably result
when wolves and people live in the
same vicinity’’ (MN DNR 2001, p. 2). It
establishes a minimum goal of 1,600
wolves in the State. Key components of
the plan are population monitoring and
management, management of wolf
depredation of domestic animals,
management of wolf prey, enforcement
of laws regulating take of wolves, public
education, and increased staffing to
accomplish these actions. Following
Federal delisting, MN DNR’s
management of wolves would differ
from that which occurred while wolves
were listed as threatened under the Act.
Most of these differences relate to two
aspects of wolf management: The
control of wolves that attack or threaten
domestic animals and the
implementation of a regulated wolf
harvest season.
The Minnesota Plan divides the State
into two wolf-management zones—
Zones A and B (see map in MN DNR
2001, Appendix 3). Zone A corresponds
to Federal Wolf Management Zones 1
through 4 (approximately 30,000 mi2
(77,700 km2) in northeastern Minnesota)
in the Service’s Revised Recovery Plan
for the Eastern Timber Wolf, whereas
Zone B constitutes Zone 5 in that
recovery plan (the rest of the State
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
(approximately 57,000 mi2 (147,600
km2)) (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 of wolves than in Zone A (see
Post-delisting Depredation Control in
Minnesota, below).
The Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources plans to allow wolf numbers
and distribution to naturally expand,
with no maximum population goal. If
any winter population estimate is below
1,600 wolves, MN DNR 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.
In response to the 2011 delisting of the
WGL DPS, in 2013 the MN DNR
increased the frequency of population
surveys from every 5 years to every year.
Although the agency is evaluating wolfmonitoring methods and optimal
frequencies, in the short term it plans to
continue annual population-size
estimates. In addition to these statewide
population surveys, MN DNR annually
reviews data on depredation-incident
frequency and locations provided by
Wildlife Services and winter tracksurvey indices (see Erb 2008, entire) to
help ascertain annual trends in wolf
population or range (MN DNR 2001, pp.
18–19).
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
wolves in the State (MN DNR 2001, pp.
29–30). These are all measures that have
been in effect for years in Minnesota,
although increased enforcement of State
laws against take of wolves would
replace enforcement of the Act’s take
prohibitions. Financial compensation
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
anticipate that these measures will help
prevent a significant increase in illegal
mortality after Federal delisting.
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 1
year. The restitution value of an illegally
killed wolf is $2,000 (MN DNR 2001, p.
29). The MN DNR has designated three
conservation officers who are stationed
in the State’s wolf range as the lead
officers for implementing the wolfmanagement plan (MN DNR 2001, pp.
29, 32; Stark in litt. 2018).
Depredation Control in Minnesota—
Although federally protected as a
threatened species in Minnesota, wolves
that attacked domestic animals have
been killed by designated government
employees under the authority of a
regulation (50 CFR 17.40(d)) under
section 4(d) of the Act. However, no
control of depredating wolves was
allowed in Federal Wolf Management
Zone 1, comprising about 4,500 mi2
(7,200 km2) 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 (0.8 km) of
the depredation site. Young-of-the-year
(young produced in one reproductive
year) captured on or before August 1
must be released. The regulations that
allow for this take (50 CFR
17.40(d)(2)(i)(C)) do not specify a
maximum duration for depredation
control, but, per State rules, a site may
be worked for no more than 60 days
after a verified depredation event.
During the period from 1980–2018,
the Federal Minnesota wolfdepredation-control program euthanized
between 20 (in 1982) and 215 (in 2012)
wolves annually. The annual averages
and the percentage of the statewide wolf
population for 5-year periods are
presented in table 4.
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
69827
TABLE 4—AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER OF WOLVES EUTHANIZED UNDER MINNESOTA WOLF DEPREDATION CONTROL AND
THE PERCENTAGE OF THE STATEWIDE WOLF POPULATION FOR 5 YEAR PERIODS DURING 1980–2017
[Final time period represents 4, rather than 5 years]
1980–1984
1985–1989
1990–1994
1995–1999
2000–2004
2005–2009
2010–2014
2015–2018
30
49
115
152
128
157
194
194
2.2
3.0
6.0
6.7
4.2
5.4
7.6
7.5
Average
annual
#
wolves
euthanized ....................................
Average annual % of wolf population .............................................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
(Erb 2008, p. 4; USDA–Wildlife Services 2010, p. 3; USDA–Wildlife Services 2011, p. 3; USDA–Wildlife Services 2017, p. 3; USDA–Wildlife
Services 2018, p. 2).
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
both 1997 and 2015 (Paul 2004, pp. 2–
7; Paul 2006, p. 1; USDA–Wildlife
Services 2017, p. 3; USDA–Wildlife
Services 2018, p. 2). The periods during
which the depredation-control program
was taking its highest percentages of
wolves was during the 1990s and the
2010s. During the 1990s, when wolves
euthanized for depredation control
averaged around 6 percent of the wolf
population, Minnesota wolf numbers
continued to grow at an average annual
rate of nearly 4 percent (Paul 2004, pp.
2–7). Wolf populations in the State
fluctuated during the 2010s, when
wolves euthanized for depredation
control averaged around 7 percent of the
wolf population. Although wolf
populations in the State did decline
while wolves were delisted from 2011–
2014, other management techniques in
addition to depredation control were
also implemented during that time (e.g.,
regulated harvest), aimed at reducing
wolf numbers while maintaining a
minimum population level. The past
level of wolf removal for depredation
control has not interfered with wolf
recovery in Minnesota.
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 to incorporate
new practices that it finds would reduce
wolf depredation (Minnesota Statutes
2018, Section 3.737, subdivision 5).
Post-delisting Depredation Control in
Minnesota—When wolves in Minnesota
are 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
A and B, as discussed above. The
statewide survey conducted during the
winter of 2003–2004 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
for the Eastern United States above, the
Federal planning goal is 1,251–1,400
wolves for Zones 1–4 and there is no
minimum population goal for Zone 5
(USFWS 1992, p. 28).
In Zone A, wolf depredation control
will be limited to situations of (1)
immediate threat and (2) following
verified loss of domestic animals. In this
zone, if a state-authorized entity 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 or Wildlife Services
may take wolves (specific number to be
determined on a case-by-case basis)
within a 1-mile (1.6-km) radius of the
depredation site (depredation-control
area) for up to 60 days. In contrast, in
Zone B, predator controllers or Wildlife
Services 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 MN 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
order to avoid repeat depredation
incidents (MN DNR 2001, p. 22).
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 by wolves in Zone 1,
however, has been limited to two to four
reported incidents per year, mostly of
wolves killing dogs. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
number of depredating wolves being
killed there after delisting.
State law and the Minnesota Plan will
also allow for private wolf depredation
control throughout the State. Any
person can shoot or destroy a wolf that
poses ‘‘an immediate threat’’ to
livestock, guard animals, or domestic
animals on lands that he or she owns,
leases, or occupies. 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 can 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. 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 or
request assistance from Wildlife
Services to trap a wolf on their land or
within 1 mile (1.6 km) of their land
(with permission of the landowner) to
protect their livestock, domestic
animals, or pets (MN DNR 2001, pp. 23–
24). The MN DNR will investigate any
private taking of wolves in Zone A (MN
DNR 2001, p. 23). 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.
As discussed above, landowners or
lessees will be allowed to respond to
situations of immediate threat by
shooting wolves in the act of stalking,
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69828
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
attacking, or killing livestock or other
domestic animals in Zone A. We
conclude that this action 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
conclusion shared by a highly
experienced wolf-depredation agent
(Paul in litt. 2006, p. 5).
State law and the Minnesota Plan will
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 in Zone B (as described
above). 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. At the extreme,
wolves could be eliminated from Zone
B, but this is highly unlikely—the
Minnesota Plan states that ‘‘Although
depredation procedures will likely
result in a larger number of wolves
killed, as compared to previous ESA
management, they will not result in the
elimination of wolves from Zone B.’’
(MN DNR 2001, pp. 22–23). While
wolves were under State management in
2007–2008 and in 2011–2014,
landowners in Zone B shot six and eight
wolves under this authority,
respectively. Fourteen additional
wolves were trapped and euthanized in
Zone B by State-certified predator
controllers and Wildlife Services, 1 in
2009, and 13 in 2013 (Stark in litt. 2009;
Stark in litt. 2018).
The limitation of this broad take
authority to Zone B is fully consistent
with the advice in the Revised Recovery
Plan that wolves should be restored to
the rest of Minnesota but not to Zone B
(Federal Zone 5) (USFWS 1992, p. 20).
The Revised 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
a Minnesota wolf population that
continues to satisfy the Federal recovery
criteria after Federal delisting.
This expansion of depredation-control
activities would not threaten the
continued survival of wolves in the
State or the long-term viability of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
wolf population in Zone A, the majority
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 are highly likely to persist in
Zone B despite the likely increased take
there. With respect to Zone A, the
Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team
concluded that the changes in wolf
management would be ‘‘minor’’ and
would not likely result in ‘‘significant
change in overall wolf numbers.’’ They
found that, despite an expansion of the
individual depredation-control areas,
depredation control would 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). The number
of wolves killed for depredation control
while wolves were under State
management for the second time (2011–
2014) was slightly higher (203 wolves in
2011; 262 in 2012; 114 in 2013; and 197
in 2014) than during 2007 and 2008, but
was still consistent with those killed
under section 4(d) in the surrounding
years (192 wolves in 2010 and 213 in
2015).
Minnesota will continue to monitor
wolf populations throughout the State
and will also monitor all depredationcontrol activities in Zone A (MN DNR
2001, p. 18). We expect that these and
other activities contained in their plan
will be effective 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).
Post-delisting Regulated Harvest in
Minnesota—The Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources will consider wolf
population-management measures,
including public hunting and trapping
seasons and other methods, when
wolves are federally delisted. In 2011,
the Minnesota Legislature authorized
the MN DNR to implement a wolf
season following the Federal delisting
and classified wolves as small game in
State statute (Minnesota Statutes 2018
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
97B.645 Subd. 9). Following Federal
delisting, the 2012 Legislature
established wolf hunting and trapping
licenses, clarified the authority for the
MN DNR to implement a wolf season,
and required the start of the season to
be no later than the start of firearms deer
season each year. Three regulated
harvest seasons (in 2012, 2013, and
2014) were subsequently implemented
in the State while wolves were federally
delisted. The harvest was divided into
three segments: An early hunting season
that coincided with the firearms deer
season, a late hunting season, and a
concurrent late trapping season. In
2012, the MN DNR established a total
target harvest of 400 wolves (the close
of the harvest season is to be initiated
when that target is met) (Stark and Erb
2013, pp. 1–2). During that first
regulated season, 413 wolves were
harvested. Based on the results of the
2012 harvest season, the MN DNR
adjusted the target to 220 wolves for
2013; that year 238 wolves were
harvested. The 2014 target harvest was
250 wolves and 272 were harvested.
The Minnesota management plan
requires that 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, we expect the management
measures implemented under that
requirement will ensure the wolf’s
continued survival in Minnesota.
The Wisconsin Wolf Management
Plan—The Wisconsin Plan allows for
differing levels of protection and
management within four separate
management zones (see WI DNR 2006a,
figure 8). The Northern Forest Zone
(Zone 1) and the Central Forest Zone
(Zone 2) 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, so we
anticipate that most of the State’s wolf
packs will continue to inhabit those
parts of Wisconsin. At the time the 1999
Wisconsin 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; thus,
State reclassification occurred that same
year.
The Wisconsin Plan contains a
management goal of 350 wolves outside
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
of Native American reservations, and
specifies that the species should be
delisted by the State once the
population reaches 250 animals outside
of reservations. The species was
proposed for State delisting in late 2003,
and the State delisting process was
completed in 2004. Upon State
delisting, the species was classified as a
‘‘protected nongame species,’’ a
designation that continues State
prohibitions on sport hunting and
trapping of the species (Wydeven and
Jurewicz 2005, p. 1; WI DNR 2006b, p.
71). The Wisconsin Plan includes
criteria for when 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) should be considered. The
Wisconsin Plan will be reviewed
annually by the Wisconsin Wolf
Advisory Committee and will be
reviewed by the public every 5 years.
The Wisconsin Plan was updated
between 2004 and 2006 to reflect
current wolf numbers, additional
knowledge, and issues that have arisen
since its 1999 completion. This update
was not a major revision; rather, it
included text changes, revisions to two
appendices, and the addition of a new
appendix to the 1999 plan. Several
components of the plan that are key to
our delisting evaluation were not
changed. 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 to
recommend access management on
public lands and the protection of active
den sites. Protection of pack-rendezvous
sites, however, is no longer considered
necessary 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 under way or where
pup survival is extremely poor, such as
in northeastern Wisconsin (WI DNR
2006a, p. 17). The guidelines for the
wolf depredation-control program (see
Post-delisting Depredation Control in
Wisconsin) 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
Wisconsin Plan is the annual
monitoring of wolf populations by radio
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
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. The
Wisconsin Plan also includes a
hierarchical approach to wolf health
monitoring that is predicated on the
species’ conservation status. Following
Federal delisting, the Wisconsin DNR
will assume responsibility for all health
monitoring, which will include
examination of all dead wolves found,
necropsy of suspicious deaths to
identify the mortality agent responsible,
and health monitoring of wild wolves
captured for research purposes in
coordination with the Wisconsin DNR
Wildlife Health Team (WI DNR 2006a,
p. 13). The 2006 update to the
Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan did
not change the WI DNR’s commitment
to annual wolf population monitoring,
and ensures accurate and comparable
data (WI DNR 1999, pp. 19–20).
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 active den sites and
seasonal restrictions to reduce
disturbance within one-half mile (0.8
km) 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).
The 1999 Wisconsin Plan contains,
and the 2006 update retains, other
components that will protect wolves
and help maintain a viable wolf
population in the State following
delisting. Namely, the plan: (1)
Continues the protection of the species
as a ‘‘protected wild animal’’ with
penalties similar to those for unlawfully
killing large game species (fines of up to
$1,000–$2,000 and possible loss of
hunting privileges for 3 years); (2)
requires State permits to possess a wolf
or wolf–dog hybrid; and (3) establishes
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, 30–31; 2006a,
pp. 3–4).
The 2006 update of the Wisconsin
Plan continues to emphasize the need
for public education efforts that focus
on living with a recovered wolf
population, ways to manage wolves and
wolf–human conflicts, and the
ecosystem role of wolves. The Plan
implements the State law requiring
reimbursement for depredation losses
(including dogs and missing calves),
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69829
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).
Depredation Control in Wisconsin—
Lethal depredation control has not been
authorized in Wisconsin (due to the
listed status of wolves there as
endangered) except for several years
when such control was authorized
under a permit from the Service or
while wolves were delisted under
previous actions. The rapidly expanding
Wisconsin wolf population has resulted
in an increased need for depredation
control, however. From 1979 through
1989, there were only five cases (an
average of 0.4 per year) of verified wolf
depredations in Wisconsin, but the
number of incidents has steadily
increased over the subsequent decades.
During the 1990s there were an average
of approximately 4 incidents per year,
increasing to an average of
approximately 38 per year during the
2000s and to an average of
approximately 69 per year since 2010
(WI DNR data files and summary of wolf
survey and depredation reports).
A significant portion of depredation
incidents in Wisconsin involve attacks
on dogs. 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.
Of the 206 dogs killed by wolves during
the 25 years from 1986–2010, more than
80 percent occurred during the period
from 2001–2010, with an average of 17
dogs killed annually during that 10-year
period (WI DNR files). Data on
depredations from 2013 to 2017 show a
continued increase in wolf attacks on
dogs, with an average of 23 dogs killed
annually (with a high of 41 dogs in
2016). 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 WI
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 website (see
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69830
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Wildlife
Habitat/wolf/dogdeps.html).
During the first periods that wolves
were federally delisted in Wisconsin
(from March 2007 through September
2008 and from April through early July
2009), 92 wolves were killed for
depredation control in the State,
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). When
wolves were again delisted from January
2012 through December 2014,
depredation control resulted in 164
wolves being killed, including 38 legally
shot by private landowners (McFarland
and Wiedenhoeft 2013, p. 9;
Wiedenhoeft et al, 2014, p. 10;
Wiedenhoeft et al. 2015, p. 10).
Post-delisting Depredation Control in
Wisconsin—Following Federal
delisting, wolf depredation control in
Wisconsin will be carried out according
to the 2006 Updated Wisconsin Wolf
Management Plan (WI DNR 2006a, pp.
19–23), Guidelines for Conducting
Depredation Control on Wolves in
Wisconsin Following Federal Delisting
(WI DNR 2014c). The 2006 updates did
not significantly change 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 U.S. Department of
Agriculture–Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service–Wildlife Services
(hereafter Wildlife Services), working
under a Cooperative Service 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, implementation of nonlethal
management methods, and private
landowner or agency 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 the landowner with various
forms of noninjurious behaviormodification 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
losses of domestic animals and for a
portion of documented missing calves
(WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23). 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).
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 $91,000
(2009) to $256,000 (2017). From 1985
through April 2018, the WI DNR had
spent over $2,378,000 on
reimbursement for damage caused by
wolves in the State, with 60 percent of
that total spent over the last 10 years
(since 2009) (https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/
wildlifehabitat/wolf/documents/
WolfDamagePayments.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. Longdistance 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 wolfdepredation 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 WI 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).
Full authority to conduct lethal
depredation control has not been
allowed in Wisconsin (due to the listed
status of the wolf as an endangered
species) except for short periods of time.
So we have evaluated post-delisting
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
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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.
2009a, pp. 6–7; Wydeven et al. 2010, p.
15; Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 3).
Although these lethal control
authorities applied to WI DNR 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 2003–2005, and
thus provide a reasonable measure of
annual lethal depredation control. For
2003, 2004, and 2005, this represents
5.1 percent, 6.4 percent, 7.4 percent
(including the several possible wolf–dog
hybrids), respectively, of the late-winter
population of Wisconsin wolves during
the previous winter. 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. 2006, p. 10). Limited
lethal-control authority was granted to
WI DNR for 3.5 months in 2006 by a
section 10 permit, resulting in removal
of 18 wolves (3.9 percent of the winter
wolf population) (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
occurred for only 2 months in 2009.
During that time, eight wolves were
euthanized for depredation control by
Wildlife Services, and one wolf was
shot by a landowner; additionally, later
in 2009 after relisting, a wolf was
captured and euthanized by Wildlife
Services for human safety concerns
(Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 15). Thus in
2009, 10 wolves, or 2 percent of the
winter wolf population, were removed
in control activities.
In 2010, authority for lethal control of
wolves depredating livestock was not
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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). The
Wisconsin wolf population in winter
2010–2011 grew to 687 wolves, an
increase of 8 percent from the wolf
population in winter 2009–2010
(Wydeven et al. 2010, pp. 12–13). When
wolves were again delisted from January
2012 through December 2014, a total of
164 wolves were killed under
authorized lethal depredation control
(McFarland and Wiedenhoeft 2013, p. 9;
Wiedenhoeft et al. 2014, p. 10;
Wiedenhoeft et al. 2015, p. 10). It is
more difficult to evaluate the effects
attributed specifically to depredation
control over that time, as the State also
implemented a regulated public harvest
those years. However, information from
previous years where depredation
control was the primary change in
management provides strong evidence
that this form and magnitude of
depredation control would not
adversely affect the viability of the
Wisconsin wolf population.
Furthermore, Stenglein et al. (2015a, pp.
17–21) demonstrates that regular
removal of 10 percent of the wolf
population for depredation controls has
little impact on growth of the wolf
population. The locations of
depredation incidents provide
additional evidence that lethal control
will not have an adverse impact on the
State’s wolf population. Most livestock
depredations are caused by packs near
the northern forest-farm-land interface.
Few depredations occur in core wolf
range and in large blocks of public land.
Thus, lethal depredation-control actions
would not affect most of the Wisconsin
wolf population (WI DNR 2006a, p. 30).
Additionally, Olson et al. (2015, pp.
680–681) showed that only a small
percentage of packs cause depredation
on livestock, and several risk maps
show that the potential locations with
high risk of wolf depredations on
livestock represent a small portion of
wolf range in Wisconsin (Treves et al.
2011, entire; Treves and Rabenhorst
2017, entire).
One substantive change to lethal
control that will result from Federal
delisting is the ability of a small number
of private landowners, whose farms
have a history of recurring wolf
depredation, to obtain 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 can
be issued to: (1) Landowners with
verified wolf depredations on their
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
property within the last 2 years; (2)
landowners within 1 mile (1.6 km) 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). Limits on
the number of wolves that could be
killed will be based on the estimated
number of wolves in the pack causing
depredation problems.
During the 19 months in 2007 and
2008 when wolves were federally
delisted, the WI 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.
In addition, landowners and lessees of
land statewide will be allowed to kill a
wolf ‘‘in the act of killing, wounding, or
biting a domestic animal’’ without
obtaining a permit. The incident must
be reported to a conservation warden
within 24 hours, and the landowners are
required to turn any dead wolves over
to the WI DNR (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–
23; WI DNR 2008, p. 6). During that
same 19-month time period, landowners
killed a total of five wolves under that
authority. One wolf was shot in the act
of attacking domestic animals during
the 2 months when wolves were
delisted in 2009. Another 38 wolves
were legally shot by landowners during
the 35 months that wolves were delisted
from 2012 to 2014. The death of these
46 additional wolves—which accounted
for less than 3 percent of the State’s
wolves in any year—did not affect the
viability of the population.
Another potential substantive change
after delisting will be proactive trapping
or ‘‘intensive control’’ of wolves in subzones of the larger wolf-management
zones (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23).
Triggering actions and types of controls
planned for these ‘‘proactive control
areas’’ are listed in 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
will 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 would be
adapted as experience is gained with
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69831
implementing and evaluating localized
control actions (Wydeven 2006, pers.
comm.). We are confident that the
number of wolves killed by these
actions will not affect the long-term
viability of the Wisconsin wolf
population, because generally less than
15 percent of packs cause depredations
that will 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 would 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 will be applied on
wolves depredating pet dogs attacked
near homes and wolves attacking
livestock. Because of these Stateimposed limitations, we conclude 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,
we expect that changes to Wisconsin
regulations for deer farm fencing will
result in reduced wolf depredations
inside deer farms, thus decreasing the
need for lethal control. Claims for wolf
depredation compensation are rejected
if the claimant is not in compliance
with regulations regarding farm-raiseddeer 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 in more marginal habitat with
high acreage of pasture land are more
likely to become depredators (Treves et
al. 2004, pp. 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
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69832
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(Wydeven et al. 2009a, p. 23). Further
expansion of wolves into Zone 3 will
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 a negligible impact on wolf
population viability in Wisconsin
because of the much larger wolf
populations in Zones 1 and 2.
We anticipate that under the
management laid out in the Wisconsin
Wolf Management Plan the wolf
population in Zones 1 and 2 will
continue to greatly exceed the recovery
goal in the Revised Recovery Plan of 200
late-winter wolves for an isolated
population and 100 wolves for a
subpopulation 5 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.
Post-delisting Regulated Harvest in
Wisconsin—A regulated public harvest
of wolves is acknowledged in the
Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan and
its updates as a potential management
technique (WI DNR 1999, Appendix D;
2006c, p. 23). Wisconsin Act 169 was
enacted in April 2012, following Federal
delisting of wolves earlier that year. The
law reclassified wolves in Wisconsin as
a game species and directed the WI DNR
to establish a harvest season in 2012.
The harvest season was set from October
15 through February 28 with zones
closing as individual quotas are met.
The WI DNR holds the authority to
determine harvest zones and set harvest
quotas.
With the establishment of the first
wolf hunting season in 2012, the WI
DNR modified the four zones from the
1999 wolf plan into six harvest zones
(WI DNR 2014a, p. 8). Much of the
original Zone 1 (northern forest wolf
range) from the 1999 plan was modified
into four harvest zones, with harvest
Zones 1 and 2 representing core wolf
areas and Zone 3 and 4 representing
transitional wolf habitat. Most of Zone
2 from the 1999 plan (central forest core
wolf range) became harvest Zone 5. The
remainder of the State is marginal or
unsuitable wolf habitat and became wolf
harvest Zone 6.
Harvest quotas for the 2012–2013
season were designed to begin reducing
the population toward the established
objective, and the harvest zones were
designed to focus harvest in areas of
highest human conflict with lower
5 A population that is part of a larger population
or metapopulation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
harvest rates in areas of primary wolf
habitat. State-licensed hunters and
trappers were not allowed permits
within the reservation boundaries of the
Bad River, Red Cliff, Lac Courte
Oreilles, Lac Du Flambeau, and
Menominee reservations or within the
Stockbridge-Munsee wolf zone. A large
portion of the zones open to wolf
hunting in the State included ceded
territories (lands outside reservations
where Tribes continue to hold fishing,
hunting, and gathering rights). Within
ceded territories, the Tribes can request
up to half of any allowable harvest of
wildlife for their members. The ceded
territories portions of wolf harvest zones
included an allowable harvest of 170
wolves, and one half (or 85 wolves) was
offered to the Tribes for harvest in 2012.
The Tribes chose not to take part in the
wolf harvest, and all Tribes in the State
closed tribal lands to wolf hunting.
Because the Tribes chose not to exercise
their wolf hunting authority, the
portions of the allowable harvest offered
to Tribes declined in subsequent years
to 24 in 2013, and 6 in 2014 (WI DNR
2013 pp. 1, 2; WI DNR 2014b, p. 4;
McFarland and Wiedenhoeft 2015, pp.
2, 4).
The Wisconsin Natural Resources
Board established a total quota of 201
wolves (comprising a State-licensed
quota of 116 wolves and a Tribal offer
of 85 wolves). A total of 117 wolves
were harvested during that first season,
all under the State licenses (Tribes did
not authorize Tribal members to harvest
wolves within reservation boundaries).
In 2013–2014, the total quota was 275
wolves: A State-licensed quota of 251,
and a Tribal offer of 24. That year, 257
wolves were harvested. The 2014–2015
wolf quota was reduced to 156 (a 57percent reduction from the 2013–2014
wolf quota), and 154 wolves were
harvested that season (a 60-percent
decrease from the 2013–2014 harvest.
Evidence from Wisconsin indicates
that active management with public
harvests and targeted lethal depredation
controls could reduce wolf–human
conflicts without causing major declines
in wolf numbers in the State. The
minimum count of wolves in Wisconsin
when they were delisted in 2012 was
815 wolves. After 3 years of public
hunting and trapping seasons, they had
been reduced to a minimum count of
746 in 2015, or a reduction of only 8.5
percent. During that same time period,
verified wolf kills on cattle and the
number of farms with verified
depredations declined significantly
(Wiedenhoeft et al. 2015, pp. 4–5, 12),
indicating that active management with
public harvests and targeted lethal
depredation controls could reduce
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
conflicts without causing significant
declines in wolf numbers (Wydeven
2019a, in litt.).
Regardless of the methods used to
manage wolves in the State, WI DNR is
committed to maintaining a wolf
population of 350 wolves outside of
Indian reservations, which translates to
a statewide population of 361 to 385
wolves in late winter. No harvest will be
allowed if the wolf population falls
below this goal (WI DNR 1999, pp. 15,
16). 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
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 conclude
that any public harvest plan will
continue to maintain the State wolf
population well above the Federal
recovery goal of 100 wolves.
The Michigan Wolf Management
Plan—The 2015 updated Michigan Plan
describes the wolf recovery goals and
management actions needed to maintain
a viable wolf population in the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan, while
facilitating wolf-related benefits and
minimizing conflicts. The updated
Michigan Plan contains new scientific
information related to wolf
management, updated information on
the legal status of wolves, clarifications
related to management authorities and
decisionmaking, and updated strategic
goals, objectives, and management
actions informed by internal evaluation
and responses and comments received
from stakeholders. The updated plan
retains the four principal goals of the
2008 plan, which are to ‘‘(1) maintain a
viable Michigan wolf population above
a level that would warrant its
classification as threatened or
endangered (more than 200 wolves); (2)
facilitate wolf-related benefits; (3)
minimize wolf-related conflicts; and (4)
conduct science-based wolf
management with socially acceptable
methods’’ (MI DNR 2015, p. 16). The
Michigan Plan details wolf-management
actions, including public education and
outreach activities, biennial wolf
population and health monitoring,
research, depredation control, ensuring
adequate legal protection for wolves,
and prey and habitat management. The
Michigan Plan does not address wolf
management within Isle Royale National
Park, where the wolf population is fully
protected by the National Park Service.
As with the Wisconsin Plan, the MI
DNR has chosen to manage the State’s
wolves as though they are an isolated
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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 Upper Peninsula. This number is
consistent with the Federal Revised
Recovery Plan’s definition of a viable,
isolated wolf population (USFWS 1992,
p. 25). The Michigan 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 2015, p. 17). We strongly
support this approach, as it provides
assurance that a viable wolf population
will remain in the Upper Peninsula
regardless of the future fate of wolves in
Wisconsin or Ontario.
The Michigan plan also addresses the
need for wolf recovery and the strategic
management direction in the Lower
Peninsula. The plan states wolves will
not be prevented from colonizing the
Lower Peninsula, but their presence is
not necessary to maintain a viable
population in the State (Ml DNR 2015,
p. 39). Additionally, if wolves occupy
the Lower Peninsula, the higher density
of human residences and livestock
operations in that area relative to the
Upper Peninsula would create a greater
potential for wolf-related conflicts. The
severity, immediacy, and frequency of
conflicts would guide management
responses in the Lower Peninsula (Ml
DNR 2015, p. 39).
The Michigan Plan identifies wolf
population monitoring as a priority
activity, and specifically states that the
MI DNR will monitor wolf abundance
every other year for at least 5 years postdelisting (MI DNR 2015, p. 26). This
includes monitoring to assess wolf
presence in the northern Lower
Peninsula. From 1989 through 2006, the
MI DNR attempted to count wolves
throughout the entire Upper Peninsula.
As the wolf population increased, this
method became more difficult. In the
winter of 2006–2007, 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 Upper Peninsula was
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
stratified into 21 sampling units; each
sampling unit was assigned to one of
three strata based on geographic
location and relative wolf density. The
MI DNR intensively surveys roughly 60
percent of the Upper Peninsula every
other year. Computer simulations have
shown that such a geographically
stratified monitoring program would
produce unbiased and precise estimates
of the total wolf population (Beyer in
litt. 2006, 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. 2005). 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 would again
consider more active management
similar to that conducted prior to 2004
(MI DNR 2015, p. 35).
The Michigan 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 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
2015, pp. 32–34).
To minimize illegal take, the
Michigan 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 a threatened,
endangered, game, or protected animal,
all of which prohibit killing (or
harming) the species except under a
permit, license, or specific conditions.
Michigan removed gray wolves from the
State’s threatened and endangered
species list in 2009 and classified the
species as a game animal in 2016. Gameanimal status allows but does not
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69833
require the establishment of a regulated
harvest season. The Michigan Plan
states that regulations would be
reviewed, modified, or enacted as
necessary to provide the wolf
population with appropriate levels of
protection with the following possible
actions: (1) Reclassify wolves as
endangered or threatened under State
regulations if population size declines
to 200 or fewer wolves; (2) review,
modify, recommend, and/or enact
regulations, as necessary, to ensure
appropriate levels of protection for the
wolf population; and (3) if necessary to
avoid a lapse in legal protection, amend
the Wildlife Conservation Order to
designate wolves as a protected animal
(MI DNR 2015, p. 28).
The Michigan Plan emphasizes the
need for public information and
education efforts that focus on living
with a recovered wolf population and
ways to manage wolves and wolf-human
interaction (both positive and negative)
(MI DNR 2015, pp. 22–25). The Plan
also recommends continuing important
research efforts, continuing
reimbursement for depredation losses,
minimizing the impacts of captive
wolves and wolf-dog hybrids on the
wild wolf population, and citizen
stakeholder involvement in the wolfmanagement program (MI DNR 2015,
pp. 27, 52–53, 55–56, 60).
The Michigan Plan calls for
establishing a wolf-management
stakeholder group that will 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 2015, pp.
60–61). The plan also addresses
currently available and potential new
sources of funding to offset costs
associated with wolf management (MI
DNR 2015, pp. 61–62). The MI DNR has
long been an innovative leader in wolfrecovery 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 2015 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,
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69834
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
isolated population and to provide for
ecological and social benefits valued by
the public while resolving conflicts
where they occur (MI DNR 2015, p. 16).
Depredation Control in Michigan—
Data from Michigan show a general
increase in confirmed events of wolf
depredations on livestock over the past
two decades, with an average of 2.5
events annually from 1998 through
2002, an average of 8 annually in 2003–
2007; an average of 25 annually in
2008–2012; and an average of 14
annually in 2013–2017. Eighty-six
percent of the depredation events were
on cattle, with the rest on sheep,
poultry, rabbits, goats, horses, swine,
and captive deer (Roell et al. 2009, pp.
9, 11; Beyer in litt. 2018).
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 (Ruid et al. 2009, pp. 284–285;
Bump et al. 2013, pp. 1–2). 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 during the 15 years from
1996 to 2010 totaled 34; that number
increased to 55 during the 7-year period
from 2011 through 2017 (Beyer in litt.
2018). The majority of the wolf-related
dog deaths involved hounds used to
hunt bears. The MI DNR guidelines for
its depredation control program allow
for lethal control as a management
option on free-ranging hunting dogs
when nonlethal methods are determined
to be ineffective in specific areas where
a wolf attack has been verified (MI DNR
2017, pp. 9–10). Lethal control of
wolves will also be considered if wolves
have killed confined pets and remain in
the area where more pets are being held
(MI DNR 2017, p. 10). In 2008, the
Michigan Legislature passed a law that
will 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 was no
evidence of resulting adverse impacts to
the maintenance of a viable wolf
population in the Upper Peninsula. MI
DNR and Wildlife Services killed 50
wolves 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 Endangered and Threatened
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Wildlife (Roell et al. 2010, p. 8). In 2008,
Michigan passed two House bills that
will become effective after Federal
delisting. These bills authorize 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; 15 wolves were killed
under these authorities from 2012
through 2014 (Beyer in litt. 2018). The
numbers of wolves killed each year for
depredation control (livestock and dogs)
are as follows: 4 (2003), 5 (2004), 2
(2005), 7 (2006), 14 (2007), 8 (2008), 1
(during 2 months in 2009), 18 (2012), 10
(2013), and 13 (2014) (Beyer et al. 2006,
p. 88; Roell in litt. 2006, p. 1; Roell et
al. 2010, p. 19; Beyer in litt. 2018). This
represents 0.2 percent (2009) to 2.8
percent (2007) of the Upper Peninsula’s
late-winter population of wolves during
the previous winter. During the years
where depredation control took place
absent a regulated public harvest, the
wolf population increased from 2
percent (2007–2008) to 17 percent
(2006–2007) despite the level of
depredation control, demonstrating that
the wolf population continues to
increase at a healthy rate (Huntzinger et
al. 2005, p. 6; MI DNR 2006, Roell et al.
2009, p. 4).
Post-delisting Depredation Control in
Michigan—Following Federal delisting,
wolf depredation control in Michigan
will be carried out according to the 2015
Michigan Wolf Recovery and
Management Plan (MI DNR 2015) 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 2017).
Verification of wolf depredation
incidents will be conducted by MI DNR
or Wildlife Services personnel (working
under a Cooperative Service Agreement
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 2017, Append. B, pp. 13–14).
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
Upper Peninsula wolves during 1998–
2003 (Beyer et al. 2006, p. 88), but as
with Wisconsin, suitable relocation sites
are becoming rarer, and there is local
opposition to the release of translocated
depredators. Furthermore, none of the
past translocated depredators have
remained near their release sites,
making this a questionable method to
end the depredation behaviors of these
wolves (MI DNR 2005a, pp. 3–4).
Therefore, reducing depredation
problems by relocation is no longer
recommended as a management tool in
Michigan (MI DNR 2008, p. 57).
Lethal control of depredating wolves
is likely to be the most common future
response in situations when improved
livestock husbandry and wolf-behaviormodification techniques (for example,
flashing lights, noisemaking devices) are
judged to be inadequate. In a previous
application for a lethal take permit
under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, MI
DNR received authority to euthanize up
to 10 percent of the late-winter wolf
population annually (MI DNR 2005b, p.
1). However, when Michigan had the
authority to use lethal means to manage
depredations, not more than 3 percent
of the population was removed in any
year, indicating that it is likely that
significantly less than 10 percent of the
population will be removed annually
over the next several years.
The Michigan 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 Michigan
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
affecting 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 Michigan Plan and the
stated goal for maintaining wolf
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
populations at or above recovery goals,
the Service concludes that any wolfmanagement changes implemented
following delisting will not be
implemented in 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 2015,
p. 8).
Michigan livestock owners are
compensated when they lose livestock
as a result of a confirmed wolf
depredation. The Michigan Wildlife
Depredations Indemnification Act
(Public Act 487 of 2012) provides
payment to livestock owners, but it may
do so only if the MI DNR or its
designated agent (Wildlife Services)
verifies the depredation was caused by
wolves, coyotes, or cougars. If the
investigator cannot rule out wolves as
the cause for the missing animals and
the farm has had ‘‘verified’’ wolf
depredation in the past, the owner is
eligible to receive indemnification
payment from the Michigan Department
of Agriculture and Rural Development
(MI DNR 2017, p. 2). Compensation
payments are made for livestock
included in the claim at 100 percent of
the fair market value not to exceed
$4,000 for each animal. Livestock
includes, but is not limited to, cattle,
sheep, new world camelids, goats,
bison, privately owned cervids, ratites,
swine, equine, poultry, aquaculture, and
rabbits. Livestock does not include dogs
and cats (MI DNR 2017, pp. 2, 8).
Funding for depredation payments
and, more recently, missing animal
claims has changed over time. From
2001 through 2010 a supplemental fund
provided by Defenders of Wildlife was
used to make up the difference between
State compensation and fair market
value. This fund paid $10,053 to
Michigan farmers. Currently, the State
uses a general fund appropriate to pay
depredation and missing animal claims.
From 1998 through 2018, the State has
paid $179,486 to Michigan farmers for
losses due to wolves.
Post-delisting Regulated Harvest in
Michigan—Although the Michigan Plan
itself does not determine whether a
public harvest will be used as a
management strategy, it does discuss
developing ‘‘socially and biologically
responsible management
recommendations regarding public
harvest of wolves’’ (MI DNR 2015, p.
56). The Michigan Plan discusses
developing recommendations regarding
public harvest for two separate
purposes: To reduce wolf-related
conflicts and for reasons other than
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
managing wolf-related conflicts (e.g.,
recreational and utilitarian purposes).
With regard to implementing a public
harvest for recreational or utilitarian
purposes, the Michigan Plan identifies
the need to gather and evaluate
biological and social information,
including the biological effects and the
public acceptability of a general wolf
harvest (MI DNR 2015, p. 60). A public
harvest during a regulated season
requires that wolves be classified as
game animals in Michigan (they were
classified as such in 2016). With wolves
classified as game animals, the
Michigan Natural Resources
Commission (NRC) has the exclusive
authority to enact regulations pertaining
to the methods and manner of public
harvest. Although any decisions
regarding establishment of a harvest
season will be made by the NRC, the MI
DNR would be called upon to make
recommendations regarding socially and
biologically responsible public harvest
of wolves. Michigan held a regulated
public hunting season in 2013 that took
into consideration the recommendations
of the MI DNR, which were based on the
State management plan. From those
recommendations, the Michigan NRC
established quotas for that season based
on zones in the Upper Peninsula, with
a quota of 16 wolves in the far western
part of the peninsula, 19 in 4 central
counties, and 8 in the eastern part of the
peninsula. Twenty-two wolves were
taken during that 2013 season.
State Management in the West Coast
States
Wolves are classified as endangered
under the Washington State Endangered
Species Act (WAC 220–610–010).
Unlawful taking (when a person hunts,
fishes, possesses, maliciously harasses,
or kills endangered fish or wildlife, and
the taking has not been authorized by
rule of the commission) of endangered
fish or wildlife is prohibited in
Washington (RCW 77.15.120). Wolves in
California are similarly classified as
endangered under the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA;
California Fish and Game Commission
2014, entire). Under CESA, take
(defined as hunt, pursue, catch, capture,
kill, or attempts to hunt, pursue, catch,
capture, or kill) of listed wildlife species
is prohibited (California Fish and Game
Codes section 86 and section 2080).
Wolves in Oregon have achieved
recovery objectives and were delisted
from the State Endangered Species Act
in 2015. Wolves in Oregon remain
protected by the State Plan and its
associated regulation (Oregon
Administrative Rule 665–110), and
Oregon’s wildlife policy. The wildlife
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69835
policy guides long-term management
and states ‘‘that wildlife shall be
managed to prevent the serious
depletion of any indigenous species’’
and includes seven management goals
(ODFW 2019, p. 6, referencing ORS
496.012). There are no current plans to
initiate a hunting season, and regulatory
mechanisms remain in place through
the State Plan and Oregon statute to
ensure a sustainable wolf population.
Controlled take of wolves, including a
future hunting season, by the State of
Oregon would require Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Commission approval through
a public rulemaking process (ODFW
2019, p. 31).
Oregon, Washington, and California
also have adopted wolf-management
plans intended to provide for the
conservation and reestablishment of
wolves in these States (ODFW 2019,
entire; Wiles et al. 2011, entire; CDFW
2016a, entire; 2016b, entire). These
plans include population objectives,
education and public outreach goals,
damage-management strategies, and
monitoring and research plans. Wolves
will remain on State endangered species
lists in Washington and California until
recovery objectives have been reached.
Once recovery objectives have been
achieved, we anticipate that the States
will initiate processes for delisting
wolves. Once the species is removed
from State endangered species lists, the
States will have the authority to
consider the use of regulated harvest to
manage wolf populations. All three
State plans recognize that management
of livestock conflicts is a necessary
component of wolf management (ODFW
2019, pp. 33–55; Wiles et al. 2011, p. 72;
CDFW 2016a, p. 4). Control options are
currently limited to preventative and
nonlethal methods within the federally
listed portions of Oregon, Washington,
and California. Following Federal
delisting, guidelines outlined in each
State’s plan, or developed through a
collaborative stakeholder process, will
define the conditions under which
depredating wolves can be lethally
removed by agency officials (CDFW
2016b, pp. 278–285; ODFW 2019, pp.
41–54; Wiles et al. 2011, pp. 72–94).
The Oregon Wolf Management Plan—
The Oregon Wolf Conservation and
Management Plan was developed prior
to wolves becoming established in
Oregon. The plan, first finalized in
2005, contains provisions that require it
to be updated every 5 years. The first
revision occurred in 2010, and a second
revision was recently completed in June
of 2019. The ODFW is required by State
regulations to follow the Oregon Wolf
Conservation and Management Plan.
The Plan includes program direction,
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69836
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
objectives, and strategies to manage gray
wolves in Oregon and defines the gray
wolf’s special status game mammal
designation (Oregon Administrative
Rule 635–110). The Plan defines the
following objectives for continued
conservation of the gray wolf in Oregon:
• Continue to promote a naturally
reproducing wolf population in suitable
habitat within Oregon, which is
connected to a larger source population
of wolves, allowing for continued
expansion into other areas of the State.
• Maintain a conservation population
objective for both East and West Wolf
Management Zones (WMZs) of four
breeding pairs of wolves present for 3
consecutive years.
• Maintain a management population
objective for each zone of a minimum of
seven breeding pairs of wolves present
for 3 consecutive years.
• Maintain a management regime in
the West WMZ that simulates Oregon
Endangered Species Act protections
until the conservation population
objective is met.
• Identify and monitor potential
conservation threats to Oregon wolves
and, if feasible, implement measures to
reduce threats that can negatively affect
Oregon’s wolf population.
• Effectively and responsibly address
conflict with competing human values
while using management measures that
are consistent with long-term wolf
conservation in all phases of wolf
management status under the Plan.
• Maintain accurate information on
the population status and distribution of
wolves in Oregon through a
comprehensive monitoring program.
• Continue to coordinate with other
agencies and organizations to achieve
wolf conservation and management
objectives.
The Oregon plan includes two
management zones that roughly divide
the State into western and eastern
halves. This division line is further to
the west of the line that delineates the
listed and non-listed portions of Oregon.
Each zone has a separate ‘‘management
population objective’’ of seven breeding
pairs (ODFW 2019, p. 8). Within each
zone, management phases (Phase I,
Phase II, and Phase III) are used to
assess population objectives, which in
turn influence conservation and
management objectives.
Phase I includes a conservation
population objective of obtaining four
breeding pairs for 3 consecutive years;
upon reaching this objective, delisting
of wolves statewide may be initiated.
The ODFW defines a breeding pair as a
pack of wolves with an adult male, an
adult female, and at least two pups
surviving to the end of December
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
(ODFW 2019, p. 1). This population
objective was met in 2014 in the eastern
WMZ, and wolves were State delisted in
Oregon in 2015. Wolves in the eastern
WMZ were then managed under Phase
II (ODFW 2019, p. 6). Wolves in the
western WMZ have yet to reach this
conservation objective. Despite State
delisting, wolves in the western WMZ
(currently in Phase I) are still managed
with a level of protection comparable to
that of Oregon Endangered Species Act
protections for wolves.
Phase II management actions work
towards a management population
objective of seven breeding pairs in the
eastern management zone for 3
consecutive years. During this phase,
populations are managed to prevent
declines that could result in relisting
under the Oregon ESA. This Phase II
management population objective was
met in 2016, which resulted in the
transition of management to Phase III for
the eastern WMZ in 2018 (ODFW 2019,
p. 11).
Phase III acts to set a balance such
that populations do not decline below
Phase II objectives, but also do not reach
unmanageable levels resulting in
conflicts with other land uses. Phase III
is a maintenance phase. While the 2019
plan does not include a minimum or
maximum population level for wolves
in Oregon, the plan leaves room for
development of population thresholds
in future planning efforts (ODFW 2019,
pp. 10, 15–17). Phase III of the 2019
plan provides management flexibility in
the case of depredating wolves (ODFW
2019, pp. 31–32). Currently, hunting of
wolves is not permitted in Oregon and,
as noted above, would require a public
rulemaking process conducted by the
Oregon Fish and Game Commission.
The Washington Wolf Management
Plan—The 2011 Wolf Conservation and
Management Plan for Washington was
developed in response to the State
endangered status for the species, and
the expectations that the wolf
population in Washington would
continue to increase through natural
dispersal of wolves from adjacent
populations, and anticipation of the
return of wolf management to the State
after Federal delisting. The purpose of
the plan is to facilitate reestablishment
of a self-sustaining population of gray
wolves in Washington and to encourage
social tolerance for the species by
addressing and reducing conflicts. An
advisory Wolf Working Group was
appointed at the outset to give
recommendations on the plan. In
addition, the plan underwent extensive
peer and public review prior to
finalization.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The Washington Plan provides
recovery goals for downlisting and
delisting the species under Washington
State law, and identifies strategies to
achieve recovery and manage conflicts
with livestock and ungulates. Recovery
objectives are defined as numbers of
successful breeding pairs that are
maintained on the landscape for 3
consecutive years, with a set geographic
distribution within three specified
recovery regions: (1) Eastern
Washington; (2) Northern Cascades; and
(3) Southern Cascades and Northwest
Coast (Wiles et al. 2011, p. 60 figure 9).
A successful breeding pair of wolves is
defined in the Washington Plan as an
adult male and an adult female with at
least two pups surviving to December 31
in a given year (Wiles et al. 2011, p. 58).
Specific target numbers and distribution
for downlisting and delisting within the
three recovery regions identified in the
Washington Plan are as follows:
• To reclassify from State endangered
to State threatened status: A minimum
of six successful breeding pairs with a
minimum of two successful breeding
pairs in each of the three recovery
regions documented for 3 consecutive
years.
• To reclassify from State threatened
to State sensitive status: A minimum of
12 successful breeding pairs with a
minimum of 4 successful breeding pairs
in each of the 3 recovery regions
documented for 3 consecutive years.
• To delist from State sensitive status:
Four successful breeding pairs
documented for 3 consecutive years in
each of the three recovery regions plus
an additional three successful breeding
pairs anywhere in the State.
In addition to the delisting objective
of 15 successful breeding pairs
distributed in the 3 geographic regions
for 3 consecutive years, an alternative
delisting objective was also established
whereby the gray wolf will be
considered for delisting when 18
successful breeding pairs are present,
with 4 successful breeding pairs in the
Eastern Washington region, 4 successful
breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades
region, 4 successful breeding pairs
distributed in the Southern Cascades
and Northwest Coast region, plus an
additional 6 successful breeding pairs
anywhere in the State in a single year.
The WDFW recently initiated work to
develop a post-recovery wolf
management plan that would guide the
long-term conservation and
management of the species in the State.
After wolves have reached recovery
levels and are delisted at the State level,
wolves could be reclassified as a game
animal through the Washington Fish
and Wildlife Commission’s public
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
process (Wiles et al. 2011, pp. 70–71).
Any proposals to initiate a hunting
season for wolves in Washington after
State delisting would be consistent with
maintaining a recovered wolf
population in the State and would go
through a public process with the Fish
and Wildlife Commission (Wiles et al.
2011, pp. 70–71).
The California Wolf Management
Plan—The 2016 Conservation Plan for
Gray Wolves in California was
developed in anticipation of the return
of wolves to California (CDFW 2016a, p.
2). The CDFW worked with stakeholder
groups in 2014 and 2015 during plan
development (CDFW 2016a, pp. 2–3).
Stakeholders included local
government, nongovernmental
organizations, State agencies and
organizations, and Federal agencies.
During the planning process, CDFW and
the stakeholders identified sideboards
(e.g., guidelines) and plan goals to direct
development of the State plan (CDFW
2016a, p. 3). The sideboards included
direction to develop alternatives for
wolf management, specified that CDFW
would not reintroduce wolves to
California, and acknowledged that
historical distribution and abundance
are not achievable (CDFW 2016a, pp. 3–
4). The goals include the conservation of
biologically sustainable populations,
management of wolf distribution,
management of native ungulates for
wolf and human uses, management of
wolves to minimize livestock
depredations, and public outreach
(CDFW 2016a, p. 4).
The California Plan recognizes that
wolf numbers in the State will increase
with time, and that the plan needs to be
flexible to account for information that
is gained during the expansion of
wolves into the State (CDFW 2016a, pp.
19–24). Similar to plans for other States,
the California Plan uses a three-phase
strategy for wolf conservation and
management.
Phase I is a conservation-based
strategy to account for the
reestablishment of wolves under both
State and Federal Endangered Species
Acts (CDFW 2016a, pp. 21–22). Phase I
will end when there are four breeding
pairs for 2 consecutive years in
California. The CDFW defines a
breeding pair as at least one adult male,
one adult female, and at least two pups
that survive to the end of December
(CDFW 2016a, p. 21). California is
currently in Phase I of the plan, with the
Lassen Pack as the only breeding pair
present for 2 consecutive years.
Phase II is expected to represent a
point at which California’s wolf
population is growing more through
reproduction of resident wolves than by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
dispersal of wolves from other States
(CDFW 2016a, p. 22). This phase will
conclude when there are eight breeding
pairs for 2 consecutive years. During
Phase II, CDFW anticipates gaining
additional information and experience
with wolf management, which will help
inform future revisions to the State plan.
During Phase II, managing wolves for
depredation response or predation on
wild ungulates may be initiated.
Phase III is less specific due to the
limited information available to CDFW
at the time of plan development (CDFW
2016a, p. 22). This phase moves toward
longer term management of wolves in
California. Specific aspects of Phase III
are more likely to be developed during
Phase II when more information on wolf
distribution and abundance in the State
are available. Towards the end of Phase
II and the beginning of Phase III,
information should be available to
inform a status review of wolves in
California to determine if continued
State listing as endangered is warranted
(CDFW 2016a, p. 22). Currently, hunting
of wolves is not permitted in California.
State Management in the Central Rocky
Mountains
Post-Delisting Management in
Colorado—Gray wolves are listed as an
endangered species by the State of
Colorado and receive protection under
Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 33–6–
109), thereby making it illegal for any
person to hunt, take, or possess a gray
wolf in the State. Wolves in Colorado
will remain listed at the State level after
they are federally delisted.
Recognizing the potential for
increasing numbers of wolves to enter
Colorado from growing populations in
neighboring States, Colorado Parks and
Wildlife convened a multidisciplinary
Wolf Management Working Group in
2004 to formulate management
recommendations for wolves that
naturally enter and possibly begin to
recolonize the State. The working group
did not evaluate what would constitute
wolf recovery in Colorado; thus, no
recovery objectives or thresholds were
defined. The working group
recommended that wolves that enter or
begin to recolonize the State should be
free to occupy available suitable habitat,
but that wolf distribution should
ultimately be defined by balancing the
ecological needs of the wolf with the
social aspects of wolf management
(Colorado Wolf Management Working
Group 2004, pp. 1, 3–5). The working
group’s recommendations provided
information on all aspects of wolf
management including monitoring,
enforcement, research, information and
education, the conservation and
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69837
management of prey populations, and
funding. Although the working group’s
recommendations are not a formal
management plan, in 2005 they were
adopted by the Colorado Parks and
Wildlife Commission, a citizen board
appointed by the Governor which
develops regulations and policies for
State parks and wildlife programs. The
working group’s recommendations were
reaffirmed in 2016 (CPWC, PWCR 16–
01–2016) and will be used to guide
management of wolves that occur in or
naturally enter Colorado post-delisting
until a wolf conservation and
management plan is developed.
In 2019, wolf proponents collected
signatures in the hopes of getting an
initiative on the 2020 ballot to
reintroduce wolves into Colorado. Over
210,000 signatures were submitted to
the Secretary of State in December 2019,
and in January 2020, the Secretary of
State determined that enough valid
signatures were collected to place
initiative 107 on the 2020 ballot. If
passed, the Colorado Gray Wolf
Reintroduction Initiative would require
the Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Commission to create and implement a
plan to reintroduce gray wolves into
Colorado west of the Continental Divide
by December 2023. As a result of the
pending ballot initiative and the fact
that, until recently, no groups of wolves
had been confirmed in Colorado, the
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Commission chose not to initiate
development of a wolf management
plan until after the 2020 election, when
it expects to have clearer management
direction.
Under Title 35 of the Colorado
Revised Statutes, the Colorado
Department of Agriculture is
responsible for the control of
depredating animals in the State, with
the exception of at-risk species such as
gray wolves. Before the Colorado
Department of Agriculture adopts any
rules concerning the take of
depredating, at-risk species, the rules
must be approved by the Colorado Parks
and Wildlife Commission.
There are currently no plans to
initiate a wolf hunting season in
Colorado after wolves are federally
delisted. Regulated harvest may be
considered during the future
development of a wolf conservation and
management plan. However, prior to
implementing any hunting seasons, the
State of Colorado would require
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Commission approval through a public
rulemaking process.
Post-Delisting Management in Utah—
Gray wolves are considered a Tier 1
sensitive species under Utah
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69838
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Administrative Rule (Rule R657–48) and
receive protections under Utah Code
(Section 23–20–3) that prohibits the
taking of protected wildlife, except as
authorized by the Wildlife Board.
Wolves are also classified as furbearers
and Utah Code (Section 23–18–2)
prohibits furbearer take without a
license or otherwise in violation of rules
promulgated by the Wildlife Board. At
present, there is no season or take
authorized for wolves in the federally
listed portion of Utah. However,
authorized personnel may lethally
control wolves to mitigate wolf conflicts
with livestock in the federally delisted
portion of the State.
In 2003, the Utah Legislature passed
House Joint Resolution 12, which
directed UDWR to draft a wolf
management plan for review,
modification, and adoption by the Utah
Wildlife Board, through the Regional
Advisory Council process. In April
2003, the Utah Wildlife Board directed
UDWR to develop a proposal for a wolf
working group to assist the agency in
this endeavor. The UDWR created the
Wolf Working Group in the summer of
2003. The Wolf Working Group was
composed of 13 members that
represented diverse public interests
regarding wolves in Utah.
On June 9, 2005, the Utah Wildlife
Board formally approved the Utah Wolf
Management Plan (UDWR and Utah
Wolf Working Group 2005). The goal of
the Plan is to manage, study, and
conserve wolves moving into Utah
while avoiding conflicts with the elk
and deer management objectives of the
Ute Indian Tribe; minimizing livestock
depredation; and protecting wild
ungulate populations in Utah from
excessive wolf predation. In 2010, to
prevent the establishment of wolves in
the federally listed portion of Utah, the
Utah Legislature directed the UDWR to
prevent the establishment of any packs
of wolves in the delisted portion of Utah
until wolves are federally delisted in the
entirety of the State (S.B. 36, Wolf
Management Act). This law supersedes
Utah’s Wolf Management Plan. To
comply with S.B. 36, the UDWR is
tasked with preventing wolves from
becoming established in the delisted
portion of the State. The State of Utah
intends to fully implement the Utah
Wolf Management Plan when wolves
are delisted across all of Utah (S.B. 36;
UDWR and Utah Wolf Working Group
2005, p. 28).
Wolves were federally delisted in a
small portion of north-central Utah,
along with the remainder of the
northern Rocky Mountain wolf
population (with the exception of
Wyoming), in 2011 (76 FR 25590, May
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
5, 2011). In 2015, the Utah Wildlife
Board extended the Plan through 2020
and it recently reapproved the Plan
through 2030. However, the Plan will
not be implemented until wolves are
federally delisted statewide, at which
time the Plan will guide management of
wolves until 2030; until wolves become
established (defined as at least two
breeding pairs for two consecutive
years) in Utah; or until the political,
social, biological, or legal assumptions
of the plan change, whichever occurs
first.
The Utah Plan recognizes that
concerns about livestock depredation by
wolves can effectively be addressed
using both nonlethal and lethal
management tools (UDWR and Utah
Wolf Working Group 2005, pp. 35–39).
The Plan recommends a compensation
program for livestock owners who
experience loss due to wolves (UDWR
and Utah Wolf Working Group 2005, pp.
35–39). At present, the UDWR may
consider lethal control to mitigate wolf
conflicts with livestock only in the
federally delisted portion of the State.
Under Utah Administrative Code (Rule
R657–24), the State may compensate
livestock producers for confirmed losses
caused by wolves in those areas of the
State where wolves are federally
delisted.
Post-delisting, the provisions of
Utah’s Wolf Management Plan will be
fully implemented. Gray wolves will be
removed from the sensitive species list,
but will remain classified as a furbearer
species with a closed season. Regulated
take of gray wolves may be considered
when wolves have established
themselves in the State (i.e., when there
are at least two breeding pairs for two
consecutive years). Any harvest
recommendations will be vetted through
the public process via the Regional
Advisory Councils and must be
approved by the Wildlife Board. Lethal
control may be considered statewide to
mitigate wolf conflicts with livestock
and all livestock producers in the State
that experience confirmed wolf-caused
livestock losses would be eligible for
compensation.
Tribal Management and Conservation of
Wolves
In the western Great Lakes area,
Native American Tribes and inter-Tribal
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 primary wolf areas.
The wolf retains great cultural
significance and traditional value to
many Tribes and their members, and to
retain and strengthen cultural
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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. The Red Lake
Band of Chippewa (Minnesota), the Red
Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
(Wisconsin), the Bad River Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa (Wisconsin), the
Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa
Indians (Michigan), the Fond du Lac
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
(Minnesota), and the Keweenaw Bay
Indian Community (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 Tribal lands.
Although not all Tribes with wolves that
visit or reside on their reservations have
completed management plans specific
to the wolf, several Tribes have passed
resolutions or otherwise informed us
that they have no plans or intentions to
allow commercial or recreational
hunting or trapping of the species on
their lands after Federal delisting.
As a result of many contacts with, and
recent and previous written comments
from, the Midwestern Tribes and their
inter-Tribal natural-resourcemanagement agencies—the Great Lakes
Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission,
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 occupancy
of wolves on reservations and
throughout the treaty-ceded lands
surrounding the reservations. While
several Tribes stated that their members
may be interested in killing small
numbers of wolves for spiritual or other
purposes, we expect that these activities
would have a negligible effect on
reservation or ceded-territory wolf
populations.
The Red Lake Band of Chippewa
Indians (Minnesota) completed a wolfmanagement 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
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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 Red Cliff Band (Wisconsin) has
strongly opposed State and Federal
delisting of the gray wolf. Red Cliff
implemented a Wolf Protection Plan in
2015 (Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa 2015, entire). The plan guides
management of wolves on the
Reservation and prohibits any hunting
of wolves during any future harvests.
The plan calls for increased research
and monitoring of wolves on the
Bayfield Peninsula, which may help
guide the management and protection of
gray wolves when delisted. The plan
includes a 6-mile (9.7-km) buffer
outside of Reservation boundaries, in
which Red Cliff will work cooperatively
to mitigate human-wolf conflicts.
Implementation of the plan includes:
Collaring and monitoring local packs,
seeking Federal grants for prevention
and compensation for wolf depredation
events on the Bayfield Peninsula,
education, and outreach.
The Bad River Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa established a Ma’iingan
(Wolf) Management Plan for the
Reservation in 2013 (Bad River Band of
Chippewa Indians Natural Resource
Department 2013, entire). The Bad River
Band has been involved in wolf
monitoring on the Reservation since
1997. During the period of 2010–2018,
from 5 to 17 wolves were counted on
the reservation in 2 or 3 packs (Bad
River Band Natural Resource
Department). The Tribe acknowledges
the cultural significance of the
Ma’iingan to the Anishinabe in all wolf
management activities, and wolves
(Ma’iingan) will be listed as a ‘‘Tribally
Protected Species’’ on the Bad River
Reservation after Federal delisting. The
Tribe set a minimum wolf population
goal of two packs of at least three
wolves on the Reservation and will
manage wolves in a way that minimizes
human-wildlife conflicts on and around
the Reservation.
In 2009, the Little Traverse Bay Bands
of Odawa Indians (LTBB) finalized a
management plan for the 1855
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Reservation and portions of the 1836
ceded territory in the northern Lower
Peninsula 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 Lower Peninsula
should a population become established
by (1) prescribing scientifically sound
biological strategies for wolf
management, research, and monitoring;
(2) addressing wolf-related conflicts; (3)
facilitating wolf-related benefits; and (4)
developing and implementing wolfrelated education and public
information.
The Fond du Lac Band (Minnesota) of
Lake Superior Chippewa 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 the
prohibition of trapping, hunting, or
poisoning is rescinded, the Band’s
Resource Management Division would
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 band
finalized a wolf management plan for
the Fond du Lac Reservation in 2012. A
primary goal of the management plan is
to maintain gray wolf numbers at levels
that will contribute to the long-term
survival of the species. The plan
expresses the Tribe’s belief that humans
and wolves need to coexist, in
accordance with the Band’s traditions
and customs and, thus, also recognizes
that a system must be developed to deal
with concerns for human safety and
instances of depredation by wolves on
livestock and pets.
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
negatively affect the wolf population.
The Leech Lake Reservation was home
to an estimated 60 wolves (https://
www.llojibwe.org/drm/fpw/wolf.html,
accessed 12/17/2019), although more
recent survey data are not available.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69839
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. 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 radio-tracking of
the wolves. Although by early 2005 the
last of these wolves died on the
reservation, the tribal conservation
department continued to monitor
another pair that had moved onto the
Reservation, as well as other wolves
near the reservation (Wydeven in litt.
2006). When the female of that pair was
killed in 2006, Reservation biologists
and staff worked diligently to raise the
orphaned pups in captivity with the WI
DNR and the Wildlife Science Center
(Forest Lake, Minnesota) 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). In 2010–2018 the reservation
generally supported 7 to 16 wolves in 3
or 4 packs (Menominee Tribal
Conservation Department). The
Menominee Tribe continues to support
wolf conservation and monitoring
activities in 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 (Keweenaw Bay Indian
Community 2019, in litt.). Furthermore,
the Keweenaw Bay Community
developed a management plan in 2013
that ‘‘provides a course of action that
will ensure the long-term survival of a
self-sustaining, wild gray wolf (Canis
lupus) population in the 1842 ceded
territory in the western Upper Peninsula
of Michigan’’ (Keweenaw Bay Indian
Community Tribal Council 2013, p. 1).
The plan is written to encourage
cooperation among agencies,
communities, private and corporate
landowners, special interest groups, and
Michigan residents (Keweenaw Bay
Indian Community 2019, in litt.).
Several Midwestern Tribes have
expressed concern that Federal delisting
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69840
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
would 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. In 2006, a cooperative effort
among Tribal natural resource
departments of several Tribes in
Wisconsin, WI DNR, the Service, and
Wildlife Services led to a wolfmanagement agreement for lands
adjacent to several reservations in
Wisconsin. The 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. This agreement, and
additional agreements if they are
implemented, provides supplementary
protection to certain wolf packs in the
Great Lakes area.
The Great Lakes Indian Fish and
Wildlife Commission 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 wolfmanagement plan (Schlender in litt.
1998). Furthermore, the Voigt Intertribal
Task Force of the Great Lakes Indian
Fish and Wildlife Commission 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).
While there are few written tribal
protections currently in place for wolves
in the Great Lakes area, the highly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
protective and reverential attitudes held
by tribal authorities and members have
assured us that any post-delisting
harvest of reservation wolves will be
very limited and will not adversely
affect the delisted wolf populations.
Furthermore, any off-reservation harvest
of wolves by Tribal members in the
ceded territories will be limited to a
portion of the harvestable surplus at
some future time. Such a harvestable
surplus will be determined and
monitored jointly by State and Tribal
biologists, and will 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 affect the viability
of the wolf population, either locally or
across the Great Lakes area.
In the Western United States, Native
American Tribes have played a key role
in the recovery of gray wolves. We
specifically acknowledge the profound
contributions of the Nez Perce Tribe in
the recovery of the gray wolf in the
northern Rocky Mountains. The Nez
Perce Tribe devoted substantial
biological expertise and resources to
support gray wolf reintroduction and
monitoring that assisted in the recovery
of this species. We also acknowledge
other Tribes in the Western United
States that have developed, and are
implementing, wolf management plans,
including the Eastern Shoshone and
Northern Arapaho Tribes in Wyoming,
the Blackfeet Tribe and the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes in Montana, the Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation and
the Spokane Tribe in Washington, and
the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation in Oregon. We are
not aware of any Tribal wolf
management plans, beyond those
already being implemented in the
Western United States (see Management
in the NRM section). However, Tribal
biologists from the Confederated Tribes
of Warm Springs are actively
participating in radio-collaring and
monitoring wolves on the Warm Springs
Reservation in western Oregon.
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. Therefore, the
Department of the Interior, the Service,
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and other
Federal agencies, as appropriate, will
take the needed steps to ensure that
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Tribal authority and sovereignty within
reservation boundaries are respected as
the States implement their wolfmanagement 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 of the
Interior is available to assist in the
exercise of any such rights. If biological
assistance is needed, the Service will
provide it via our field offices. Upon
delisting, the Service will remain
involved in the post-delisting
monitoring of wolves in the Great Lakes
area, but all Service management and
protection authority under the Act will
end.
Consistent with our responsibilities to
Tribes and our goal to have the most
comprehensive data available for our
post-delisting monitoring, we will
annually contact Tribes and their
designated intertribal natural resource
agencies 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 that may have significant
wolf data to provide during the postdelisting 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
Fish and Wildlife Commission.
Management on Federal Lands
Great Lakes Area—The five national
forests with resident wolves in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
(Superior, Chippewa, ChequamegonNicolet, Hiawatha, and Ottawa National
Forests) have operated in conformance
with standards and guidelines in their
management plans that follow the
Revised Recovery Plan’s
recommendations for the eastern timber
wolf (USDA Forest Service (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). The Regional
Forester for U.S. Forest Service Region
9 may maintain the classification of the
wolf as a Sensitive Species, however,
the Regional Foresters have the
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
authority to recommend classification or
declassification of species as Sensitive
Species. Under these standards and
guidelines, a relatively high prey base
would be maintained, and road
densities would either 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
may be allowed on national forest lands
under the guidelines and conditions
specified in the respective State wolfmanagement 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 not likely
to be a frequent occurrence, or to
constitute a significant mortality factor,
for the wolves in the Great Lakes area.
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 may include
hunting and trapping within the
national forests.
Wolves regularly use four units of the
National Park System in the Great Lakes
area and may occasionally use an
additional three or four 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. NPS
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 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
‘‘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. Hunting is already prohibited on
park lands, regardless of what may be
allowed beyond park boundaries (West
in litt. 2004). A radio-telemetry study
conducted between 1987 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,
staff will work with the State to conduct
control activities where necessary (West
in litt. 2004). However, such control is
unlikely to be needed because presently
there are no agricultural activities
occurring adjacent to the park.
The wolf population of Isle Royale
National Park, Michigan, is small,
isolated, and lacks unique genetic
diversity (Wayne et al. 1991). For these
reasons, and due to constraints on
expansion because of 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 typically
varied from 18 to 27 wolves in 3 packs,
but was down to just 2 wolves (a fatherdaughter pair) from the winter of 2015–
2016 until 2018 (Peterson et al. 2018).
In 2018, the NPS announced plans to
move additional wolves to Isle Royale in
an effort to restore a viable wolf
population (83 FR 11787, March 16,
2018). Four wolves from Minnesota
were released on the island in the fall
of 2018, and 11 were relocated from
Ontario in March 2019. One of the
Minnesota wolves died later that fall;
one of the Ontario wolves died in the
winter; and one returned to the
mainland during the winter. As of late
May 2019, 14 wolves occurred on Isle
Royale National Park: 12 successfully
translocated from Minnesota and
Canada plus the 2 wolves that remained
on Isle Royale before the initiation of
wolf reintroduction efforts (https://
https://www.nps.gov/isro/learn/news/
presskit.htm).
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69841
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 will 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. 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 Lakeshore, with a
major deer yard area (a place where deer
congregate in the winter) 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. A gray wolf was also
detected on Stockton Island (Allen et al.
2018, p. 277). It is not known if wolves
periodically swim to these and other
islands, or if they travel to islands only
on ice in winter.
Wolves occurring on National
Wildlife Refuges in the Great Lakes area
will be monitored for a minimum of 5
years after delisting (USFWS 2008, p. 9).
Trapping or hunting by government
trappers for depredation control will not
be authorized on National Wildlife
Refuges. Because of the relatively small
size of these Refuges, however, most or
all wolf packs or individual wolves in
these Refuges also spend significant
amounts of time off these Refuges.
Wolves also occupy the Fort McCoy
military installation in Wisconsin.
Management and protection of wolves
on the installation will not change
significantly after Federal or State
delisting. Den and rendezvous sites will
continue to be protected, hunting
seasons for other species (coyote) will
be closed during the gun deer season,
and current surveys will continue, if
resources are available. Fort McCoy has
no plans to allow a public harvest of
wolves on the installation (Nobles in
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69842
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
litt. 2004; Wydeven et al. 2005, p. 25;
2006a, p. 25).
Minnesota National Guard’s Camp
Ripley contains parts of 2 pack
territories, which typically include 10 to
20 wolves. Minnesota National Guard
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 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 will further
ensure the conservation of wolves in the
three States after delisting. In addition,
wolves that disperse to other units of
the National Wildlife Refuge System or
the National Park System within the
Great Lakes area will also receive the
protection afforded by these Federal
agencies.
West Coast States—The West Coast
States generally contain a greater
proportion of public land than the Great
Lakes area. Public lands here include
many National Parks, National Forests,
National Monuments, National Wildlife
Refuges, and lands managed by the
Bureau of Land Management. These
areas are largely unavailable and/or
unsuitable for intensive development
and contain abundant ungulate
populations. Public lands in the West
contain relatively expansive blocks of
potentially suitable habitat for wolves.
On some of these public lands the
presence of livestock grazing allotments
increases the likelihood of wolflivestock conflict, which increases the
chances of wolf mortality from lethal
removal of chronically depredating wolf
packs. In areas occupied by wolves in
the northern Rocky Mountains, the
overall wolf population has been
remarkably resilient—in terms of
population numbers and distribution—
despite lethal control of depredating
wolves.
In the listed portions of California,
Oregon, and Washington, wolves are
resident on portions of the Lassen,
Plumas, Fremont-Winema, RogueSiskiyou, Mount Hood, OkanoganWenatchee, and Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
National Forests (Forests) and portions
of Bureau of Land Management Districts
in those States. Forest Service Land and
Resource Management Plans (LRMPs)
and Bureau of Land Management
Resource Management Plans (RMPs) for
these areas pre-date the reestablishment
of wolf packs and, therefore, do not
contain standards and guidelines
specific to wolf management. The
LRMPs and RMPs do, however,
recognize that these agencies have
obligations under sections 7(a)(1) and
7(a)(2) of the Act to proactively conserve
and avoid adverse effects to federally
listed species. When federally delisted,
the Regional Foresters for U.S. Forest
Service Region 6 will include the gray
wolf as a Sensitive Species in their
region (BLM 2019, p. 4). U.S. Forest
Service Region 5 may do the same. As
a Sensitive Species, conservation
objectives for the gray wolf and its
habitat would continue to be addressed
during planning and implementation of
projects. BLM requires the designation
of federally delisted species as sensitive
species for 5 years following delisting
(BLM 2008, p. 36). BLM sensitive
species are managed consistent with
species and habitat management
objectives in land use and
implementation plans to promote their
conservation and minimize the
likelihood and need for listing under the
Act (BLM 2008, p. 8).
Gray wolves disperse through, but are
not necessarily residents of, National
Monuments, and National Wildlife
Refuges in the listed portions of all three
West Coast States. Wolves are also
known to disperse through National
Parks, and one territory in Washington
overlaps a small portion of the North
Cascades National Park. Similar to these
types of lands in the Great Lakes areas,
management plans provide for the
conservation of natural and cultural
resources and wildlife. The gray wolf
and its habitat are expected to persist on
these lands once federally delisted.
Central Rocky Mountains—Similar to
other western States, a large proportion
of Colorado and Utah is composed of
publicly owned Federal lands
(approximately 36 percent in Colorado
and approximately 63 percent in Utah)
(Congressional Research Service 2020).
Public lands include National Forests,
National Parks, National Monuments,
and National Wildlife Refuges, which
comprise approximately 63 percent of
the public lands in Colorado and 30
percent in Utah. In addition, the Bureau
of Land Management manages
approximately 35 percent of public land
in Colorado, much of which is located
in the western portion of the State, and
approximately 67 percent of Utah public
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
lands. Although much of this public
land is largely unavailable and/or
unsuitable for intensive development
and contains an abundance of
ungulates, livestock grazing does occur
on some public lands in both Colorado
and Utah, which may increase the
potential for wolf mortality from lethal
control of chronically depredating
packs. However, in both Minnesota and
the northern Rocky Mountains, lethal
control of depredating wolves has had
little effect on wolf distribution and
abundance (see Human-Caused
Mortality section above).
At present, the group of at least six
wolves that were confirmed in January
2020 in northwest Colorado have been
documented primarily on lands owned
by the Bureau of Land Management and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but
likely use some State and private land
in the area as well. Although very close
to the Utah border, this group of wolves
has not been confirmed in Utah. The
lone disperser that continues to reside
in the North Park area of north-central
Colorado has been documented on the
Medicine-Bow/Routt National Forest
and likely uses adjacent State and
private lands.
Summary of Post-Delisting Management
In summary, upon delisting, there
will be varying State and Tribal
classifications and protections provided
to wolves. The State wolf-management
plans currently in place for Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan will maintain
viable wolf populations in each State.
Each of those plans contains
management goals that will maintain
healthy populations of wolves in the
State by establishing a minimum
population threshold of 1,600 in
Minnesota, 250 in Wisconsin, and 200
in Michigan, and each State intends to
manage for numbers above these levels.
Furthermore, 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.
This approach provides strong
assurances that wolves in Wisconsin
and Michigan will remain a viable
component of the wolf population in the
Great Lakes area and the lower 48
United States. Each of the three Great
Lakes States has a longstanding history
of leadership in wolf conservation. All
of the State management plans provide
a high level of assurance of the
persistence of healthy wolf populations
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
and demonstrate the States’
commitment to wolf conservation.
Furthermore, when federally delisted,
wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan will continue to receive
protection from human-caused mortality
by State laws and regulations. Wolves
are protected as game species in each of
those States, and lethal take is
prohibited without a permit, license, or
authorization, except under a few
limited situations (as described under
the management plans above). Each of
the three States will consider
population-management measures,
including public hunting and trapping,
after Federal delisting. However,
regardless of the methods used to
manage wolves, each State has
committed to maintaining wolf
populations at levels that ensure healthy
wolf populations will remain.
Similarly, State management plans
developed for Washington, Oregon, and
California contain objectives to conserve
and recover gray wolves. To maintain
healthy populations, each State will
monitor population abundance and
trends, habitat and prey availability, and
impacts of disease and take actions as
needed to maintain populations. They
are also committed to continuing
necessary biological and social research,
as well as outreach and education, to
maintain healthy wolf populations.
Wolves in Washington, Oregon, and
California will also be protected by State
laws and regulations when federally
delisted. Currently, wolves in
Washington and California are protected
under State statutes as endangered
species, and under their respective State
management plans. Wolves in Oregon
are State-delisted but still receive
protection under its State management
plan. Each plan contains various phases
outlining objectives for conservation
and recovery. As recolonization of the
West Coast States continues, different
phases of management will be enacted.
All phases within the various State
management plans are designed to
achieve and maintain healthy wolf
populations.
In the central Rocky Mountains,
wolves will remain listed as an
endangered species at the State level in
Colorado and will continue to receive
protection under the Colorado Revised
Statutes. In Utah, the State management
plan will guide management of wolves
until 2030; until at least two breeding
pairs are documented in the State for
two consecutive years; or until the
political, social, biological, or legal
assumptions of the plan change,
whichever occurs first.
Finally, based on our review of the
completed Tribal management plans
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
and communications with Tribes and
Tribal organizations, we anticipate that
federally delisted wolves will be
adequately protected on Tribal lands.
Furthermore, the minimum population
levels defined in the Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan State
management plans can be 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, we
expect that National Forests, National
Parks, military bases, and National
Wildlife Refuges will provide
protections to wolves in the areas they
manage that will match, and in some
cases exceed, the protections provided
by State wolf-management plans and
State regulations.
Summary of Changes From the
Proposed Rule
Based on our review of all public and
peer reviewer comments we received on
our March 15, 2019, proposed rule (84
FR 9648, March 15, 2019), and new
information they provided or that
otherwise became available since the
publication of the proposed rule, we
reevaluated the information in the
proposed rule and made changes as
appropriate. As indicated in this rule
(see Determination of Species Status),
our analyses are based on the best
scientific and commercial data
available. Thus, we include in this final
rule new information received in
response to the March 19, 2019,
proposed rule that meets this standard.
We received many comments related
to our approach to the proposed rule.
While commenters presented a broad
range of positions regarding our
approach, many of them focused on
several common issues. Some
commenters questioned our decision to
combine the two listed gray wolf
entities for analysis rather than analyze
each of the listed entities separately.
Others pointed out that we did not
include the analyses to support our
conclusion that, even if we had
analyzed the listed entities separately,
neither would meet the Act’s definitions
of a threatened species or an endangered
species (84 FR 9686, March 15, 2019).
Still others expressed disagreement with
our treatment of gray wolves in the West
Coast States, opining that we could not
adequately consider the status of gray
wolves in the West Coast States without
also assessing threats to the recovered
and delisted gray wolf population in the
NRM DPS. Finally, a few commenters
reasoned that the Act allows us to
analyze the status of only valid listable
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69843
entities, and, because we acknowledge
the two gray wolf listed entities do not
qualify as valid species, subspecies, or
DPSs under the Act, the entities should
be delisted on that basis alone.
In light of the peer review and
numerous comments received during
the public comment period, we have
reexamined the approach we took in the
proposed rule. Our proposal clearly
articulated the reasoning behind
combining the listed entities for analysis
and, as this final rule illustrates, we
continue to find it a reasonable
approach. However, we agree with
commenters who suggested that we
should include a separate determination
for each of the currently listed gray wolf
entities. Thus, we added the analysis to
this final rule to support our statement
in the proposed rule that, when
analyzed separately, the entities do not
meet the definition of a threatened or an
endangered species.
We have also reconsidered our
approach to the NRM wolves in light of
public comments. The biological report
we prepared to support our proposal
included detailed information related to
gray wolf abundance and distribution
throughout the lower 48 United States,
including the NRM DPS. However, we
did not include the delisted NRM DPS
in the threats analysis of our proposed
rule because wolves in that DPS are not
currently listed under the Act.
Nonetheless, because we considered
wolves in the West Coast States to be an
extension of the population of wolves in
the delisted NRM DPS, we included
information about the NRM DPS in our
proposal to provide context for our
discussion of wolves comprising the
combined listed entity.
Commenters remarked that this
approach was inconsistent, and one
commenter opined that we could not
delist wolves in the West Coast States
without also including the NRM DPS in
our analysis. In this final rule, we
include NRM wolves in the analysis
because we conclude that it makes
sense, biologically, to consider those
wolves because of their connection to
the west coast wolves that are part of the
listed 44-State entity. As we concluded
in our proposed rule, west coast wolves
are not discrete from the NRM DPS (84
FR 9654, March 15, 2019; see also The
Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do
Not Meet the Statutory Definition of a
‘‘Species’’). Because most west coast
wolves are dispersers from the NRM, or
are descended from dispersers, wolves
in the NRM are relevant to our analysis
of whether the west coast wolves are
‘‘significant’’ to the entities that we
evaluate in this rule. Thus, in this final
rule we include an evaluation of the
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69844
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
status of the two currently listed gray
wolf entities combined with the
recovered NRM DPS. However, although
we consider the NRM wolves due to
their connection to currently listed
wolves, we reiterate that wolves in the
NRM DPS are recovered, and we are not
reconsidering or reexamining our 2009
and 2012 delisting rules (74 FR 15123,
April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September
10, 2012).
Finally, while our proposed rule
already articulated that neither of the
two gray wolf listed entities constitute
valid listable entities under the Act and
should, therefore, be removed from the
List (84 FR 9686, March 15, 2019), we
added a more complete discussion in
this final rule to support our conclusion
(see The Currently Listed C. lupus
Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory
Definition of a ‘‘Species’’). We also
clarify that, while the currently listed
entities could be removed from the List
on that basis, we elected not to act
solely on that basis in this final rule.
Instead, we elected to consider whether
the gray wolves within the currently
listed entities meet the definition of a
threatened or an endangered species, in
this case whether they are recovered.
In addition to the items discussed
above, we made the following changes
in this final rule:
(1) We updated distribution
information for the gray wolf;
(2) we added a Definition and
Treatment of Range section to Approach
for this Rule (see Our Response to
Comments 5, 7, 8, 10, 63);
(3) we added a Genetic Diversity and
Inbreeding section to Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species (see Our
Response to Comments 2, 41, 57, 116,
117);
(4) we incorporated information
regarding gray wolves in the central
Rocky Mountains into the Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species section as
well as incorporated a consideration of
these wolves into our Determination of
Species Status section;
(5) we incorporated new information
as appropriate; and
(6) we made efforts to improve clarity
and correct typographical or other
minor errors.
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on
March 15, 2019 (84 FR 9648), we
requested that all interested parties
submit written comments on the
proposal by May 14, 2019. We also
contacted appropriate Federal and State
agencies, Tribes, scientific experts and
organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
the proposal. A newspaper notice
inviting general public comment was
published in USA TODAY on March 22,
2019. Subsequently, on May 14, 2019,
we extended the public comment period
until July 15, 2019 (84 FR 21312). We
received several requests for public
hearings. A public information open
house and public hearing was held in
Brainerd, Minnesota, on June 25, 2019
(84 FR 26393).
In addition, in accordance with our
joint policy on peer review published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34270), and updated guidance issued
on August 22, 2016 (USFWS 2016,
entire), we solicited expert opinion from
five knowledgeable individuals with
scientific expertise that included
experience with large carnivore
management, especially wolves, expert
knowledge of conservation biology,
wildlife management, demographic
management of mammals, genetics,
population modeling, mammalian
taxonomy, or systematics. We received
responses from all five peer reviewers.
The peer review process, including the
selection of peer reviewers, was
conducted and managed by an
independent third party (USFWS 2018,
entire; Atkins 2019, pp. 1–6).
We reviewed all comments received
from the peer reviewers and the public
for substantive issues and new
information regarding the delisting of
the gray wolf, inclusive of comments on
the proposed rule and the supporting
biological report. Multiple respondents
provided technical edits and editorial
comments and corrections on the
proposed rule and biological report, or
recommended additional citations to
consider. We made recommended edits
and corrections to the rule and
biological report, where appropriate. We
also reviewed and considered all
additional citations provided by peer
reviewers and others, and incorporated
information from them, as appropriate,
into this final rule and the biological
report.
Peer Reviewer Comments
Overall, three of the reviewers found
the biological report represented an
accurate overview of the changes in the
biological status (range, distribution,
abundance) of the gray wolf in the lower
48 United States over the last several
decades, and provided recommended
revisions and updates. Although one of
those reviewers found our taxonomic
treatment of wolves to be somewhat
arbitrary, a fourth reviewer found the
taxonomy section adequate and
recommended additional information
on biology, ecology, and biological
status of the gray wolf for inclusion in
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the report. A fifth reviewer found the
biological report inadequate because the
reviewer believed that there were other
sources of information that should be
included, which the reviewer provided
and we considered.
With respect to our proposed rule, 2
peer reviewers found our analysis of the
factors relating to the persistence of gray
wolves in the lower 48 United States to
be adequate; 1 peer review provided
corrections and updates. Three
reviewers found our analysis of these
factors inadequate, mainly because they
found our treatment of genetic threats,
human-caused mortality, or habitat
suitability insufficient, or because they
disagreed with Service policy.
Three reviewers found it reasonable to
conclude that the approach of Michigan,
Wisconsin, and Minnesota to wolf
management is likely to maintain a
viable wolf population in the Great
Lakes area into the future, while two did
not. One of these two found that the
proposed rule did not provide adequate
support for either the conclusion that
the metapopulation in the Great Lakes
area contained sufficient resiliency,
redundancy, and representation to
sustain populations within the
combined listed entity into the future or
that wolves outside this metapopulation
are not necessary to maintain its
recovered status. All provided
additional information and literature for
inclusion in the rule, which we
reviewed. Comments received are
addressed in the following summary,
and our responses are incorporated into
this final rule as appropriate.
Finally, although we did not request
peer review on matters related to policy
application, we received a number of
policy-related comments from four of
the five reviewers. Issues raised
included: How we applied certain terms
defined in Service policies (e.g., species
‘‘range’’); our application of the SPR
policy; and our approach to the rule.
Although these comments are outside of
the scope of the requested scientific
peer review (USFWS 2018, entire;
Atkins 2019, pp. 1–6), we address them
in the summary below.
Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or
Population Trends
Comment 1: Several reviewers stated
that the biological report and proposed
rule oversimplified the genetic structure
of gray wolves and requested additional
information about population or
metapopulation structure in wolves.
Our Response: We modified both the
biological report and the rule to better
reflect the various factors that have been
shown to impact the population genetic
structure of wolves in North America,
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
including consideration and addition of
citations recommended by the reviewer.
Comment 2: Several reviewers noted
that there should be a more detailed
discussion of potential genetic impacts
of delisting and provided additional
citations for our consideration. These
comments included requests for further
consideration of the impacts of delisting
on connectivity between populations,
particularly in western States.
Our Response: We revised the
biological report to provide greater
detail on existing genetic structure in
wolves as a background for potential
genetic issues that may result from the
rule. In addition, we added a section to
this rule (Genetic Diversity and
Inbreeding) that provides a more indepth analysis of the potential genetic
impacts of delisting, including
consideration of inbreeding and effects
to metapopulation structure and
connectivity.
Comment 3: Peer reviewers raised
concerns about our description of the
historical range of gray wolves, pointing
out that the scientific evidence indicates
that either eastern or red wolves were
present in the Northeastern United
States historically, not the gray wolf.
Our Response: As we discuss in the
rule and the biological report, the
taxonomy of wolves, particularly in the
Eastern United States, is not settled.
Along with the morphological data
presented by authors such as Nowak
(1995, entire; 2002, entire; 2003, entire;
2009, entire), there is now significant
genetic and genomic research that has
contributed to the ongoing debate over
the correct taxonomic relationship
between eastern wolves, red wolves,
and western gray wolves. This debate
includes considerable uncertainty about
the potential historical ranges of those
groups, including questions about the
degree to which they did or did not
overlap, which can be difficult to
ascertain based on limited available
samples. In presenting information on
historical range, we sought to
acknowledge this uncertainty while
considering the taxa that were covered
by the original listing rule we are
addressing. As a result, we explicitly
include eastern wolves, but not red
wolves, in the gray wolf entities
evaluated for this rule, meaning that the
historical range of the gray wolf in the
lower 48 United States does not attempt
to distinguish between the ranges of
western gray wolf and eastern wolf and
instead considers them as a single range.
The area of ‘‘uncertainty’’ in our map of
the historical range in the biological
report, therefore, reflects the fact that
there is evidence that the Northeastern
United States may have been inhabited
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
by wolves included in our analysis. We
revised the text of the biological report
to clarify the information pertaining to
historical range and to address the
reviewers’ concerns.
Comment 4: One peer reviewer sought
clarification of information presented in
the figures depicting historical range
and current distribution of the gray wolf
(Canis lupus) in the lower 48 United
States (figure 2 of the proposed rule and
figure 1 of the biological report).
Specifically, the reviewer asked us to
explain the basis for the current
distribution and provide citations for
data used to develop the current
distribution so that he could determine
whether we included data for all wolves
or some subset of wolves, how the
polygons were delineated, and if there
is a time period associated with the data
used.
Our Response: The current
distribution (i.e., range) shown in figure
2 of the proposed rule and figure 1 of
the biological report includes State data
for packs and groups of wolves. The
distribution is current as of winter
2019–2020. We revised these figures
and associated text to address the
concerns raised by the peer reviewer.
Also see Our Response to Comment 6.
Comment 5: One peer reviewer
requested additional detail regarding
figure 1 in the biological report (same as
figure 2 in proposed rule). Specifically,
the reviewer questioned whether
current distribution is also current range
and noted that the figure does not
provide a spatial reference describing
the area included in the threats analysis,
nor is it described in associated
paragraphs.
Our Response: The figure depicts the
current distribution of known wolves in
the lower 48 United States. The figure
was not meant to indicate a specific
spatial extent for our threats analysis,
rather it was to provide a representation
of the approximate locations of wolves
within the listed wolf entities relative to
wolves in the remainder of the lower 48
United States. The threats analyses have
been completed for the two listed
entities assessed separately, in
combination (combined listed entity),
and in combination with the NRM DPS
(lower 48 United States entity), all of
which are encompassed by the current
distribution indicated in figure 1 of the
biological report. We endeavored to
match our threats analysis to the spatial
scale of the gray wolf’s distribution.
However, some data on threats and
conservation measures and management
of wolves were provided at regional or
State-wide scales, and we did not want
to constrain our analysis to the dynamic
smaller polygons in the West Coast
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69845
States and Central Rockies where
wolves continue to recolonize.
Therefore, our threats analysis
encompasses relevant threats to wolves,
as well as conservation and
management, in the following
geographic areas: West Coast States
(western Washington, western Oregon,
and California), Northern Rocky
Mountains (represented in the figure),
Central Rocky Mountains (Colorado and
Utah [outside of the NRM DPS]), and the
Great Lakes Area (Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan). See Our
Response to Comment 37 and Definition
and Treatment of Range in this final
rule.
Comment 6: One peer reviewer
recommended that including marks on
States in which dispersing gray wolves
have appeared in figure 1 in the
biological report (figure 2 in the
proposed rule) may further demonstrate
the level of recovery gray wolves have
attained.
Our Response: As indicated in our
response to Comment 5, the purpose of
this figure is to show the current
distribution of gray wolves to provide
information about where wolves are
currently known to occur (see Definition
and Treatment of Range). We
acknowledge that dispersing wolves
have been documented outside of the
known, current distribution and present
this information in the text of this final
rule and the biological report.
Comment 7: One peer reviewer
assumed our analysis of threats for
wolves in the Great Lakes area was in
the area of current distribution and
indicated that this made sense, as it is
a single large area supporting thousands
of wolves. Similarly, the peer reviewer
questioned whether our threats analysis
for wolves in Washington, Oregon, and
California included only the small,
isolated patches of occupied wolf
habitat or also included the intervening
areas.
Our Response: The peer reviewer is
correct regarding the scope of the threats
analysis for the Great Lakes area wolves.
In areas where the saturation of wolves
is denser, polygons delineated around
occupied habitats are larger and also
incorporate corridors connecting
occupied habitats to one another. The
opposite is true in the West, where
wolves are less saturated due to more
recent recolonization from resident
packs, the NRM, and Canada.
Connecting these smaller occupied
patches to the larger metapopulation
would be speculative at best given the
level of information currently available
about corridors that may connect
occupied habitats. We describe the
current condition of wolves in
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69846
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Washington, Oregon, California, and
Colorado (not limited to small polygons)
and how these wolves would be
managed post-delisting (also see Our
Responses to Comments 8 and 37 and
Definition and Treatment of Range in
this final rule).
Comment 8: One peer reviewer noted
that the apparent current range of the
gray wolf in the lower 48 United States,
under a metapopulation structure,
should include portions of the historical
range because the historical range
provides connectivity between known
occurrences. Additionally, the peer
reviewer advised that sink areas of
metapopulations (e.g., dispersal end
points in various western and
midwestern States) should be
considered current range as they
provide viability and connectivity to
metapopulations (citing Howe et al.
1991 and Heinrichs et al. 2015).
Our Response: As described in the
Definition and Treatment of Range
section of this final rule, we define
current range to be the area occupied by
the species at the time we make a status
determination. The current range of the
gray wolf in the lower 48 United States
is based on data provided by the States
on the locations of groups or packs of
wolves. Individual dispersing wolves do
not have a defined territory or
consistently use any one area and,
therefore, are not included in the
current range of the gray wolf. Also see
Our Response to Comment 37 and
Definition and Treatment of Range in
this final rule.
Comment 9: One peer reviewer
questioned why we include listed and
delisted wolves in figure 2 of the
biological report, when we state that we
are not including the delisted NRM DPS
wolves as part of the listed entity under
analysis.
Our Response: As explained above,
we are including wolves in the delisted
NRM DPS in our analysis of the status
of the lower 48 United States entity for
this final rule. We provided information
from the NRM DPS in our biological
report and the proposed rule because
the NRM wolves are biologically
connected to wolves in the West Coast
States, and to illustrate how wolf
populations have responded postdelisting when they are managed under
State authority. We also included NRM
wolves in figure 2 of the biological
report, which provides information on
changes in distribution and abundance
since the original listing in 1978 (see
USFWS 2020, p. 14).
Comment 10: One peer reviewer
sought clarification on whether our
description of the public lands available
for expansion of west coast wolves
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
includes areas outside of the current
range or current distribution.
Our Response: We have clarified, in
this final rule, that our findings are
based on the current range of the gray
wolf and do not rely on further range
expansion of west coast wolves. Also
see Definition and Treatment of Range
in this final rule.
Comment 11: One peer reviewer
requested inclusion of 2018 minimum
wolf counts for Washington, Oregon,
and California, as well as for the
Mexican gray wolf. Similarly, another
peer reviewer noted an inconsistency in
our discussion of whether the Mexican
gray wolf population was growing or
stable.
Our Response: The requested data
were not available at the time the
biological report and proposed rule
were completed. The 2018 data, as well
as data from winter 2019–2020, are now
included in this final rule and revised
biological report. We also clarified that
the Mexican gray wolf population
continues to grow.
Comment 12: One peer reviewer
noted that Appendix 1 of the biological
report contained minimum annual
counts of wolves only for Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Similar
information was requested for
Washington, Oregon, and California.
Our Response: We have added
another table, Appendix 2, to the
biological report that provides
minimum end of year counts for wolves
in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming,
Washington, Oregon, and California.
Comment 13: One reviewer
recommended that we clarify in the
biological report differences between
minimum wolf counts versus patch
occupancy modeling when discussing
wolf population estimates in Montana
and proposed specific language.
Our Response: The paragraph in
question has been revised and updated
using similar concepts, rather than the
exact terminology provided by the
reviewer. Updated information is also
included in the Human-caused
Mortality section of this final rule.
Human-Caused Mortality
Comment 14: One peer reviewer
expressed their view that illegal take is
underestimated by State monitoring
programs and would be much higher
than it is today if wolves were to be
delisted. This reviewer expressed
concerns about a ‘‘catastrophic decline’’
in the Minnesota wolf population postdelisting as well as ‘‘unwarranted
assurances about the safety of wolves in
the Western Great Lakes’’ post-delisting
in both the proposed rule and biological
report. One peer reviewer recommended
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
that we add State-by-State estimates of
mortality rates and include additional
mortality factors to table 4 in the rule (to
include all forms of mortality aside from
lethal control and legal public harvest).
The reviewer created a new table and
provided new information about the
percent of the population removed
annually through agency control efforts.
Other commenters also expressed
concern that State monitoring programs
underestimate mortality rates, including
the effects of legal depredation control
and other sources of mortality.
Our Response: In most instances,
State and Tribal wildlife agencies have
been the primary agencies responsible
for monitoring wolf populations while
they were federally listed. As a result,
the Service has relied upon data
provided by partner wildlife agencies to
evaluate population metrics related to
recovery. We do not expect that wolf
monitoring will significantly change or
become less precise post-delisting. To
evaluate the population status of
wolves, biologists used a variety of
monitoring techniques to evaluate pack
size and reproductive success, identify
pack territories, monitor movements
and dispersal events, and identify new
areas of possible wolf activity. In
addition to direct counts that provide a
minimum known number each year,
managers attempt to use similar survey
techniques annually so that accurate
assessments of historical trends may be
used to further evaluate wolf population
status and changes over time. However,
traditional techniques used to monitor
wolves (e.g., capture and radio-collar
animals, monitor from the ground or air)
can be dangerous to the animal and
wildlife personnel, are costly and timeconsuming, and become less precise as
wolf abundance and distribution
increase; thus, these techniques
underestimate the true population size
(Gude et al. 2012, p. 116).
As a result, State management
agencies have been at the forefront in
developing more accurate, cost-efficient
monitoring techniques to assess wolf
population status in their respective
States. For example, Montana
incorporates hunter surveys, along with
other variables, into a patch occupancy
modeling framework to estimate wolf
abundance and distribution across the
State. Idaho experimented with multiple
noninvasive monitoring techniques to
assess reproductive success and the
number of packs in the State and most
recently used camera surveys and a
modeling framework to provide a
population estimate for 2019. Michigan
inventories wolves using a
geographically based, stratified, random
sample that produces an unbiased,
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
regional estimate of wolf abundance.
Minnesota radio-collars a relative few
individuals in a number of packs
Statewide and uses metrics obtained
from those packs to evaluate occupied
range and abundance. In addition to
using similar techniques as Minnesota,
Wisconsin also uses citizen science
volunteers who are trained and
qualified through a tracking program to
assist agency personnel in documenting
wolf presence and number across survey
blocks in winter. California, Oregon,
Washington, and Wyoming continue to
use traditional monitoring approaches
that provide minimum counts.
Most State management agencies
within occupied wolf range in the lower
48 United States publish a report that
summarizes the results of wolf
monitoring and management activities
each year they are conducted. The
Service reviewed these reports to
complete the biological report and the
proposed and final rules. These reports
also provide information about the
number and type of known causes of
mortality that occurred in each State.
Wolves may go missing for a variety of
reasons, and removing these animals
from survival analyses has the potential
to bias survival estimates high (Liberg et
al. 2012, p. 914; Stenglein et al. 2015c,
p. 374; O’Neil 2017, p. 202; Treves et al.
2017b, pp. 7–8). However, it is not
reasonable to assume that all, or even
most, wolves with unknown fates have
died, particularly through illegal means.
For example, a wolf captured in
northeast Oregon in 2011 went missing
later that same year until it was
rediscovered again in 2015 in
southwestern Oregon (ODFW 2016, p.
8), where it became the breeder in a
newly formed pack (ODFW 2017, p. 5).
An integrated population model for
Wisconsin’s wolf population indicated
that up to an additional 4 percent of
missing wolves may have actually died
between 2003 and 2011 (Stenglein et al.
2015c, pp. 372–374).
Managers use empirical data from
monitoring efforts and reports from the
public to provide accurate information
about the number and causes of known
wolf mortalities, but are cautious about
drawing conclusions from those data
regarding the fates of missing animals.
Most managers acknowledge that
information related to the number and
cause of wolf mortalities are likely
biased because not every wolf is fitted
with a radio collar and not every wolf
that dies is recovered so their fates are
unknown. In the NRM, it was estimated
that 10 percent of the population was
illegally killed annually. Although some
research has indicated that rates of
illegal take may be biased low (Liberg et
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
al. 2012, p. 914; Treves et al. 2017b, pp.
7–8), other studies have supported the
estimate that between 6 and 10 percent
of the known population may be
illegally killed each year in both the
NRM and the Great Lakes area wolf
populations (Smith et al. 2010, p. 625;
Ausband et al. 2017a, p. 7; O’Neil 2017,
p. 214, Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 104).
Wolves die for a variety of reasons and
the mechanisms they have to
compensate for these mortalities have
made wolf populations very adaptable
and resilient to perturbations. Table 4 in
the rule provides information about the
average annual number and percent of
the total estimated population removed
in 5-year increments (with the exception
of the period between 2015 and 2017)
via agency-directed lethal control of
depredating wolves in Minnesota. This
table relates only to depredation control
in Minnesota; other forms of mortality
are addressed elsewhere in the rule.
While the Service appreciates the
reviewer’s efforts to create a new table,
we find the table that was originally
published in the proposed rule is an
appropriate way to provide information
about the average number and
percentage of the population removed
through lethal control actions in
Minnesota.
Refer to the Human-caused Mortality
section of the rule and Our Response to
Comment 16 for further information
related to discussions about illegal take.
Comment 15: One reviewer noted that
we did not analyze human-caused
mortality for western wolves—
specifically, how human-caused
mortality in the core of the western
United States metapopulation could
affect the viability of outlying western
listed wolves. The same reviewer also
noted a lack of discussion regarding the
potential for high levels of humancaused mortality in one western listed
area to affect the viability of other
western listed areas.
Our Response: Aside from large
protected areas such as Yellowstone and
Isle Royale National Parks, humancaused mortality has been, and
continues to be, the primary source of
known wolf mortality in the lower 48
United States, including wolves in the
West Coast States. Wolves in the core of
the western United States
metapopulation (e.g., NRM DPS) are
managed under State authority and
following an initial population decline
post-delisting, wolf populations appear
to have stabilized in Idaho and
Montana, whereas they continue to
increase in Oregon and Washington (see
table 3). Wolf populations in Wyoming
were delisted in 2017 and may be
following a similar pattern to that
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69847
observed in Idaho and Montana (see
table 3).
While it is possible that increased
levels of human-caused mortality due to
public harvest could affect peripheral
populations of wolves by creating
isolated pockets that may result in
reduced genetic diversity and increased
potential for inbreeding in outlying
areas, there is no empirical evidence to
indicate that this has occurred or is
likely to occur in the future. Genetic
diversity was limited for wolves on Isle
Royale National Park, but the cause was
their location on an isolated island
rather than the effects of human-caused
mortality. Dispersal is innate to the
biology of the wolf and moderate
increases in human-caused mortality in
core areas may reduce the overall
number of dispersers due to slight
reductions in the total number of wolves
on the landscape. Increased humancaused mortality also has the potential
to create additional vacant habitats and
social openings within packs, which
may result in an overall reduction in
dispersal distance for wolves in the core
of the western United States
metapopulation. Nonetheless, short- and
long-distance dispersal events, as well
as effective dispersal in which the
disperser became a breeder, continue to
be documented in hunted populations,
as well as high- and low-density wolf
populations, which contributes to the
maintenance of high levels of genetic
diversity. Furthermore, resident packs
in California, Oregon, and Washington
contribute annually to the number of
dispersing wolves that are available to
fill social openings or to recolonize
vacant suitable habitat both within and
outside of each State. This supports the
continued viability of wolves and
enhances the resiliency, redundancy,
and representation of wolves in the gray
wolf entities evaluated in this rule. For
further information, refer to the Humancaused Mortality and Genetic Diversity
and Inbreeding sections of this final
rule.
Comment 16: One reviewer and one
commenter stated that the biological
report and the proposed rule did not
review the scientific debate concerning
the effects of current levels of illegal
take and the potential increase in legal
take (i.e., ‘‘tolerance hunting’’) on wolf
populations.
Our Response: We reviewed the
citations provided by the reviewer and
have updated the rule accordingly. We
acknowledge in the Human-caused
Mortality section of the rule that humancaused mortality is likely to increase
post-delisting as some States (primarily
the Great Lakes States) begin to manage
wolves under the guidance of their
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69848
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
respective State management plans.
This may include increased use of lethal
control to mitigate depredations on
livestock and the implementation of
public harvest to stabilize or reduce
wolf population growth rates. Postdelisting, gray wolves in Washington
and California will continue to be
classified as endangered at the State
level until they are State-downlisted or
State-delisted based on population
performance and recovery metrics
specific to each State. Wolves in Oregon
were State-delisted in 2016; however,
they continue to receive protection
under a State statute and the Oregon
Wolf Conservation and Management
Plan, which mandates a public
rulemaking process prior to authorizing
legal hunting of wolves. In Colorado,
wolves will continue to be classified as
endangered at the State level after
delisting, and management will be
guided by the wolf management
recommendations developed by the
Colorado Wolf Management Working
Group. Based on past delisting efforts in
the Great Lakes area, and as
demonstrated by current State
management of wolves in Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming, we conclude it
is unlikely that moderate increases in
human-caused mortality will cause
dramatic declines in wolf populations
across the lower 48 United States.
We do not agree that increased take
through lethal depredation control and
legal harvest will cause a corresponding
increase in illegal take. Although some
have indicated that estimates of illegal
take are underestimated (Liberg et al.
2012, p. 914; Treves et al. 2017b, pp. 7–
8), multiple, independent studies from
different areas of the lower 48 United
States indicate that illegal take removes
approximately 10 percent of
populations annually (Smith et al. 2010,
p. 625; Ausband et al. 2017a, p. 7;
O’Neil 2017, p. 214, Stenglein et al.
2018, p. 104). There are also indications
that documented illegal take of wolves
was higher during periods of Federal
management compared to State
management (Olson et al. 2014, entire).
Based on empirical information
compiled by wildlife management
agencies, illegal mortality did not
increase following previous delisting
efforts in the Great Lakes area or the
NRM States. See the Human-caused
Mortality section of the rule for further
information related to illegal take and
wolf survival as well as the Postdelisting Management section of the
rule for information related to how
States intend to adaptively manage wolf
populations to ensure the continued
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
existence of a recovered, viable
population.
Comment 17: One peer reviewer
objected to the use of lethal control by
States to mitigate wolf conflicts with
livestock and humans post-delisting.
The peer reviewer also asserted that the
proposed rule made assumptions that
lethal control was self-limiting and
inferred that agency control only leads
to more wolf killing.
Our Response: We recognize and
respect that some people may find some
or all forms of human-caused wolf
mortality morally or ethically
objectionable, particularly the use of
lethal removal of wolves to mitigate
conflicts with livestock. However, the
Act requires that we make our
determination based on whether the
entity under analysis meets the Act’s
definition of a threatened species or an
endangered species (in this case, is it
recovered and will State management
retain that recovered status if the Act’s
protections are removed). We may not
consider the reasons why individual
wolves may be killed after the species
is delisted unless it would affect our
analysis of the statutory threat factors.
Conflicts occur wherever wolves and
livestock coexist, often regardless of
what methods are used to prevent or
mitigate those conflicts. Both nonlethal
and lethal methods are often temporary
solutions to resolve conflicts and
seldom provide long-term effectiveness.
Under certain circumstances,
preventative and nonlethal techniques
have been shown to be effective. These
include the effectiveness of proactive
methods to curb learned behaviors
associated with food rewards in wolves
(Much et al. 2018, p. 76), the inferred
effectiveness of human presence at
reducing recurrent depredations in
Minnesota (Harper et al. 2008, pp. 782–
783), and the adaptive use of multiple
preventative and nonlethal methods to
minimize sheep depredations in Idaho
(Stone et al. 2017, entire). Conversely,
lethal control has been demonstrated to
be effective at minimizing recurrent
depredations through an overall
reduction in pack size if conducted
shortly after a depredation occurred;
however, complete pack removal was
most effective (Bradley et al. 2015, pp.
6–9). In addition to the targeted removal
of wolves to minimize the potential of
recurrent depredations on sheep (Harper
et al. 2008, p. 783), the targeted removal
of a relatively high number of
individuals relative to pack size
significantly reduced the probability of
recurrent cattle depredations the
following year (DeCesare et al. 2018, pp.
8, 10–11). In a review of both nonlethal
and lethal methods to mitigate carnivore
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
conflicts, the effectiveness of nonlethal
methods to reduce livestock losses
ranged between 0 and 100 percent,
whereas the effectiveness of targeted,
lethal control ranged between 67 and 83
percent (Miller et al. 2016, pp. 3–8). In
contrast, another review indicated that
lethal control was just as, if not more,
effective than most nonlethal methods
at mitigating conflict, but that success
was more variable when compared to
nonlethal methods (van Eeden et al.
2017, p. 29). This indicates that no
single method or technique is
consistently effective under all
conditions to minimize conflict risk.
Although continued research is needed
(Treves et al. 2016, entire; Eklund et al.
2017, entire; van Eeden et al. 2018,
entire), we acknowledge that a
depredation management plan that is
adaptive and includes a combination of
multiple nonlethal and lethal methods
may improve its overall effectiveness at
minimizing depredation risk (Bangs et
al. 2006, entire; Treves and NaughtonTreves 2005, p. 106; Wielgus and
Peebles 2014, pp. 1, 14; Miller et al.
2016, p. 7; Stone et al. 2017, entire;
DeCesare et al. 2018, p. 11).
Lethal control of depredating wolves
is used reactively rather than
proactively, often after other techniques
to prevent depredations were
unsuccessful, to stop current
depredations and minimize the
potential for recurrence at the local
scale while continuing to promote wolf
population growth, recovery,
sustainability, and/or viability at the
landscape scale. As wolf populations
have continued to increase in number
and expand their range into more
agriculturally oriented and humandominated landscapes, more wolf
territories overlap with livestock and
humans. This outcome increases both
interaction rates and the potential for
conflict, which in turn reduces the
probability that wolves will persist in
these areas long term (Mech et al. 2019,
entire). Even so, overall, few wolf packs
are implicated in livestock or pet
depredations on an annual basis (for
example, approximately 20 percent of
known packs in the NRM; also see
Olson et al. 2015, entire). Thus, how
depredating wolves are managed will
influence where non-depredating
wolves may persist because the removal
of the small number that cause conflict
may increase tolerance for the
remaining wolves that do not (Musiani
et al. 2005, p. 884).
The use of lethal control to mitigate
wolf conflicts with livestock has been
criticized for lacking long-term
effectiveness and being too costly
(Wielgus and Peebles 2014, entire;
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
McManus et al. 2015, entire; Lennox et
al. 2018, entire; Santiago-Avila et al.
2018, entire). However, lethal control of
depredating wolves is not intended to
resolve long-term depredation
management issues across a large spatial
scale (Musiani et al. 2005, p. 885).
Rather, it has consistently been used by
managers as a short-term response to
mitigate recurrent depredations of
livestock on a relatively small scale that
could not be resolved using other
methods. Wielgus and Peebles (2014,
pp. 7–14) argued that lethal removal of
wolves in one year exacerbated the
conflict cycle, which resulted in an
increased number of livestock killed by
wolves the following year. Subsequent
studies have refuted this assertion and
found that, when the same data were
reanalyzed, the use of lethal control was
effective at reducing livestock
depredations the following year
(Poudyal et al. 2016, entire), and an
increasing wolf population was the
primary cause of the observed increases
in the number of livestock depredations
(Kompaniyets and Evans 2017, entire).
Others have documented the
effectiveness, or lack thereof, of certain
lethal control prescriptions used to
minimize depredation risk within the
same year the control actions were
conducted or the year following the
control actions (Bradley et al. 2015,
entire; DeCesare et al. 2018, pp. 8, 10).
As long as wolves and domestic
livestock share the landscape, conflict
will occur, and depredation
management programs that use a
combination of proactive and reactive
tools are often most effective at
minimizing depredation risk.
Although DeCesare et al. (2018, pp. 9–
11) concluded that public harvest alone
had little effect on the annual
recurrence of livestock depredations in
Montana, there is some evidence to
indicate that the combination of lethal
control and public harvest has the
potential to reduce the number of
confirmed livestock depredations
caused by wolves without having a
significant impact on wolf populations.
For example, the Wisconsin wolf
population declined slightly from 815 to
746 animals (an 8 percent decrease)
between 2012 and 2015 (wolves were
federally delisted between 2012 and
2014). However, during that same time
period, verified wolf kills on cattle and
the number of farms with verified
depredations declined significantly
(Wiedenhoeft et al. 2015, pp. 4–5, 12).
A similar trend was observed in the
NRM when it was delisted in 2011, with
the exception of Wyoming. Between
2006 and 2011, an average of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
approximately 190 cattle depredations
was confirmed per year, while between
the years of 2012 to 2015, the number
of confirmed cattle depredations
decreased to an average of about 151 per
year (see USFWS et al. 2016, table 7b).
Although the number of confirmed
cattle depredations in Montana trended
slightly upward in 2017 and 2018, the
number of reported depredations
declined significantly in Montana from
a high of 233 in 2009, to approximately
100 or fewer between 2014 and 2018
(Inman et al. 2019, p. 11). Similarly, the
number of livestock killed by wolves in
Wyoming has declined since wolves
were federally delisted in 2017 (WGFD
et al. 2020, p. 19).
As a result of the overall reduction in
livestock depredations, the number of
wolves lethally removed to mitigate
conflicts has also generally declined in
the NRM States. The Service does not
expect confirmed livestock depredations
to cease altogether post-delisting, even
though States will have the ability to
use targeted lethal control and public
harvest to manage wolf conflicts and
populations, respectively. Rather, we
expect there may be a slight decrease in
the number of livestock depredations
post-delisting, followed by fluctuations
around a lower long-term average in
subsequent years as managers learn how
best to manage wolf populations and
conflicts to ensure the long-term
survival of the species. Furthermore, if
wolves are causing less conflict, it could
lead to improved tolerance for wolves
and, although annual fluctuations are
likely, an overall reduction in the
number of wolves lethally removed
annually as a result.
For information on the percent of the
wolf population removed through
agency-directed lethal control as well as
wolves taken in defense of property by
private individuals and its effect on
wolf populations in the Great Lakes
area, refer to the Post-delisting
Management section of this rule. Also
refer to the Human-caused Mortality
section of this rule for information
related to the effects of human-caused
mortality, including lethal control, on
wolf populations in the NRM post
delisting.
Comment 18: One peer reviewer
asserted the biological report lacked
information on human-caused mortality,
human attitudes, and behavior as they
relate to human-caused mortality, as
well as cumulative effects of mortality
and reproductive failure in wolves. As
a result, the reviewer believed the
threats assessment in the proposal was
uninformed by a scientific analysis of
the peer-reviewed literature on humancaused mortality. The reviewer
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69849
recommended the biological report be
revised to include scientific information
on the patterns and processes of humancaused mortality in wolves.
Our Response: The purpose of the
biological report is to provide a concise
overview of the changes in the
biological status (range, distribution,
abundance) of the gray wolf (Canis
lupus) in the lower 48 United States
over the last several decades. A full
discussion of human-caused wolf
mortality (including human attitudes
and behaviors and the effects of take on
wolf social structure) and a complete
analysis of potential threats facing
wolves was included in the proposed
rule and has been updated and revised
as appropriate in this final rule. Refer to
Comments 36 and 19 and revisions
made in response to those comments for
additional information.
Comment 19: Two reviewers critiqued
the discussion related to human
behaviors and the inclination to poach
wolves post-delisting. Both reviewers
provided references for an updated
discussion regarding this topic in the
proposed rule. One reviewer stated the
rule misinterpreted the review by
Treves and Bruskotter (2014) regarding
tolerance for predators.
Our Response: The Role of Public
Attitudes section of this final rule has
been updated and revised to include
references recommended by both peer
reviewers as well as other references
that inform the discussion of human
behaviors related to wolves and wolf
management. As the reviewers
recommended, we expanded the
discussion in the rule related to human
behaviors, how those behaviors are
correlated with management, and the
inclination to illegally take a wolf based
on the listing status of wolves. We also
added a section related to overall
tolerance for wolves and, we conclude,
appropriately reinterpreted the review
by Treves and Bruskotter (2014).
We conclude that public tolerance of
wolves is likely to improve as wolves
are delisted and local residents feel they
have input in management of wolf
populations. This process has already
begun in the NRM States; however, it
will likely take time for this increased
control over wolf management, and the
related sense of ownership, to translate
into tangible benefits in improved
public opinion. Public acceptance is
highest where wolves were not
extirpated and where residents have had
longer periods of exposure to wolves
(Houston et al. 2010, pp. 399–401).
However, it is unclear whether this is
due to increased knowledge and
experience dealing with wolves or to
less stringent local management policies
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69850
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(including public harvest and defense of
property regulations).
Comment 20: One peer reviewer and
several other commenters recommended
that we conduct a population viability
analysis (PVA) or other additional
modeling exercises or analysis before
delisting. The peer reviewer and some
of the other commenters further stated
that we should provide more support,
via a PVA, that a population of 1,251 to
1,440 wolves in Minnesota would be
viable.
Our Response: The Act requires that
we use the best scientific data available
when we make decisions to list,
reclassify, or delist a species. However,
it does not require that we produce new
science to fill knowledge gaps. PVAs
can be a valuable tool to help us
understand the population dynamics of
rare species (White 2000, entire). They
can also be useful in identifying gaps in
our knowledge of the demographic
parameters that are most important to a
species’ survival. However, the
difficulty of applying PVA techniques to
wolves has been discussed by Fritts and
Carbyn (1995, pp. 28–29) and Boitani
(2003, pp. 332–333). Problems include
our inability to: (1) Provide accurate
input information for the probability of
occurrence of, and impact from,
catastrophic events (such as a major
disease outbreak or prey base collapse);
(2) incorporate all the complexities and
feedback loops inherent in wild systems
and agency adaptive management
strategies; (3) provide realistic inputs for
the influences of environmental
variation (such as annual fluctuations in
winter severity and the resulting
impacts on prey abundance and
vulnerability); (4) account for temporal
variation, selective outbreeding, and
individual heterogeneity; and (5)
address the spatial aspects of extreme
territoriality and the long-distance
dispersals shown by wolves. Relatively
minor changes in any of these input
values into a theoretical model can
result in vastly different outcomes.
The revised recovery plan for the
Eastern Timber Wolf indicated recovery
would be achieved when: (1) The
survival of the wolf in Minnesota is
assured, and (2) at least one viable
population (as defined below) of eastern
timber wolves outside Minnesota and
Isle Royale in the lower 48 United States
is reestablished. The recovery plan did
not establish a specific numerical
criterion for the Minnesota wolf
population. While the plan did identify
a goal ‘‘for planning purposes only’’ of
1,251 to 1,400 wolves for the Minnesota
population (USFWS 1992, p. 28), the
plan explicitly states that the region’s
total goals, ‘‘exceed what is required for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
recovery and delisting of the eastern
timber wolf’’ (USFWS 1992, p. 27). This
planning goal was driven not by
minimum estimates of viability, but
instead by: Existing populations of
1,550 to 1,750 wolves in Minnesota
(USFWS 1992, p. 4), the plan’s objective
to maintain existing populations
(USFWS 1992, p. 24), and existing
planning goals by other land managers
within Minnesota (USFWS 1992, p. 27).
Population viability and sustainability
are explicitly discussed in the plan. The
plan states a ‘‘viable population’’
includes either: (1) An isolated, selfsustaining population of 200 wolves for
5 successive years; or (2) a selfsustaining population of 100 wolves
within 100 miles of the Minnesota
population (USFWS 1992, pp. 4, 25–26).
Furthermore, the plan stated that ‘‘a
healthy, self-sustaining wolf population
should include at least 100
interbreeding wolves [that would]
maintain an acceptable level of genetic
diversity’’ (USFWS 1992, p. 26). After
evaluating all available information, we
determine that the best scientific and
commercial information available
continues to support our conclusion
that these recovery goals will ensure
that the population does not again
become in danger of extinction.
Habitat and Prey Availability
Comment 21: One peer reviewer
provided information from Smith et al.
(2016) regarding habitat suitability for
the gray wolf in the central United
States. In particular, the peer reviewer
pointed out that while there appears to
be suitable habitat in South Dakota and
wolves dispersing to that area, breeding
has not been documented. They also
pointed out that the model used in
Smith et al. (2016) did not account for
forest cover as an attribute of wolf
habitat, which was an important
attribute in the Great Lakes area
(Mladenoff et al. 2009) and the Rocky
Mountains (Oakleaf et al. 2006).
Our Response: We acknowledge that
not all wolf habitat models incorporate
the same predictor variables. We have
updated this final rule to explain that,
despite model results of Smith et al.
(2016), relatively high densities of
livestock and limited hiding cover for
wolves (forests) in large portions of the
Midwest are likely reasons that wolves
have failed to recolonize this area
(Smith et al. 2016, pp. 560–561). As
indicated in the Habitat and Prey
Availability section, predictions of
suitable habitat generally depict areas
with sufficient prey where humancaused mortality is likely to be
relatively low due to limited human
access, high amounts of escape cover, or
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
relatively low numbers of wolf-livestock
conflicts. Models that fail to account for
the potential for wolf-livestock conflicts
or other conflicts with humans are
likely to overestimate the availability of
suitable habitat.
Comment 22: One peer reviewer
asserted that defining a human behavior
(wolf-killing) as a habitat feature is
contrary to longstanding ecological
practice and not all humans kill gray
wolves or even want to kill gray wolves
(e.g., Treves et al. 2013). The reviewer
stated that human density is a weak
correlate of threat to wolves and that the
proposed rule should not define a
habitat as unsuitable because people
live there; rather, an area should be
classified as unsuitable only when
mortality or failed reproduction are
recurrent phenomena.
Our Response: We have clarified that
our definition of suitable habitat
generally refers to areas with sufficient
prey where human-caused mortality is
likely to be relatively low due to limited
human access, high amounts of escapecover, or a low probability of conflict
with humans and livestock. The
standard practice in the development of
wolf habitat models is to include the
potential for wolf-human conflict (e.g.,
areas with high human and livestock
densities) and areas of higher humancaused wolf mortality (e.g., areas closer
to roads and areas without forest cover).
Because wolves can occur nearly
anywhere with high enough prey
densities (including semideveloped
landscapes) and low enough humancaused mortality, the inclusion of
information on wolf-human conflict is
essential to identifying where wolves
are likely to persist over time (see Mech
2017).
Comment 23: One reviewer
commented that habitat suitability
should be measured only at the
individual level rather than the
population level and further commented
that habitat suitability should be
defined by observing where
reproduction and survival occur. The
reviewer pointed to language in the
proposed rule that indicated an area of
Minnesota was not suitable habitat even
though 450 wolves live there, and the
reviewer questioned how this area could
be unsuitable given the presence of such
a large number of wolves.
Our Response: We have clarified our
definition of suitable habitat in this final
rule. We define suitability to include
areas where wolf-human conflict is low
enough to allow wolf populations to
persist. Wolves are habitat generalists
and can reproduce and survive nearly
anywhere given sufficient food
resources and low enough human-
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
caused mortality. Therefore, we find
that development of a definition that
factors in wolf-human conflict is
necessary to identify areas where wolf
persistence is likely. The reference in
our proposed rule to an area in
Minnesota containing 450 wolves as
being ‘‘not suitable for wolves’’
originated from our Revised Recovery
Plan. The statement, as written, was not
intended to convey that wolves were not
capable of surviving there but instead
that it was not desirable for wolves to
occur there due to greater human
density, including a high proportion of
intensively farmed areas (USFWS 1992,
p. 15). We have edited this final rule for
clarity.
Disease and Parasites
Comment 24: One peer reviewer
recommended we consider the impacts
of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in
deer and elk, as they are primary prey
species for wolves. They noted that
CWD is not currently found in areas
with wolf packs, and included a
reference to evaluate.
Our Response: We added a discussion
of CWD and what we know about its
impacts to wolf prey (see the Habitat
and Prey Availability section).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Post-Delisting Management
Comment 25: One peer reviewer
stated that the Service should openly
discuss the changes in wolf monitoring
methods used by the State of Wisconsin
over time (e.g., use of volunteer trackers)
and how those changing methods may
affect the State’s population and growth
rate estimates (including differences in
standard deviation).
Our Response: Survey methods in
Wisconsin have not changed
significantly since the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources began
producing annual counts of the State’s
gray wolf population in winter 1979–
1980 (Wydeven 2019b, in litt.).
Comment 26: One peer reviewer
proposed changes to the Wisconsin
Wolf Management Plan, such as
alternative hypotheses about population
growth and further analysis and
rationale for the population goal.
Our Response: Wisconsin’s plan
provides for maintaining a population of
wolves, which in combination with
wolves in Michigan, will comprise a
viable population that is not in danger
of extinction in the foreseeable future.
We conclude that Wisconsin’s
management plan, as currently written,
will accomplish that goal. We
recommend that recommendations for
ways to improve the States’
management following delisting should
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
be discussed with the State management
agency.
General
Comment 27: One peer reviewer
stated that we did not consider many
relevant published articles and did not
adequately assess the quality of the
evidence we used in reaching our
conclusions. The reviewer maintained
that we did not adequately consider
disagreements within the scientific
literature, and that some of the evidence
does not meet long-established
standards of evidence.
Our Response: In accordance with
section 4 of the Act, we are required to
make our determinations on a species’
status based on the best scientific and
commercial data available at the time of
the determination. We prepare status
assessments and associated reports
summarizing the best available
information that is relevant to our
consideration of whether a species
meets the Act’s definition of a
threatened species or an endangered
species. The evidentiary standards we
apply are found in our Policy on
Information Standards under the Act
(published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the
Information Quality Act (section 515 of
the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658)), and our
associated Information Quality
Guidelines (https://www.fws.gov/
informationquality/). These provide
criteria and guidance and establish
procedures to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific and
commercial data available. They require
us, to the extent consistent with the Act
and with the use of the best scientific
and commercial data available, to use
primary and original sources of
information as the basis for our status
determinations. Primary or original
information sources are those that are
closest to the subject being studied, as
opposed to those that cite, comment on,
or build upon primary sources.
The Act and our regulations do not
require us to use only peer-reviewed
literature. Rather, we may exercise our
expert judgment in determining what
information constitutes the ‘‘best
scientific and commercial data
available.’’ We use information from
many sources, including but not limited
to: Articles in peer-reviewed journals,
scientific status surveys and studies
completed by qualified individuals,
Master’s thesis research that has been
reviewed but not published in a journal,
other unpublished governmental and
nongovernmental reports, reports
prepared by industry, personal
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69851
communication about management or
other relevant topics, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, and
biological assessments.
Our proposed rule and draft biological
report were based on sources that we
concluded are: (1) The best scientific
and commercial data available at the
time of the determination and (2)
relevant to a determination of the status
of the gray wolf entity under analysis.
We evaluated all additional information
provided during the public comment
period by peer reviewers, governmental
agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, and any
other interested parties, and we
considered the information in
developing this final rule and the final
biological report, as appropriate.
Biological Report
Comment 28: One peer reviewer
recommended the biological report
include data on wolf immigration from
Canada to support the claim that wolves
from Canada will repopulate the Great
Lakes area or West Coast States.
Our Response: The biological report
references wolves from Canada
recolonizing portions of northern
Montana beginning in the early 1980s.
Long-distance dispersal has also been
critical to wolf recolonization in the
Great Lakes area (Treves et al. 2009,
entire). Furthermore, wolves from
British Columbia, along with wolves
from the Northern Rocky Mountains are
in the process of recolonizing suitable
habitats in the West Coast States
(Hendricks et al. 2019, entire). We have
updated the biological report to cite
multiple studies showing that, if
human-caused mortality is regulated,
wolves have a remarkable ability to
recolonize areas with a sufficient preybase (e.g., Mech 1995, Boyd and
Pletcher 1999, Treves et al. 2009, Mech
2017, Hendricks et al. 2019). The
discussion of connectivity and
immigration from Canada in the
biological report is provided to illustrate
that wolves in the Great Lakes area and
the West Coast States do not function as
isolated populations, and that their
connectivity with even larger
populations in Canada increases their
resiliency. We do not anticipate that
wolves in the Great Lakes area or West
Coast States will be eliminated or
reduced such that repopulation will be
necessary.
Comment 29: One peer reviewer
provided additional information on
pack territory sizes, recommending we
include more detailed information on
territories in the Great Lakes region.
Our Response: In the biological
report, we provided the known range of
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69852
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
pack territory sizes (12.7 to 1,003.9 mi2
(33 to 2,600 km2)) to show their
variability. We do not view the detailed
information on pack sizes from
individual studies cited by the reviewer
to be necessary to our analysis, which
relies only on the proposition that
territory sizes are variable.
Comment 30: One peer reviewer
stated that our biological report
misreported human-caused wolf
mortality rates from Fuller et al. (2003).
The reviewer also recommended citing
Stenglein et al. (2015b), stating that their
model of the Wisconsin wolf population
demonstrates that a 30 percent annual
harvest would, on average, reduce the
wolf population by 65 percent over 20
years.
Our Response: The percentages
provided in the biological report refer to
the data analyzed by Fuller et al. (2003).
While Fuller et al. (2003) also provides
a review of other studies that have
investigated sustainable human-caused
wolf mortality rates, these rates are
within the overall range of sustainable
mortality rates provided in the
biological report (17 to 48 percent). We
added the information from Stenglein et
al. (2015b) regarding harvest rates and
wolf population reduction.
Comment 31: One peer reviewer
advised that we include additional
information on source-sink dynamics
and provided citations to consider. The
reviewer noted that source-sink
dynamics have been notable in the
Northern Rocky Mountains, especially
in northwest Montana and the Greater
Yellowstone region, where much
ungulate winter range lies outside of
protected areas (Fritts and Carbyn 1995).
The reviewer also provided several
citations on source-sink dynamics in
mountain lion populations that they
indicated were relevant to wolves. The
reviewer also recommended indicating
that broad-scale source-sink dynamics
over areas larger than many
demographic study areas can cause high
local mortality rates to appear
sustainable because the population is
being sustained by immigration from
source habitat.
Our Response: We reviewed the
citations provided by the reviewer and
updated the biological report to include
a brief discussion of the role of dispersal
and source-sink dynamics in wolf
population regulation. Regarding broadscale source-sink dynamics, we have
updated the biological report
accordingly.
Comment 32: One peer reviewer
stated that the biological report omitted
a thorough discussion of suitable habitat
in some unoccupied but suitable
habitats in parts of the lower 48 United
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
States (e.g., parts of the Pacific
Northwest, Colorado, Utah, and the
Northeast). They found this omission to
be at odds with previous iterations of
listing and delisting rules for the gray
wolf. The reviewer recommended a
more complete analysis of potentially
suitable habitat in the lower 48 United
States, including a map compiling
existing information regarding
potentially suitable habitat.
Our Response: We updated the
biological report to reflect that suitable,
but unoccupied, habitat occurs in parts
of the West Coast States, the central
Rocky Mountains (inclusive of Colorado
and Utah), and the Northeast. However,
unoccupied areas were not a focus for
our analysis, and this final rule does not
rely on recolonization of these areas to
support the determination that gray
wolves are recovered. Because we are
not relying on suitable habitat that is
unoccupied for our delisting
determination, we find it unnecessary to
compile a map of suitable habitat
outside the current range. The
publications cited in the biological
report provide additional information
regarding habitat models in specific
areas.
Comment 33: One peer reviewer
indicated that notable dispersal events
should be mentioned in the biological
report, as they are relevant to a
discussion on metapopulation structure
and the recolonization of potential wolf
habitat (e.g., northern Rockies to
Arizona, dispersal of wolves from
Quebec to the Northeastern United
States).
Our Response: The biological report
references dispersal events of several
hundred kilometers. We have added
language to the Biology and Ecology
section of the report to describe how
long-distance dispersal distances relate
to recolonization of suitable habitat. We
also clarified our discussion of dispersal
of wolves from Quebec to the
Northeastern United States. While
dispersal plays an important role in
recolonization of suitable habitat,
individual dispersers that do not settle
in an area, survive, and reproduce do
not substantively contribute to the
wolf’s metapopulation structure or
dynamics.
Comment 34: One peer reviewer
sought clarification on the Washington
and Oregon section of the biological
report. The reviewer asked us to more
clearly distinguish population
information on listed and delisted
wolves and how population
management in delisted areas affects
population growth rates in listed areas.
Our Response: We updated the
biological report with additional
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
information on the distribution of
wolves with respect to the listed/
delisted boundary in Washington and
Oregon. We are not aware of any
specific studies that have looked at the
effect of wolf management in delisted
areas on the population growth rates of
federally listed wolves adjacent to those
delisted areas. However, we have
updated the biological report to
acknowledge the role source-sink
dynamics can play in peripheral,
recolonizing wolf populations. We also
address potential impacts to dispersal
rates in harvested populations. Finally,
we cite the latest annual reports from
each State as the authority on
population growth and distribution of
wolves in those States.
Comment 35: One peer reviewer
objected to our characterization, in the
biological report, of wolf colonization of
nearby areas as happening ‘‘quickly.’’
They found the term to be ambiguous
and recommended replacing it with
something more quantitative (e.g.,
within decades). They also
recommended the report acknowledge
that the rapidity of population
establishment in new areas varies with
the extent of intervening unsuitable
habitat between the source population
and newly colonized area, as evidenced
by the delay between initial dispersals
and pack establishment in the Cascade
Range of the West Coast States.
Our Response: While some
recolonization happens within decades,
other recolonization events happen even
more rapidly depending on the specific
circumstances. Therefore, we conclude
that it is not appropriate to add a more
specific time period. We have added a
sentence to the Biology and Ecology
section of the biological report to
address the comment regarding the rate
of recolonization being affected by the
extent of intervening unsuitable habitat.
Comment 36: One peer reviewer
commented that, in order to allow for a
scientific evaluation of the likelihood of
a decline in gray wolf populations after
delisting, the biological report should
include: (1) A comprehensive analysis
of all mortality causes within each
subpopulation deemed essential to the
combined listed entity and (2) a
‘‘thorough examination of cumulative
effects across all subpopulations.’’ The
reviewer further contended that those
assessments should be based on peerreviewed evidence about current and
anticipated future (following delisting)
causes of mortality.
Our Response: We conducted a
thorough analysis, based on the best
available scientific data, of the threat
factors currently facing the gray wolf in
the lower 48 United States and those
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
that are reasonably likely to have a
negative effect on the viability of wolf
populations without the protections of
the Act. See Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species, above. We
considered the effects of these factors
individually and cumulatively. For
clarification purposes, we have added a
reference to the discussion in the rule to
the biological report.
Policy
Comment 37: Three peer reviewers
questioned our definition or use of the
term ‘‘range,’’ either on its own or in the
context of the SPR phrase (or both). One
considered our description of the gray
wolf’s range in the lower 48 United
States to be illogical and unclear with
respect to distinguishing current range
from unoccupied historical range. This
reviewer argued that the distinction is
necessary to understand what areas are
included in the threats analysis and
why. Another argued that our definition
of ‘‘range’’ is problematic because it
does not account for the temporal
dynamics (changes over time) of a
species’ range or the difficulties of scale
inherent to the ecological concept of
‘‘range.’’ In addition, one peer reviewer
stated that a ‘‘significant portion’’ of
range must mean more than half and
that, therefore, the gray wolf has not
recolonized enough of its range in the
lower 48 United States to meet that
standard. Another, citing Desert
Survivors v. Dep’t of the Interior, F.
Supp. 3d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2018), stated
that the central Rocky Mountains (i.e.,
Colorado and Utah) and the
Northeastern United States merit
evaluation as significant portions of the
range.
Our Response: The ecological concept
of ‘‘range’’ is complex. Because of these
complexities, the Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) published a legally binding
interpretation of the term ‘‘range,’’ as
used in the Act’s definitions of
‘‘threatened species’’ and ‘‘endangered
species,’’ in our SPR policy (79 FR
37578, July 1, 2014). Several courts have
upheld this interpretation (Humane
Society v. Zinke, 865 F.3d 585 (DC Cir.
2017); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v.
Zinke, 900 F.3d 1053, 1066–67 (9th Cir.
2018); Desert Survivors F. Supp. 3d
1131). The Services interpret the term
‘‘range’’ in these statutory definitions as
the general geographical area occupied
by the species at the time USFWS or
NMFS makes a status determination
under section 4 of the Act (79 FR 37583,
July 1, 2014). In other words, we
interpret ‘‘range’’ in these definitions to
be current range, i.e., range at the time
of our analysis (see Definition and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Treatment of Range). We have revised
this final rule to clarify how we
interpret range and what we consider to
be the current range of the gray wolf in
the lower 48 United States.
The opinion that the gray wolf has not
recolonized enough of its range in the
lower 48 United States to reach the
standard of a significant portion is
inconsistent with Service policy
because it equates the term ‘‘range’’ in
the Act’s definitions of ‘‘threatened
species’’ and ‘‘endangered species’’ with
historical range. In our status
assessments, we assess threats to the
species where the species exists. In
other words, we assess threats to the
species in its current range, including
the effects of lost historical range on the
species (see Historical Context of Our
Analysis and Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species). We also consider
whether the threats that caused the loss
of historical range are still affecting the
species within its current range.
Under our SPR policy, the
Northeastern United States does not
merit evaluation as a significant portion
of the species’ range because the best
available science indicates that this area
is unoccupied. However, given the
recent report of a group of six wolves in
the central Rocky Mountains, we agree
with the reviewer that this area merits
consideration as a significant portion of
the range of the entities evaluated in
this rule. We have revised this rule
accordingly.
Comment 38: One reviewer
considered our treatment of ‘‘range’’ and
‘‘significance’’ to be inconsistent with
Desert Survivors v. Dep’t of the Interior
and our treatment of recovery in other
species, such as bald eagle and grizzly
bear, where we considered geographic
distribution in multiple regions. The
reviewer indicated that we should
present information evaluating the
significance of historical range loss on
the genetic and demographic structure
of the wolf metapopulation as a whole
and within specific ecotypes and
subspecies. The reviewer also indicated
that we should assess the significance of
range loss to the broader suite of values
(‘‘esthetic, educational, historical,
recreational, and scientific’’) discussed
in the Act’s preamble.
Our Response: Our approach in this
rule is consistent with Desert Survivors
and our approach to recovery for other
species. The Act requires that we
recover listed species such that they no
longer meet the definitions of
‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened
species,’’ i.e., are no longer in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of their range. As
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69853
explained in our proposed rule and this
final rule, there is no uniform definition
for recovery or standard methodology
regarding how recovery must be
achieved (see Gray Wolf Recovery Plans
and Recovery Implementation). Gray
wolves are a prolific, highly adaptable
species capable of dispersing long
distances and recolonizing most habitat
types, provided those habitats contain
sufficient prey and human-caused
mortality is managed. Consequently, our
recovery strategy for gray wolves in the
lower 48 United States consists of
recovery of the species in three broad
regions (NRM, Southwestern United
States, and Eastern United States) that
capture different subspecies and
habitats. For decades, we have
demonstrated a consistent commitment
to this strategy.
Additionally, when we evaluate the
status of a species, we evaluate the
impacts of any loss of historical range
on the viability of the species in its
current range (see Historical Context of
Our Analysis and Determination of
Species Status). In other words, we
thoroughly assessed the effects of
historical range loss on the current and,
to the extent it is foreseeable, future
viability of the gray wolf entities
addressed in this rule based on the best
available scientific and commercial data
available, consistent with both the Act
and case law.
Finally, the Act instructs us to
determine whether any species is an
endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the five factors
identified in the Act. Thus, we may not
determine the status of a species based
on an assessment of the esthetic,
educational, historical, recreational, and
scientific value of that particular species
to society. Also, lost historical range
cannot be a significant portion of the
range of any of the gray wolf entities
addressed in this rule because, under
our SPR policy, ‘‘range’’ is interpreted
as current range (for additional
information, see 79 FR 37578, July 1,
2014).
Comment 39: One reviewer claimed
that our consideration of ‘‘significance’’
as used in the phrase ‘‘significant
portion of its range’’ is duplicative of
our assessment of whether the
combined listed entity is at risk
throughout its range, contrary to recent
court opinions. The reviewer
recommended a definition for
‘‘significance’’ that is based on the
criteria used to determine significance
under the DPS policy. They stated that
such a definition would meet the
requirements of Desert Survivors v.
Dep’t of the Interior and provided an
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69854
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
example of a DPS analysis done for the
red wolf (Waples et al. 2018).
Our Response: Our approach to
analyzing significance in this rule is
consistent with the Act and case law.
For the gray wolf entities addressed in
this rule, we assessed ‘‘significance’’
based on whether portions of the range
contribute meaningfully to the
resiliency, redundancy, or
representation of the gray wolf entity
being evaluated without prescribing a
specific ‘‘threshold.’’ This approach is
substantively different from the way we
defined ‘‘significance’’ in our SPR
policy and, therefore, different from the
approach evaluated and overturned by
the courts.
Further, in developing that SPR
policy, we considered using the
definition of significance in the DPS
policy as a threshold for significant in
the SPR phrase. However, we rejected
this option because ‘‘it would result in
all DPSs being SPRs, rendering the DPS
language in the Act meaningless’’ (79 FR
37581, July 1, 2014). Thus, we
concluded that the threshold for
significance must be higher for
evaluating SPR than for purposes of the
DPS policy (for more information on
this topic, see 79 FR 76997–76998, July
1, 2014).
There are several important
differences between DPSs and SPRs.
First, Congress intended for the DPS
authority to be used sparingly (Senate
Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session).
If we find that a species is endangered
or threatened in a DPS, we list only the
DPS. By contrast, if we find that the
species is endangered or threatened in
an SPR, we list the entire species (79 FR
37609, July 1, 2014). Second, the
significance of a DPS is assessed relative
to the taxon to which it belongs (i.e., the
DPS must be significant to the taxon as
a whole) (61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996),
whereas, under our SPR policy, the
significance of a portion is assessed in
relation to the ‘‘species’’ (species,
subspecies, or DPS) under analysis.
Third, SPRs need not discrete. In other
words, SPRs can be biologically
connected to and influenced by other
populations that, collectively with the
portion being evaluated, are not
endangered species or threatened
species. Consequently, we do not
consider the DPS criteria for
significance to be a reasonable
definition of ‘‘significant’’ in the SPR
analysis.
Comment 40: One reviewer
maintained that we misinterpreted
Shaffer and Stein (2000). The reviewer
argued that representation applies to a
population itself rather than to a
population’s contribution to the entire
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
species. In other words, that the
appropriate question to ask in our SPR
analysis is whether a population’s
absence in a portion of its range would
have significant ecological
consequences or whether a portion of
the species’ range includes ecosystems
not found elsewhere in the species’
range.
Our Response: We view
representation as the ability of a species
to adapt to changing environmental
conditions over time (i.e., the species’
adaptive capacity) (Smith et al. 2018, p.
304). While Shaffer and Stein (2000)
introduced the concept of
representation in the broad context of
conserving biodiversity across
ecosystems, we apply their concept at
the species level, consistent with Smith
et al. (2018). We use Smith et al.’s
(2018) definition of representation in
relation to the Act’s definitions of
endangered species and threatened
species by asking whether the species
has sufficient adaptive diversity such
that it is not in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future. Adequate representation does
not require preservation of all adaptive
diversity to meet this standard under
the Act. As indicated in Our Response
to Comment 39, we assessed the
significance of portions of the gray wolf
entities addressed in this rule based on
whether the portions contribute
meaningfully to the resiliency,
redundancy, or representation of the
gray wolf entity being evaluated, and we
consider this approach to be consistent
with the Act and case law. We revised
this final rule to clarify that we use the
concepts introduced by Shaffer and
Stein (2000), as refined by Smith et al.
(2018) and considered in the context of
the Act.
Comment 41: One reviewer
questioned our conclusions that the
Great Lakes metapopulation contains
sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to sustain populations
within the combined listed entity over
time, and that the relatively few wolves
that occur outside the Great Lakes area
are not necessary for the recovered
status of the combined listed entity. The
reviewer argued that these conclusions
are contingent on factual omissions and
misinterpretations of wolf ecology and
genetics. While the reviewer refers to
the combined listed entity, their
comment could apply to the analysis of
other entities now included in this final
rule.
Our Response: Our conclusions are
based on the best available scientific
and commercial data, including
information and interpretations
provided by this and other peer
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reviewers. We have revised the
discussions in the final biological report
and this final rule regarding gray wolf
ecology and genetics in order to clarify
the basis for our conclusions.
Specifically, we have added additional
information on these topics, and added
a section to the rule (Genetic Diversity
and Inbreeding) that provides a more indepth analysis of the potential impacts
of delisting on gray wolf genetic
diversity. Based on this information, we
conclude that the gray wolf entities
evaluated in this rule do not meet the
definition of an endangered species or
threatened species, nor are they likely to
meet either definition absent the
protections of the Act.
Comment 42: Most peer reviewers
questioned the entity we evaluated. One
asserted that we could add or remove
only species, subspecies, or DPSs from
the List and noted that we did not
include a DPS analysis of the combined
listed entity to determine whether it was
a valid entity. Some argued that our
treatment of DPSs or ‘‘discreteness’’ (or
both) was inconsistent, illogical, or
unclear, or recommended we conduct
DPS analyses on specific populations or
areas within the listed entities. One
maintained that our DPS analysis of
Pacific Northwest wolves was flawed.
This same reviewer argued that our
approach is inconsistent with previous
wolf rulemakings and recovery planning
with respect to treatment of the central
Rocky Mountains and the Northeastern
United States because we did not
consider or treat these areas as DPSs or
include a substantive discussion of
either area as potential habitat. Another
peer reviewer stated that regions
considered in-depth in previous
rulemakings and other documents (e.g.,
the central Rocky Mountains and
Northeast) were only mentioned in
passing in the proposed rule.
Our Response: In our March 15, 2019,
proposed rule, we explained that
neither of the currently listed entities
qualifies as a DPS. In this final rule we
expand on that discussion and also
explain why we are considering the
status of gray wolves in several different
configurations. (see The Currently
Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the
Statutory Definition of a ‘‘Species’’ and
Why and How We Address Each
Configuration of Gray Wolf Entities). We
did not conduct a DPS analysis of
Pacific Northwest wolves (or wolves in
any other subset of the entities we
assessed) in our proposed rule or this
final rule. Rather, we discuss the Pacific
Northwest DPS analysis we conducted
in 2013, in the context of summarizing
background information about actions
we have undertaken relevant to our
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
national wolf strategy (see National
Wolf Strategy). We also reference this
2013 DPS analysis when we discuss the
lack of discreteness of these wolves and
NRM wolves (see The Currently Listed
C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the
Statutory Definition of a ‘‘Species’’).
Our approach is consistent with
previous wolf recovery planning efforts,
which have consistently focused on
three areas—the NRM, Eastern United
States, and Southwestern United
States—as reflected in our past actions.
As shown in table 1, since 1978 our
wolf recovery plans, reintroduction
efforts, and reclassification or delisting
rules have focused on these three areas.
We have revised the language in this
final rule and, where appropriate,
provided more detailed information in
our biological report to help clarify our
approach in this rule. With respect to
potential habitat in the Northeastern
United States, we also clarify that our
approach is to focus our assessment of
suitable habitat and prey availability on
areas currently occupied by wolves.
New information on wolves in the
central Rocky Mountains since
publication of our proposed rule
indicates the presence of a group of six
or more wolves and the long-term
presence of an individual radio-collared
wolf. Thus, new information indicates
that gray wolves currently occupy
Colorado. Therefore, we have added an
analysis of habitat in the central Rocky
Mountains to this final rule. We
acknowledge the existence of suitable
habitat in areas outside of gray wolf
current range, but we do not consider
them in-depth because we are not
relying on those areas for our status
determinations.
Comment 43: One peer reviewer
contended that, in not evaluating the
status of subspecies, we are
sidestepping the commitment made in
our 1978 reclassification rule to
‘‘continue to recognize valid biological
subspecies for purposes of . . . research
and conservation programs,’’ and that
we are delisting the gray wolf in the
lower 48 United States based on the
recovery of one subspecies, C. l. nubilis.
Citing Hendricks et al. 2018, they
argued that, for example, our approach
does not consider threats to the coastal
rainforest ecotype that has colonized the
U.S. Pacific Northwest and overlaps
with the distribution of C. l. fuscus.
Our Response: Delisting the currently
listed gray wolf entities based on the
status of gray wolves in any of the three
configurations we analyzed is consistent
with our 1978 commitment to conserve
subspecies. The 1978 reclassification
was undertaken because of uncertainty
about the taxonomic validity of some of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
the previously listed subspecies, and
because we recognized that wolf
populations were historically connected
and that subspecies boundaries were
thus malleable and populations
admixed. The rule predated the
November 1978 amendments to the Act
(which replaced the ability to list
‘‘populations’’ with the ability to list
‘‘distinct population segments’’) and,
therefore, at the time of the 1978 rule,
listable entities included ‘‘populations.’’
The 1978 rule stated that ‘‘biological
subspecies would continue to be
maintained and dealt with as separate
entities’’ (43 FR 9609, March 9, 1978),
i.e., subspecies or populations.
Subsequent recovery plans and all gray
wolf rulemakings since then have
focused on units that are consistent with
the stated 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,
March 9, 1978). Within 4 years of the
1978 rule, we developed recovery plans
for wolf populations in the following
regions of the United States: The
northern Rocky Mountains, the East,
and the Southwest (table 1). Since then,
the NRM wolf population (now
metapopulation) has recovered (74 FR
15123, April 2, 2009, entire; 77 FR
55530, September 10, 2012, entire), the
southwest wolf population is protected
under a separate subspecies listing as
endangered (80 FR 2488, January 16,
2015, entire), and the Great Lakes wolf
population (now metapopulation) is
recovered. It was never our intent to
recover wolves throughout the entire
geographic area encompassed by the
1978 listings. Instead, we have focused
on recovering the different gray wolf
groups covered by the 1978 listings as
‘‘separate entities.’’
With respect to Pacific coastal
rainforest wolves, wolves that
recolonized Washington and Oregon
originate primarily from the interior
forest ecotype, which is more indicative
of wolves from southeastern British
Columbia, southwestern Alberta, or the
NRM (Hendricks et al. 2019, p. 138,
Supplemental table S2). Of the 54
wolves from Washington and Oregon
that Hendricks et al. (2018) sampled, 2
possessed mitochondrial DNA
haplotypes only known from wolf
populations in coastal British Columbia.
Only one of the two wolves with the
coastal haplotype resided in the west
coast portion of the entity currently
listed as endangered (44-State entity)
and, consequently, the combined listed
entity, in an area considered highly
suitable for coastal wolves. The other
resided within the boundary of the NRM
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69855
DPS in the interior of northeast
Washington. Furthermore, based on an
assessment of single nucleotide
polymorphisms (SNPs), three of the five
wolves from Washington were
intermediate between NRM wolves and
coastal wolves, indicating that
Washington was an admixture zone for
coastal and inland wolf ecotypes
(Hendricks et al. 2018, p. 8). Thus,
rather than dispersal and recolonization
of wolves from a specific ecotype to that
same ecotype, these results demonstrate
the ability of wolves to disperse to,
inhabit, and survive in a variety of
habitats that may be very different from
where they or their parents originated.
It also indicates that wolves from coastal
and inland ecotypes interbreed in
admixture zones (Hendricks et al. 2018,
entire). We analyzed threats to the gray
wolves inhabiting Pacific coastal
rainforest ecosystems in our 2016
assessment of the status of the
Alexander Archipelago wolf and found
that these wolves are not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future (81 FR 435, January 6,
2016, entire).
Comment 44: Referring to the
combined listed entity, one reviewer
stated that, while the Act does not
require species to be restored
everywhere, recovery in one region (the
Great Lakes area) is not sufficient to
delist a species formerly distributed
across the continent. The reviewer
asserted the rule is an effort to advance
broader shifts in interpretation of the
Act for widely distributed species.
Our Response: As discussed in this
final rule and the final biological report,
gray wolves are recovered in each of the
two currently listed entities, in the two
currently listed entities combined into a
single entity, and in the lower 48 United
States entity. They currently exist in
two large, growing or stable
metapopulations—one in the Great
Lakes area and one in the Western
United States—that are interconnected
with even larger populations of wolves
in Canada. The core of the former occurs
in the Great Lakes States of Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan, and the core
of the latter occurs in the western States
of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. The
western United States metapopulation is
currently recolonizing western
Washington and western Oregon, has
begun to recolonize California, and is in
the early stages of recolonizing
Colorado. Moreover, dispersing wolves
have been detected in all the States in
historical gray wolf range west of the
Mississippi River except Oklahoma and
Texas. Continued wolf dispersal across
western States demonstrates that gray
wolves could eventually find most large
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69856
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
patches of suitable habitat in the west as
long as healthy core wolf populations
are maintained on the landscape.
In addition to the metapopulations of
gray wolves in the Great Lakes area and
the Western United States, the Mexican
wolf (C. lupus baileyi) inhabits the
Southwestern United States (Arizona
and New Mexico) and Mexico. The
population in Arizona and New Mexico
is small but growing, and there is an
establishing population in Mexico.
These wolves are listed separately as an
endangered species and are unaffected
by this rule; they will remain on the List
until the subspecies has recovered.
The standard for listing or delisting a
species under the Act is whether it
meets the Act’s definition of an
endangered species or a threatened
species. The Act defines an endangered
species as ‘‘any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range’’ and a
threatened species as ‘‘any species
which is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ Neither
the Act nor our regulations require that
a listed species be restored to any
threshold amount of its historic range
before it may be delisted. Based on our
analysis of the best available scientific
and commercial data, we have
determined that each of the gray wolf
entities evaluated in this rule is not in
danger of extinction, or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future, throughout
all or a significant portion of its range
(see Determination of Species Status).
Comment 45: One peer reviewer
considered our treatment of
connectivity between wolves in the
West Coast States portion of the
combined listed entity (referred to by
the reviewer as the Pacific Northwest)
and the NRM to be inconsistent and
problematic. According to the reviewer,
we state in our proposed rule that we do
not discuss management in the NRM
because the NRM is legally a distinct
entity but also find that West Coast
States wolves are superfluous to the
gray wolf entity because the NRM
population provides demographic
support to them.
Our Response: We considered the
comments of this peer reviewer, and
other commenters, and we have
modified our approach in this final rule
(see Summary of Changes from the
Proposed Rule). We evaluate the status
of gray wolves in three different
configurations, including a lower 48
United States entity (see Why and How
We Address Each Configuration of Gray
Wolf Entities).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Comment 46: One peer reviewer
considered our use of the term ‘‘eastern
wolf’’—to denote wolves in the Great
Lakes area or the Northeast—to be
inappropriate. According to the
reviewer, the term ‘‘eastern wolf’’
should refer only to the genetically
distinct wolves living in and around
Algonquin Provincial Park in Canada.
The same reviewer also indicated that
our decision to consider eastern wolves
to be members of the species C. lupus
was arbitrary and disregards the
precautionary principle. They stated
that there is considerable evidence that
a distinct eastern wolf originally existed
in the Eastern United States and no
solid evidence that gray wolves
historically lived in the Eastern United
States outside the Great Lakes region,
though they noted that the historical
occurrence of gray wolves in the eastern
States is uncertain. The reviewer further
stated that there is general scientific
agreement that eastern wolves and red
wolves deserve separate conservation
consideration as unique ecotypes,
ecological surrogates, DPSs, or species,
and that Federal protection may be
needed in the Eastern United States to
protect and recover the endangered red
wolf and the eastern wolves found in
and around Algonquin National Park
that are listed in Canada as threatened.
Our Response: Many scientists have
long considered eastern wolves to be
distinct from coyotes and gray wolves in
the Western United States. However, the
correct taxonomic assignment and
evolutionary origin of the eastern wolf
is uncertain. Scientists have variously
described the eastern wolf as a species,
a subspecies of gray wolf, an ecotype of
gray wolf, the product of hybridization
between gray wolves and coyotes, the
same species as the red wolf, or a hybrid
between red wolves and gray wolves
(see Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North
America). We originally listed the gray
wolf subspecies C. l. lycaon, the eastern
timber wolf, in 1967. We continued to
recognize this subspecies—and the
Northeastern United States as part of its
historical range—for years, as evidenced
by both our original (1978) and revised
(1992) Recovery Plan for the Eastern
Timber Wolf. In 2013, we proposed
recognizing the species C. lycaon,
occurring in southeastern Canada and,
historically, the Northeastern United
States, in our proposed rule to delist C.
lupus and list C. l. baileyi as endangered
(table 1). However, peer reviewers of
that proposed rule considered the
scientific basis for recognizing C. lycaon
as a species to be insufficient. They
noted that this is an area of active
scientific research with frequent studies
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
published yearly, and stated that the
proposed recognition of these wolves as
a species was premature (National
Center for Ecological Analysis and
Synthesis 2014, unpaginated). Debate on
the subject in the scientific community
and, consequently, the taxonomy and
evolutionary history of eastern wolves
remains unresolved (USFWS 2020, pp.
1 2012;3). Therefore, in this rule we
continue to recognize wolves in the
Northeastern United States as members
of the species C. lupus. We conclude
that this is appropriate based on our
review of the best available scientific
and commercial information. Our
decision results in a much larger
historical range to the gray wolf entities
evaluated than if we considered eastern
wolves to be a distinct entity or
members of the red wolf species.
The reviewer also argues that Federal
protection may be needed for wolves in
the Eastern United States, to protect
dispersers or allow for reintroductions
of the endangered red wolf and the
eastern wolves found in and around
Algonquin National Park that are listed
in Canada as threatened. In 1967, we
listed the red wolf as endangered
wherever found, except where listed as
an experimental population (32 FR
4001, March 11, 1967). The species
remains on the List and, consequently,
already receives the protections of the
Act. The rest of the combined listed
entity (and 44-State entity and lower 48
United States entity), which includes
the Northeastern United States, does not
warrant the protections of the Act
because, as indicated in this rule, we
have determined that it does not meet
the Act’s definition of a threatened
species or endangered species (see
Determination of Species Status).
State and Federal Agency Comments
Recovery and Delisting
Comment 47: The Governor of Oregon
indicated her belief that wolf recovery
in Oregon is a success and that wolves
are on the path to recovery. She also
noted that the State of Oregon and other
States can help lead to recovery of the
species across a significant portion of its
historical range. She expressed that
wolves are wide-ranging, and as
Oregon’s wolves venture into California
and return, they warrant the protection
of the Federal Endangered Species Act
during their travels.
Our Response: Gray wolves
(excluding Mexican wolves) are
currently distributed in two large and
expanding metapopulations in the lower
48 United States. Based on our thorough
review of the species’ status, threats,
and existing regulatory mechanisms, we
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
have determined that none of the gray
wolf entities we evaluate in this rule
(including either of the currently listed
gray wolf entities) meet the definition of
a threatened species or endangered
species under the Act (see
Determination of Species Status).
Regarding wolves that move between
California and Oregon after delisting,
these individuals will still be afforded
protections under the California
Endangered Species Act and the Oregon
Wolf Conservation and Management
Plan.
Comment 48: The California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
indicated that wolves in California are
in the initial stages of reestablishment
and that recovery in the State relies on
conservation and management measures
provided by Federal listing.
Our Response: Consistent with the
Act, we are removing the currently
listed gray wolf entities from the List
because we have determined that gray
wolves in these entities do not meet the
definition of threatened or endangered
(see Determination of Species Status).
However, we expect wolves will
continue to recolonize suitable habitat
in California under State management.
See the Post-delisting Management
section of this rule for additional
information.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or
Population Trends
Comment 49: The Arizona Game and
Fish Department recommended that we
add Arizona and New Mexico to the list
of States with confirmed records of
dispersing gray wolves, referencing
information provided in Odell et al.
2018.
Our Response: We did not recognize
Arizona as a State having a confirmed
record of a dispersing gray wolf because
the wolf documented in Arizona
subsequently died in Utah and was
included in Utah’s totals. We have
updated our final rule and biological
report to include Arizona as an
additional State with a confirmed record
of a dispersing gray wolf, noting that the
wolf later died in Utah and was also
included in their total. With respect to
the report relating to New Mexico (Odell
et al. 2018, p. 294), we agree it seems
plausible that the animal observed was
not a Mexican wolf based on its black
pelage, which has not been reported in
Mexican wolves. However, because this
has not been confirmed as a gray wolf,
we decline to add New Mexico to the
list of States with ‘‘confirmed’’ gray wolf
dispersal.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Taxonomy
Comment 50: The Michigan
Department of Natural Resources stated
that we put too much emphasis on
Mech and Paul (2008) in our discussion
of taxonomy, and should instead rely on
Heppenheimer et al. (2018).
Our Response: As noted in the rule,
canid taxonomy remains unsettled,
despite being relatively well-studied,
even using advanced molecular
techniques. We reviewed and cited
Heppenheimer et al. (2018), along with
a number of other genetic studies, in
conducting our assessment of wolf
taxonomy.
Human-Caused Mortality
Comment 51: The Arizona Game and
Fish Department, the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, and
one public commenter indicated that
the discussion about additive and
compensatory mortality relied too much
on information provided by Creel and
Rotella (2010) and failed to discuss a
rebuttal by Gude et al. (2012) or use the
best available information when
discussing the effects of mortality on
wolf populations. Additional references
were provided for the discussion.
Another public commenter supported
the notion that human-caused mortality
was super-additive and noted its effects
on wolf population dynamics.
Our Response: Based on the
comments and information we received,
we revised and updated the Humancaused Mortality section. In short, Creel
and Rotella (2010) indicated that wolf
populations can be harvested within
limits, but that human-caused mortality
was strongly additive to total mortality,
and, based on their model predictions,
population growth would decline as
human-caused mortality increased. In
contrast, using the same dataset, Gude et
al. (2012) demonstrated that wolf
population growth remained positive in
Montana, which was also supported by
field observations, and that variations in
growth were strongly influenced by
annual recruitment. Gude et al. (2012)
also discussed the limitations of
traditional monitoring techniques in
addition to the need to create more
efficient and accurate monitoring
methods to improve population
estimation techniques as wolf
populations continue to increase and
expand. For further information, see the
Human-caused Mortality section of the
rule.
Comment 52: The California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
expressed views concerning the added
value of the Act’s protections in
deterring illegal take of wolves under
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69857
California law. In addition, the
California Fish and Game Commission
questioned the completeness of our
discussion of the role of public attitudes
as it relates to human-caused mortality
and recommended additional
information for consideration.
Our Response: While the Service
respects the belief that continued
Federal protections would provide an
additional deterrence to illegal take
under existing California law, the Act
requires the Service to make status
determinations based on whether the
species meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened
species because of the five statutory
factors. Gray wolves have been illegally
killed both with and without the
protection of the Act (i.e., illegal under
other State or Federal rules or
regulations), and, although some
researchers (Treves et al. 2017b) and
most wildlife managers would agree that
known illegal take is likely biased low,
several studies have estimated that
around 10 percent of the known
population is illegally taken annually in
the NRM (Smith et al. 2010, p. 625;
Ausband et al. 2017a, p. 7), Michigan
(O’Neil 2017, p. 214), and Wisconsin
(Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 104). However,
wolf populations remain robust and
recovered in these locations, and wolves
continue to recolonize new areas of
suitable habitat in the West Coast States
and have begun to recolonize the central
Rockies. Furthermore, it has been
demonstrated that illegal take was
greater during periods of Federal
protections in Wisconsin compared to
periods when the wolf was delisted (see
Olson et al. 2014). Surveys also indicate
that members of the public are more
trusting of their State fish and wildlife
agencies than their State or Federal
Government (Manfredo et al. 2018, pp.
8, 58–68). Thus, they may be less
inclined to illegally take a wolf, and be
more accepting of wolves on the
landscape, if they perceive that State
management provides more options to
mitigate conflicts. For further
information, see Our Responses to
Comment 14, as well as Comment 19.
Also see ‘‘The Role of Public Attitudes’’
in the Human-caused Mortality section
of this final rule.
Comment 53: The U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, Wildlife Services
(Wildlife Services) commented that the
ability to mitigate losses associated with
wolves has contributed to wolf recovery
in both the northern Rocky Mountains
recovery area and Great Lakes region.
Wildlife Services stated that in the
Northern Rocky Mountains recovery
area (Wyoming, Idaho, Montana), where
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69858
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
wolves have been delisted and State
wildlife agencies have assumed
management authority, populations
continue to exceed recovery goals and
wolf-livestock conflicts and associated
management costs have declined in
those States. They contended that these
trends provide strong evidence that
wolves and related conflicts can be
managed under State authority without
the Act’s protections. They further
stated that effective response to wolf
conflicts is a key component to building
and maintaining public value of wolves
and that the Act’s restrictions on
methods for conflict management have
led to frustration in communities where
conflicts occur, especially in Michigan
and Wisconsin, where limits on
methods are most restrictive. They
concluded that the increased
management options associated with
delisting will facilitate prompt, effective
response to conflicts and enhance
public acceptance of wolf populations.
Our Response: The Service agrees that
State wildlife agencies are fully capable
of managing for sustainable wolf
populations while concurrently working
with Wildlife Services to minimize
conflicts caused by wolves using the full
suite of mitigation response techniques
available post-delisting. For further
information, see Our Responses to
Comment 17 and Comment 52.
Comment 54: Wildlife Services noted
that the Great Lakes population of gray
wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan is nearly four times that of the
Northern Rockies population, and
conflicts can be more effectively
managed without the restrictions
imposed by protection under the Act.
Great Lakes wolf populations have
exceeded recovery goals and continue to
thrive. However, the region has also
experienced an increase in the number,
diversity, and distribution of wolf
conflicts. Minnesota wolf populations
have exceeded 2,600, nearly double
Federal recovery goals and 1,000 more
than State management goals. Wolf
conflicts in Minnesota have increased
42 percent since wolves in Minnesota
were returned to threatened status
following a 2-year period of State
management from 2012 to 2014. In
Michigan, wolf population growth has
slowed and stabilized around 650 for
the past few years following several
hard winters that have depressed deer
herds. However, the Michigan wolf
population exceeds recovery goals by
343 percent, and suitable habitat is
saturated. Wolf populations also
continue to grow in Wisconsin where
the 2018–2019 overwinter minimum
wolf count was 914 to 978 wolves in
243 packs, a 1 percent increase over the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
2017–2018 winter count. In Wisconsin,
issues associated with wolves have
continued to increase since 2014,
including: 12 percent increase in total
verified wolf complaints, over 36
percent increase in attacks on domestic
dogs, and a 24 percent increase in farms
with verified livestock losses.
Wisconsin noted more than a 24 percent
increase in depredation payments from
2017 to 2018 that totaled over $134,000
in compensation. Suitable habitat in
Wisconsin is occupied by wolves, and
continued population growth will likely
occur in areas where human-livestockwolf conflicts will increase. Continued
Federal listing of Great Lakes wolves
will hamper effective management of
wolf conflicts in that region.
Our Response: The Service
appreciates the role that Wildlife
Services has played in the recovery of
gray wolves in the Great Lakes area and
elsewhere, as well as the expertise and
assistance personnel from the agency
provide to mitigate wolf-related
conflicts using both nonlethal and lethal
means. We concur with the points
raised related to wolf populations and
wolf-related conflicts in the Great Lakes
area. For further information, see Our
Responses to Comment 17 and
Comment 52.
Comment 55: The Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
pointed out that they have committed
significant resources to ensure that
decisions are based on sound science
across the spectrum of ecological and
social issues involved. The Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
contended that Holsman (2014) clearly
summarized public attitudes regarding
wolves in Wisconsin and importantly
noted that, while the majority of
residents have positive attitudes toward
wolves, there is reduced tolerance for
wolves living outside of heavily forested
areas of the State and wide support for
lethal wolf control as a response to
livestock depredations and human
safety concerns.
Our Response: We greatly appreciate
the commitment and longstanding
contributions by Wisconsin to wolf
conservation, recovery, and
management in the State. We also
understand the diversity of opinions
that surround wolves and wolf
management (also see Our Response to
Comment 19 and the section titled ‘‘The
Role of Public Attitudes’’ in the Humancaused Mortality section of this final
rule) and conclude that Wisconsin is
well-equipped to manage a recovered
wolf population with a full
understanding of these diverse
opinions.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Effects of Climate Change
Comment 56: The Arizona Game and
Fish Department noted that while
Hendricks et al. (2018) reports potential
effects on wolf prey from increased risk
of fire arising from climate change, fire
can actually improve conditions such
that areas are able to support higher
densities of ungulate prey after fire.
Additionally, the Arizona Game and
Fish Department indicated that milder
winter conditions in northern latitudes
under climate change scenarios (citing
Rivrud et al. 2019) will increase
ungulate ranges and biomass available
for wolves.
Our Response: The referenced paper
(Rivrud et al. 2019, entire) is based on
a study of red deer (Cervus elaphus) use
of winter and summer habitats in
Norway. The authors found that
reduced snow cover as a result of global
warming would increase habitat
suitability and ranges of ungulate prey
at their northern distribution limits
(Rivrud et al. 2019, p. 1). While this
study may not be directly applicable to
the gray wolf entities addressed in this
rule based on geographic locale, we
understand the Arizona Game and Fish
Department’s view to be that there may
be beneficial effects from fire on wolves
due to changes in habitat suitability and
localized expansion for ungulate prey
and that there is potential for new areas
to become accessible to ungulate prey
via reduced snow cover. The degree and
the future timeframe in which such
effects might take place, however, are
unknown. In addition, regulation of
population dynamics in ungulates is
complex and unlikely to be driven by
climate factors alone. See Our Response
to Comment 102 for more discussion of
ungulate populations. Moreover, wolves
are highly adaptable and are expected to
readily respond to climate-related
changes in prey populations or other
factors.
Genetics
Comment 57: The California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
expressed concern about the potential
risks inherent in small wolf populations
within the State, including the risk of
low or decreasing genetic diversity.
Our Response: Expanding
populations, including the wolves in
California, may be exposed to different
pressures than core populations,
including the potential for reduced
genetic diversity, Allee effects, or
founder effects. To more thoroughly
examine issues of genetic diversity and
how they may impact wolf viability
across the range, we added the section
Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding to this
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
rule. As we note in that section, despite
the potential for such genetic effects in
California, the overall viability of the
gray wolf entities addressed in this rule
are unlikely to be significantly
impacted. Also see the final biological
report (USFWS 2020, pp. 18–19) for a
discussion of the various locations from
which California’s wolves have
descended.
Post-Delisting Management
Comment 58: The California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
expressed concern that hunting seasons
would be initiated by a number of States
if the proposed rule is finalized. They
stated that lethal management has been
used in response to suspected
depredations in other States and that the
ability of gray wolves to occupy their
full historical range will be hindered by
hunting and lethal management. They
further stated that Federal protection of
wolves from source populations outside
of California is important for wolf
recovery in the State. They stated they
would like to see continued Federal
protection of gray wolves to allow for
continued expansion into California and
other States.
Our Response: As demonstrated by
current State management of wolves in
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, it is
unlikely that moderate increases in
human-caused mortality will cause
dramatic declines in wolf populations
across the ranges of the gray wolf
entities addressed in this rule. Even if
human-caused mortality increases after
delisting, we expect dispersing wolves
to continue to move into and out of the
West Coast States and recolonize vacant
suitable habitat. The effects of increased
human-caused mortality on wolf
dispersal is discussed in the Humancaused Mortality section of the rule.
Also, see Our Responses to Comments
45, 16, and 15.
Comment 59: The Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
commented that, since the 1980s, their
agency has employed specific staff
dedicated to wolf research and
management, including implementation
of the State’s wolf management plan.
Staff continues to contribute to the
conservation of wolves in Minnesota
through coordinating management,
enforcing the prohibition against illegal
take, investigating livestock depredation
claims, and conducting population
monitoring and research. The Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources’
conservation officers continue to
enforce the requirements of the Wolf
Management Act. Additionally, the
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
administers a compensation fund that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
provides payments in instances where
wolves cause confirmed damage to
livestock. Currently Minnesota spends
approximately $250,000 per year on
wolf depredation management,
excluding staff time.
Our Response: We thank the
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources for this information
supporting the fact that they have
invested a significant amount of time
and resources into managing the State’s
wolf population while wolves were
federally listed and we fully support the
State’s ability and commitment to
sustainable wolf management following
delisting.
Comment 60: The Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
reconfirmed their commitment to the
long-term conservation of wolves and
affirmed that, should the gray wolf be
delisted in Minnesota, they will manage
the species for its long-term
sustainability and for the benefit of both
present and future generations of
Minnesotans. Moreover, the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
indicated they are further committed to
managing gray wolves in Minnesota to
contribute to the success of wolf
recovery beyond the State.
Our Response: We greatly appreciate
the longstanding contributions of the
State of Minnesota in wolf conservation
and its commitment to continued
sustainable wolf management following
delisting.
Comment 61: The North Dakota Game
and Fish Department commented that
wolves are listed as a ‘‘fur-bearer’’ with
a closed season per State regulations.
The status of wolves in North Dakota
will remain such even after they are
delisted, unless a significant change in
the species distribution or population
status is documented in the future.
However, the removal of Federal
protections for gray wolves would allow
the North Dakota Game and Fish
Department the ability to timely and
responsibly manage transient wolves
should they depredate livestock in the
future. Additionally, it would alleviate
public interpretation difficulties
associated with having wolves federally
protected in North Dakota even though
their jurisdiction is not part of one of
the recognized populations, nor is it a
target for future recovery actions.
Our Response: We appreciate the
North Dakota Game and Fish
Department’s ability and commitment to
manage wolves that enter the State via
dispersal as a fur-bearer with a closed
season and support their
decisionmaking and ability to manage
conflicts with wolves should they occur
post-delisting.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69859
Comment 62: The Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources and one commenter
indicated that the proposed rule failed
to acknowledge or analyze wolf
management plans for those States
outside of the currently occupied range.
They believed this analysis should be
included to address concerns that States
will not manage for wolves, once
delisted. The Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources also described Utah’s wolf
management plan goals and objectives,
and when certain phases of the plan
will be implemented to manage wolves
that naturally recolonize the State. They
also described staff preparedness and
monitoring efforts that would occur if
wolves were to recolonize the State.
Furthermore, the Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources stated that they have
baseline information on big game
populations that could be used to
understand wolf-prey relationships in
Utah, as well as programs to provide
assistance to livestock producers.
Our Response: The Service recognizes
the preparation and willingness of the
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to
responsibly manage and monitor wolves
that naturally recolonize the State postdelisting. We also appreciate their
commitment to provide assistance to
livestock producers to minimize conflict
risk and to provide compensation for
wolf-caused livestock losses, as well as
their ability to evaluate the impact
wolves may have on ungulate
populations while continuing to
adaptively manage for sustainable big
game populations. An analysis of wolf
management plans was conducted for
States within the current range of the
gray wolf and can be found in the Postdelisting Management section of this
rule. Due to recent information
confirming the presence of a group of
six wolves in extreme northwest
Colorado, and their proximity to and
potential use of habitats within Utah,
we conducted an analysis of the
Colorado Wolf Management
Recommendations and the Utah Wolf
Management Plan (see Post-delisting
Management). We did not consider
management in States outside of the
current range, other than Utah, because
wolves are not expected to persist long
term in most of those States.
Policy
Comment 63: The California Fish and
Game Commission asserted that the
proposed rule does not address the
absence of gray wolf populations in
most of the species’ historical range.
They expressed concern that we
interpret ‘‘range,’’ within the Act’s
definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and
‘‘threatened species,’’ as current range.
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69860
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
They stated that this creates a shifting
baseline, discounts historical habitats in
California and elsewhere, and ignores
science and the law. Also, the Michigan
Attorney General indicated that, as a
result of the court opinion issued in
Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep’t of the
Interior, 336 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1137
(N.D. Cal. 2018), the SPR phrase in the
Act’s definition of ‘‘endangered species’’
carries its ordinary meaning. Citing
Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 239 F.
Supp. 2d 9, 21 (D.D.C. 2002), the
Michigan Attorney General asserted that
the Service must explain its conclusion
that an area in which a species can no
longer live is not a significant portion of
its range.
Our Response: We describe our
interpretation of range and our rationale
for this interpretation in detail in our
SPR policy, which is legally binding (79
FR 37578; July 1, 2014). Per that policy,
we interpret the term ‘‘range’’ in the
Act’s definitions of ‘‘endangered
species’’ and ‘‘threatened species’’ to be
the general geographical area occupied
by the species at the time the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service or National Marine
Fisheries Service makes a status
determination under section 4 of the Act
(79 FR 37583, July 1, 2014). In other
words, we interpret ‘‘range’’ in these
definitions to be the current range.
Three recent court rulings have upheld
our interpretation (see Our Response to
Comment 37).
We assume the Michigan Attorney
General’s statement that ‘‘the Service
must explain its conclusion that an area
in which a species can no longer live is
not a significant portion of its range’’
refers to our conclusion that a species’
unoccupied historical range cannot be a
significant portion of its range. The
cited case, Defenders of Wildlife v.
Norton, pre-dates our SPR policy, which
interprets the term ‘‘range’’ in the Act’s
definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and
‘‘threatened species’’ as current range.
Based on that interpretation, if a portion
of historical range is not occupied, then
it is not part of the species ‘‘range’’ (i.e.,
current range) and thus cannot be a
portion (significant or not) of that range.
In response to several comments related
to our interpretation of ‘‘range,’’ we
have clarified our definition and
treatment of range in this final rule (see
Definition and Treatment of Range).
Comment 64: The California Fish and
Game Commission indicated that
establishing and maintaining robust
gray wolf populations in suitable habitat
across the species’ historical range can
help ensure long-term survival of the
species and recovery success. They
expressed concern that, if the species is
delisted, populations could potentially
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
stop growing or even decline due to
hunting and lethal management.
Our Response: We agree that broadly
distributed, robust populations help
ensure the long-term survival of a
species. Gray wolves have recovered in
two broad regions of their historical
range in the lower 48 United States (the
Great Lakes States and the NRM region),
and the Mexican wolf will remain listed
in a third broad region. In the Great
Lakes and the NRM, wolves occur as
large metapopulations distributed in
suitable habitat across several States.
Based on an analysis of the best
available data, we have determined that
none of the gray wolf entities evaluated
in this rule are in danger of extinction,
or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future, throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (see Determination
of Species Status). Although we
acknowledge that human-caused
mortality is likely to increase postdelisting as some States with viable gray
wolf populations begin to manage
wolves under the guidance of their State
management plans, it is unlikely that
moderate increases in human-caused
mortality will cause dramatic declines
in wolf populations across the gray wolf
entities evaluated in this rule (see Our
Response to Comment 16).
Comment 65: The California Fish and
Game Commission asserted that Federal
policy should reflect a greater
commitment to active gray wolf
recovery efforts, identifying and
protecting critical habitat and
movement corridors, maintaining a
population level consistent with
ecosystem functionality, and
implementing innovative policy and
guidance to reduce lethal control as a
management strategy.
Our Response: We have been strongly
committed to gray wolf recovery since
the 1970s. As a result of our
commitment and the commitment and
recovery efforts of our State, Federal,
and Tribal partners, the gray wolf
entities evaluated in this rule do not
meet the Act’s definition of an
endangered species or of a threatened
species. Therefore, we are removing the
currently listed C. lupus entities from
the List. (See Our Responses to
Comments 44 and 42).
Comment 66: Referring only to the
gray wolf entity currently on the List as
endangered (the 44-State entity), the
Michigan Attorney General contended
that the proposed delisting rule does not
meet the Act’s requirements because it
does not include a complete five-factor
analysis for the current range of the gray
wolf in that entity. The Michigan
Attorney General noted that we explain
why gray wolves are no longer in danger
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of extinction in portions of Michigan
and Wisconsin, but fail to analyze
whether gray wolves currently living in
other States are in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
the entity’s range. For example, the
Michigan Attorney General stated that
we did not investigate the effects of
human-caused mortality on gray wolves
in North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana,
Illinois, Nebraska, or Kansas, and
asserted that we withdraw the proposed
rule and allow the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources to lead other
States, by example, in managing the
gray wolves within their borders into
recovery, instead of into extinction.
Our Response: We appreciate the
State of Michigan’s significant
contribution to gray wolf recovery.
However, we do not make status
determinations on a State-by-State basis.
Rather, we determine whether a species
(in this case, each of the gray wolf
entities evaluated in this rule) meets the
Act’s definition of an endangered
species or of a threatened species
because of the five factors throughout all
or a significant portion of its range. We
interpret the term ‘‘range’’ as used in the
Act’s definitions of ‘‘threatened species’’
and ‘‘endangered species’’ to refer to the
area occupied by the species at the time
we make a status determination (79 FR
37583, July 1, 2014). As a result, our
analysis of the effects of threats under
the five factors to the viability of each
of the gray wolf entities evaluated in
this rule focuses on its occupied range.
Thus, we did not assess the effects of
threats to gray wolves in States that are
not currently occupied by gray wolves
(see Our Response to Comment 37).
However, we considered impacts arising
from loss of each gray wolf entity’s
historical range on that entity’s viability
(see Historical Context of Our Analysis
and Determination of Species Status). In
other words, we thoroughly assessed the
effects of threats and historical range
loss on the viability of the gray wolf
entities evaluated in this rule based on
the best available scientific and
commercial data available. In so doing,
we have determined that each of the
gray wolf entities evaluated is not in
danger of extinction, or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future, throughout
all or a significant portion of its range
(see Determination of Species Status).
Consequently, we are removing the
currently listed C. lupus entities from
the List. (See Our Response to Comment
42).
Comment 67: Referring only to the
gray wolf entity currently on the List as
endangered (the 44-State entity), the
Michigan Attorney General indicated
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
that the approach taken in our proposed
rule is not in accordance with the Act
because it is the same approach taken in
our December 28, 2011, rule designating
and delisting the western Great Lakes
DPS (76 FR 81666), which was vacated
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit (Humane Society, 865 F.3d at
603). The Michigan Attorney General
stated that the approach in the proposed
rule splits the 44-State entity into a
recovered subgroup (wolves in
Wisconsin and Michigan) and an
unrecovered subgroup (wolves in
several other States in that listed entity)
that will become extinct. Quoting the
D.C. Circuit opinion, they indicate that
the unrecovered subgroup is an ‘‘orphan
to the law’’ and that our ‘‘failure to
address the status of the remnant is
fatal.’’
Our Response: In this rule, we
evaluate the status of the entire 44-State
entity (as well as two larger entities that
include the entire 44-State entity). The
western Great Lakes DPS that was
designated and delisted in 2011 (see 76
FR 81666, December 28, 2011)
constitutes only a subset of the 44-State
entity. Further, our approach in this rule
is consistent with the Humane Society
opinion because we assess the status of
the entire 44-State entity, thus there are
no subgroups of wolves that could be
considered ‘‘orphans to the law.’’
Comment 68: The Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources stated
that a blanket delisting of gray wolves
across the United States may not be
warranted. They also expressed concern
that we may not be identifying and
applying delisting criteria appropriately.
Our Response: We appreciate the
Department’s perspective and the State
of Minnesota’s significant contribution
to gray wolf recovery. While our past
status reviews focused on DPSs and
taxonomic units that align with our
national wolf strategy, we have revised
our approach in this rule in recognition
of the unique listing history of the gray
wolf and court opinions addressing
rules in which we designated gray wolf
DPSs (see table 1). Therefore, in this
rule we do not designate and assess gray
wolf DPSs. Rather, we assess the status
of the two currently listed gray wolf
entities themselves (separately, and
combined into a single entity) and the
lower 48 United States entity. Further,
by ‘‘delisting criteria’’ we assume the
Department is referring to recovery
criteria. We do not base our status
determinations on recovery criteria
alone (see Our Response to Comment
69). We make our determinations based
on a species’ (in this case, each of the
gray wolf entities assessed in this rule)
status throughout all or a significant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
portion of its range. (See Our Response
to Comment 66). Because we have
determined that each of the gray wolf
entities assessed in this rule is not in
danger of extinction, or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future, throughout
all or a significant portion of its range
(see Determination of Species Status),
we are removing the currently listed
gray wolf entities from the List (see Our
Response to Comment 42).
Comment 69: The California Fish and
Game Commission and several other
commenters opined that much of the
recovery analysis in the proposed rule is
based on an outdated recovery plan
using outdated science. They stated that
the recovery criteria on which the rule
is based do not factor in the best
available science and, therefore, neither
does any analysis in the rule that is
based on the recovery criteria.
Our Response: Our determination is
based on analysis of the best available
information regarding the threats to, and
viability of, the gray wolf entities
evaluated in this rule. Recovery plans
and recovery criteria 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. We use recovery criteria in concert
with the best scientific and commercial
data available at the time of the delisting
determination, to determine whether
threats have been minimized
sufficiently and populations have
achieved long-term viability to
determine whether a species meets the
Act’s definition of an endangered
species or of a threatened species and,
therefore, can be reclassified from
endangered to threatened or delisted.
Tribal and Tribal Organization
Comments
Comment 70: The Nez Perce Tribe
expressed their interest in sustainable
wolf populations outside of the NRM.
Specifically, they commented that the
expansion of wolves into areas of former
occupation in the Pacific Northwest
outside of the NRM would contribute to
the persistence of wolves in their
homeland as part of a broader
metapopulation. The Tribe encouraged
us to take no action that threatens,
reduces, or hinders the reestablishment
and persistence of wolves in all suitable
habitat outside the NRM DPS. The Tribe
further recommended that the Service
support active, precise, and accurate
monitoring of wolf pack locations,
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69861
movements, and demographics to
validate that goal.
Our Response: We share the Tribe’s
interest in sustainable wolf populations,
and we expect the wolf metapopulation
in the Western United States to continue
to expand into unoccupied suitable
habitats in the West Coast States and
central Rocky Mountains, as envisioned
in State wolf conservation and
management plans. We support State
and Tribal-led efforts to use the best
available scientific methods for tracking
population trends and distribution,
recognizing that in some cases tracking
every wolf pack will not be feasible or
necessary.
Comment 71: The Makah Tribal
Council indicated that the current legal
framework in Washington, with Federal
protection of wolves in the western twothirds of Washington State and Tribal/
State management responsibility in the
eastern one-third of the State, makes
overall management of wolves within
the State extremely challenging.
Our Response: We thank the Tribal
Council for their comment and
understand the challenges that have
arisen from delimiting the NRM
population, which has continued to
expand beyond its legally designated
boundaries. Although our final rule is
based solely on the best available
scientific and commercial information
with respect to the status of each of the
gray wolf entities we evaluated, one
consequence of the delisting is that it
will resolve the challenge raised by the
Tribe.
Comment 72: The Nez Perce Tribe
expressed that the sustainability of
habitat conditions for wolves, including
their prey base, should be of high
priority to the Service as it considers
delisting. To avoid conflict, the Tribe
recommends that the Service work
closely with Tribes and States to
monitor wild ungulate populations and
adjust population objectives for those
species as necessary to ensure the robust
availability of prey for both wolves and
humans.
Our Response: Wolves can exist in
nearly any habitat with sufficient food
resources and limited human-caused
mortality. We agree that a sustainable
prey base is necessary for maintaining
robust and resilient wolf populations,
and we assessed the adequacy of the
prey base following delisting in making
our delisting determination (see Habitat
and Prey Availability). We will work
closely with the States and Tribes
throughout the post-delisting
monitoring period to gather and assess
data on wolf status, including
information on changes to protections
for wolves, wolf prey, or wolf habitat.
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69862
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Comment 73: Several Tribes and
multi-Tribal organizations commented
that providing Tribes with an
opportunity to participate in regular and
meaningful consultation is an essential
component of a productive FederalTribal relationship.
Our Response: 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 recognize 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 take seriously our government-togovernment relationship with Tribes
and respect Tribal sovereignty, and we
coordinated with the affected Tribes
when preparing the March 15, 2019,
proposed rule (84 FR 9648).
Furthermore, throughout several years
of development of earlier related rules
and the March 15, 2019, 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 changes, and (2)
understand their concerns with those
changes. As we were preparing this rule,
we met with the Chippewa Ottawa
Resources Authority Board and the
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission’s Voigt Inter-Tribal Task
Force to discuss the proposal. We also
offered to meet individually and discuss
the proposal with any Tribe that wanted
to do so, and we met with the Fond du
Lac Band of Chippewa Indians and the
Nez Perce. Additionally, we have fully
considered all of the comments on the
proposed rule submitted by Tribes and
Tribal organizations, and we have
attempted to address their concerns and
considered any information they
provided, incorporating it into the rule
where appropriate. We invite Native
American Tribes and multi-Tribal
organizations to reach out to us after
publication of this final rule so that we
may engage in discussions aimed at
facilitating the transition to State and
Tribal management of wolves.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Comment 74: Several commenters
stated that the Service must ensure that
State wolf management strategies
accommodate Tribal interests within
reservation boundaries as well as honor
the Tribal role and authority in wolf
management in the ceded territories.
Furthermore, they also indicate that the
Federal trust responsibility, as it
pertains to wolf management, must be
continued after delisting.
Our Response: The Service and the
Department of the Interior recognize the
unique status of the federally recognized
Tribes, their right to self-governance,
and their inherent sovereign powers
over their members and territory.
Therefore, the Department, including
the Service and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, will take all appropriate 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 of the Interior is available to
assist in the exercise of any such rights.
If biological assistance is needed, the
Service will provide it via our field
offices. Upon delisting, all Service
management, and protection authority
under the Act, of the gray wolf entities
will end, although the Service will
remain involved in the post-delisting
monitoring of gray wolves. Legal
assistance will be provided to the Tribes
by the Department of the Interior, with
the involvement of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs as needed. We strongly
encourage the States and Tribes to work
cooperatively toward post-delisting wolf
management.
Comment 75: Two Tribal
organizations and several commenters
indicated that we did not adequately
analyze the effects of increased humancaused mortality on wolf pack social
structure, pack dynamics, and livestock
depredations. Two commenters noted
that wolf populations are self-regulating
and are limited by prey availability.
Some commenters felt that we needed to
reassess regulatory mechanisms in State
management plans that allow for
‘‘substantial sport-hunting,’’ which
could affect wolf persistence and
ecosystem health.
Our Response: We acknowledge the
importance group living has for a social
animal such as the wolf. We are also
aware that wolf populations may, under
certain conditions, be regulated by
density-dependent, intrinsic
mechanisms. However, most wolves in
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the lower 48 United States live in
human-dominated landscapes that are
not free of human influences. As such,
wolf populations are subject to varied
levels of anthropogenic influences that
can affect certain life-history
characteristics.
In general, the loss of a wolf or wolves
from a pack, regardless of the cause,
alters the social dynamics of the pack.
This may, in turn, affect pack cohesion
and persistence. However, the effects
will vary depending upon the
circumstances, including: The
individual wolf that was lost, the time
of year the loss occurred, the size of the
pack, and the size of the wolf
population in which the loss occurred.
Wolves are resilient and adaptable and
have evolved mechanisms to
compensate for human-caused, or any
other form of, mortality.
The social structure of some packs are
affected by increased human-caused
mortality, especially on the peripheries
of occupied ranges where wolf survival
is generally lower than in core areas.
However, we conclude that regulatory
mechanisms within occupied wolf range
are adequate to maintain sufficient wolf
population sizes after delisting such that
increases in human-caused mortality
will have a minimal effect on wolf
populations. Refer to the Human-caused
Mortality—Effects on Wolf Social
Structure and Pack Dynamics section of
this rule for further information
regarding the effects of increased
human-caused mortality on pack
dynamics. Also, refer to the Humancaused Mortality and Post-delisting
Monitoring sections of the rule and Our
Response to Comment 120 for
information related to regulatory
mechanisms that will be in place postdelisting and the effects of harvest on
wolf populations. See Our Response to
Comment 17 for further information
about lethal control.
Comment 76: A few commenters
stated that Tribal plans that address the
management, protection, and/or
stewardship of gray wolves should be
considered to the same degree as State
management plans.
Our Response: We recognize the
measures by Tribes to conserve wolves
on their lands. We included additional
available information on Tribal
management in the delisted NRM
(Management in the NRM DPS) and on
Tribal management post-delisting for
other areas (Tribal Management and
Conservation of Wolves) in this final
rule. However, because State wildlife
management agencies will assume most
management responsibilities when
wolves are delisted, we assessed the
State management plans in greater
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
detail. We recognize that the
conservation of wolves by Tribes on
Tribal lands after delisting may provide
additional benefits to the species.
Comment 77: Many Tribes, multiTribal organizations, and Tribal
members expressed the significant
cultural and spiritual relationship
between Native Americans and the gray
wolf.
Our Response: We appreciate the
cultural and spiritual significance of the
wolf to many Native Americans.
Although we acknowledge the
importance of the cultural and spiritual
significance of wolves to native people,
we cannot consider it as a factor in our
determination. Rather, we must evaluate
the five statutory factors, consistent
with the purpose of the Act to provide
for the conservation of endangered
species and threatened species, and the
ecosystems upon which they depend.
The Act defines conservation as the use
of all methods and procedures which
are necessary to bring any endangered
or threatened species to the point at
which the measures provided pursuant
to the Act are no longer necessary.
Under our implementing regulations (50
CFR 424.11), a species should be
delisted when the best scientific and
commercial data available indicate that
it no longer meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened
species under the Act. None of the gray
wolf entities we evaluated meets the
definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species; therefore, we are
removing the currently listed entities
from the List.
Comment 78: Two commenters stated
that the Service should use Tribes’
traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)
in the delisting decision and future gray
wolf management plans. One
commenter noted that Service
publications describe TEK as ‘‘Native
Science’’ gained ‘‘over hundreds or
thousands of years through direct
contact with the environment.’’ The
commenter also stated that Service
publications acknowledge how TEK
‘‘encompasses the world view of
indigenous people which includes
ecology, spirituality, human and animal
relationships, and more.’’ The
commenter asserts that TEK is the very
definition of the best available science.
Our Response: We agree that TEK may
constitute the best available science,
and it should be used in our decisions
as appropriate, which is determined on
a case-by-case basis. We sought
information from Tribes in preparation
of the proposed rule and incorporated
any scientific information we received
from them.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Public Comments
In this section we do not repeat issues
that we’ve already addressed above. We
only address new issues raised that
were not raised by peer reviewers, State
or Federal agencies, or Tribes.
Recovery and Delisting
Comment 79: Multiple commenters
and two Tribal organizations expressed
concern that while wolves have
rebounded from near-extinction in parts
of the northern Rocky Mountains region
and Great Lakes area, most of the
suitable habitat remains unoccupied
and current population levels are lower
than historical population levels. They
asserted that recovery of wolves where
they currently exist is due to Federal
protections; thus, it is premature to
remove Federal protections because
wolves occupy only a small portion of
their historical suitable habitat and/or
range in the lower 48 United States.
Some of these commenters stated that
the Act provides for restoration
throughout the historical range of
wolves, and without protection by the
Act, dispersing wolves could be shot or
trapped before they are able to establish
viable populations in unoccupied
habitat. Commenters were also
concerned that there is a lack of
protection for wolves and promotion for
wolf recovery in States not currently
occupied by wolves. Similarly, some
argued that the Act goes beyond just
protecting the minimum number of
individuals to prevent extinction.
In contrast, some commenters noted
that occupancy of wolves across the
entire historical range is not possible,
practical, or necessary to support viable
wolf populations, and that wolves will
return to unoccupied areas if suitable
habitat exists.
Our Response: We acknowledge that
wolves do not occupy all of the
potentially suitable habitat in the lower
48 United States. However, the Act does
not describe recovery in terms of the
proportion of historical range or
potential habitat that must be occupied
by a species, nor does it include
restoration throughout the entire
historical range as a conservation
purpose. Thus, the Act does not require
us to restore the gray wolf (or any other
species) to all of its historical range or
any specific percentage of currently
suitable habitat. We find that the current
level of occupied habitat is sufficient
because it has supported recovery of the
species. We also expect that wolf
populations will continue to grow and
expand post-delisting in the West Coast
States and central Rocky Mountains
under State management (see Post-
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69863
delisting Management section of this
rule and Our Response to Comment 58.
We are not, however, relying on such
expansion for our determination that
wolves in each of the gray wolf entities
evaluated in this rule do not meet the
definition of a threatened species or an
endangered species under the Act.
Comment 80: One commenter
indicated that the Service has
abandoned its responsibility to recover
wolves in the lower 48 United States,
which the commenter believed is
contrary to its duty to conserve species
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act.
Our Response: In this final rule we
analyze gray wolves in the lower 48
United States entity, and we conclude
that they do not meet the definition of
an endangered species or threatened
species. The commenter’s reliance on
section 7(a)(1) of the Act is misplaced.
Section 7(a)(1) directs Federal agencies
to use their authorities in furtherance of
the purpose of the Act by carrying out
programs for the conservation of species
that are currently listed under the Act.
Section 7(a)(1) does not impose a
separate requirement to conserve
species that no longer warrant listing
due to recovery. When a species no
longer meets the definition of a
threatened species or an endangered
species under the Act and is delisted,
section 7(a)(1) does not apply to that
species. As described in Our Response
to Comment 79, the Act does not require
us to restore the gray wolf (or any other
species) to all of its historical range or
any specific percentage of currently
suitable habitat before we may conclude
that the species is recovered. Rather,
that analysis is based on the five
statutory factors. Based on the analyses
in this final rule, we have concluded
that the gray wolf entities currently
listed are recovered—that is, they no
longer meet the statutory definition of a
threatened species or an endangered
species. Thus, upon the effective date of
this final rule (see DATES, above), section
7(a)(1) of the Act will not apply because
the two currently listed gray wolf
entities will no longer be listed.
Comment 81: One commenter was
concerned that shifting management of
wolves to States post-delisting is not an
adequate policy alternative to the
Service’s mandate to develop a
substantive plan for gray wolf recovery
per its responsibility under the Act. The
commenter further stated that rather
than focusing on the active recovery of
the wolf, the Service issued multiple
rulemakings to delist wolves.
Our Response: There is no uniform
definition for what constitutes recovery
and how recovery must be achieved (see
Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69864
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Implementation). Our recovery strategy
for gray wolves in the lower 48 United
States consists of recovery of the species
in three broad regions (NRM,
Southwestern United States, and the
East) that capture different subspecies
and habitats, and we have, for decades,
demonstrated a consistent commitment
to this strategy. Recovery plans and
recovery criteria are intended to provide
guidance to the Service, States, and
other partners on methods for
eliminating, ameliorating, and
minimizing threats to listed species and
on criteria that may be used to
determine when recovery is achieved.
We use recovery criteria, along with an
analysis of the five factors to determine
whether threats have been abated
sufficiently and populations have
achieved long-term viability, such that a
species no longer meets the definition of
endangered or threatened. The multiple
rulemakings to delist wolves are a result
of the Service’s commitment to this
recovery strategy. Returning
management of gray wolves to the States
is appropriate because each of the
currently listed gray wolf entities has
recovered and does not warrant Federal
protections. We have explained
elsewhere in this rule why State
management is sufficient to ensure the
conservation of the gray wolf after
delisting. Also see Our Response to
Comment 84.
Comment 82: Several commenters
stated that we inappropriately relied on
wolf populations in Canada to
determine that the combined listed
entity is not in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future. While the reviewer refers to the
combined listed entity, their comment
could apply to the analysis of other
entities now included in this final rule.
Our Response: We have concluded
that each of the entities assessed in this
rule—Minnesota, 44-State entity,
combined listed entity, and lower 48
United States entity—contains sufficient
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to sustain gray wolf
populations over time. We provided
general information on populations in
Canada to acknowledge that they
provide additional resiliency,
redundancy, and representation to these
entities beyond that necessary to sustain
populations within the gray wolf
entities we evaluated. We have clarified
this point in this final rule.
Comment 83: One commenter
expressed concern that we were relying
too heavily on genetic rescue from
Canada to ensure wolf recovery in the
United States. The commenter was also
concerned that State management might
result in significant genetic bottleneck
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
with implications for disease resistance
and reproductive output. The
commenter noted that disease outbreaks
have caused ‘‘sudden and severe’’
mortality in Yellowstone wolves three
times in the past decade.
Our Response: There is no evidence
that gray wolves in the lower 48 United
States suffer from low genetic diversity,
except where they occur in isolated
areas at extremely low population
numbers (e.g., Isle Royale). High
dispersal rates and long dispersal
distances facilitate population
connectivity between wolves in the
United States and Canada (Fain et al.
2010, p. 1758; Forbes and Boyd 1996,
pp. 1088–1089; Treves et al. 2009, p.
200; Jimenez et al. 2017, pp. 7 2012;10),
which is not expected to change
following delisting. While humancaused mortality is likely to increase in
some States following delisting, we have
determined that post-delisting
management is sufficient to maintain
viable metapopulations of the gray wolf
(see Determination of Species Status
section). The viability of these
metapopulations is enhanced, but not
dependent upon, their connectivity with
Canada, since we expect population
numbers to be sufficiently high to
maintain genetic diversity without the
need for genetic rescue. The fact that
wolves have sustained bouts of
heightened mortality due to disease in
some years is not evidence of a genetic
deficiency. While infectious disease is
one of the key factors, along with prey
abundance and social competition,
affecting wolf population dynamics, the
ability of wolves in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem to rebound from
disease outbreaks, in most instances the
following year, demonstrates the
resilience of individual wolves and
packs as well as the limited effects
disease has on the dynamics of wolf
populations.
Comment 84: Several commenters
stated that we should have modified our
recovery planning and implementation
efforts after revising the listing to a
single lower 48 United States listing in
1978. Some expressed that delisting is
premature or in violation of the Act
because recovery goals have not been
identified or met for some or all
unoccupied areas of the lower 48 United
States, or because the 1992 Eastern
Timber Wolf Recovery Plan is
inadequate for guiding recovery in the
combined listed entity because it is
outdated and not the best available
science and/or is geographically
restricted. Commenters requested we
develop, or believe the Act and/or our
implementing regulations require us to
develop, a single recovery plan for the
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
lower 48 United States, or nationwide,
before proceeding with any delisting
action. Some commenters provided
suggestions regarding the development
of such a plan, including specific areas
in which wolves could be recovered.
Other commenters stated that the
Service should base recovery on
subspecies or identify distinct
population segments across the gray
wolf’s historical range, and that these
should replace or supplement the
current recovery zones. The Pacific
Northwest, California, central Rockies,
and Northeastern United States were
mentioned most frequently for
additional recovery programs. Still other
commenters expressed their opinion
that additional recovery efforts across
the entire lower 48 United States were
unwise and unnecessary.
Our Response: Recovery plans are
non-binding documents that are
intended to provide guidance to the
Service, States, and other partners on
methods of minimizing threats to listed
species and criteria that may be used to
determine when recovery is achieved.
However, our determination of the
status of each of the gray wolf entities
assessed in this rule is based on the
status of each entity relative to the Act’s
definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or
‘‘threatened species,’’ not based on the
achievement of specific recovery
criteria. Possible future wolf recovery
efforts are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking because such actions are not
necessary as a result of our
determination that the gray wolf entities
assessed in this rule do not meet the
Act’s definition of an endangered
species or threatened species.
As noted in the March 9, 1978,
reclassification rule (43 FR 9607), we
replaced the previous subspecies
listings with a listing for gray wolves in
Minnesota as threatened and gray
wolves elsewhere in the lower 48
United States and Mexico as endangered
in order to most conveniently handle
the gray wolf listing. Our 1978
reclassification rule provided
assurances that we would continue to
recognize valid biological subspecies for
purposes of our research and
conservation programs (see 39 FR 1171,
January 4, 1974), and we developed gray
wolf recovery plans accordingly.
We have satisfied our statutory
responsibilities for recovery planning.
Section 4(f)(1) of the Act instructs us to
develop plans for the conservation and
survival of endangered and threatened
species. The Act further states that
priority should be given to species that
are most likely to benefit from such
plans. To this end, we prioritized gray
wolf recovery planning efforts to focus
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
on the NRM, the Eastern United States,
and the Southwestern United States. We
completed a recovery plan for the NRM
in 1980, and revised it in 1987. In the
East, we completed a recovery plan in
1978, and revised it in 1992. In the
Southwest, a recovery plan was
completed in 1982, and revised in 2017.
We disagree with commenters who
suggested that we should have
developed a single recovery plan for the
lower 48 United States. We are not
required to revise our recovery plans
and, even if we were, we continue to
believe that it is appropriate to focus
recovery efforts on these three regions.
With the delisting of the currently listed
gray wolf entities, we will focus our
wolf recovery efforts on recovering gray
wolves in the Southwest (the subspecies
C. l. baileyi) and red wolves (Canis
rufus) in the Southeast. Also see Our
Response to Comment 69.
Comment 85: Commenters offered
many reasons why they thought
delisting was premature or not
warranted. Some commenters indicated
that wolf recovery requires, should
require, or could be improved by: (1)
Establishment of large populations in
more, or all, suitable or potentially
suitable habitat within the species’
historical range; (2) natural connectivity
or linkage between populations; (3)
protective regulatory mechanisms
throughout the species’ historical range,
or in all or portions of its unoccupied
historical range; and/or (4) protection
and enhancement of existing population
levels. Some claimed that we ignored
historical range or historical population
numbers when assessing recovery,
while others expressed concern about
impacts to other species, ecosystems, or
the economy if wolves are delisted.
Other commenters provided additional
reasons why delisting now is
appropriate, citing damages from wolves
in the form of livestock and dog injuries
and fatalities and other indirect
damages in reduced farm productivity
after interactions with wolves.
Our Response: Under our
implementing regulations (50 CFR
424.11), a species should be delisted
when the best scientific and commercial
data available indicate that it no longer
meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species under
the Act. This final delisting
determination is based upon our
evaluation of the status of each of the
gray wolf entities assessed in this rule
in light of the Act’s definition of an
‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened
species.’’ Thus, we consider potential
threats to the species (in this case, the
entities assessed in this rule) as outlined
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. When we
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
evaluate the status of a species, we
evaluate the impacts of the species’
historical range loss on the viability of
the species in its current range (see
Historical Context of Our Analysis and
Determination of Species Status). As
described in detail in this rule, each of
the gray wolf entities we assessed does
not meet the Act’s definition of
‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened
species.’’ Therefore, delisting the
currently listed gray wolf entities is
warranted.
Some of the commenters’ suggestions
are inconsistent with the purposes of
the Act. The purpose of the Act is to
prevent extinctions and provide for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The Act defines
conservation as the use of all methods
and procedures which are necessary to
bring any endangered or threatened
species to the point at which the
measures provided pursuant to the Act
are no longer necessary (i.e., recovery).
Our conservation efforts have been
successful for the gray wolf, and the
Act’s protections are no longer required
for the currently listed gray wolf
entities.
Comment 86: One commenter opined
that the absence of wolves in areas of
high human densities and areas where
prey populations are not adequate to
maintain viable wolf populations is a
positive aspect of historical range loss
that is missing from our analysis of the
status of the combined listed entity. The
commenter claimed that historical range
reduction has provided support to the
recovery of the combined listed entity
by reducing the levels of human-wolf
conflict and by concentrating wolf
populations in areas where there is an
adequate prey base, and that the final
rule should recognize this positive
factor.
Our Response: We are not aware of
any information indicating a positive
causal relationship between gray wolf
historical range loss (extirpation from
most of the species’ historical range)
and gray wolf recovery. An active
eradication program is the sole reason
that wolves were extirpated from their
historical range in the United States,
and the regulation of human-caused
wolf mortality is the primary reason
wolf numbers have significantly
increased and their range has expanded
since the 1970s (see Human-caused
Mortality). The commenter may be
referring to factors that potentially
influence human attitudes and tolerance
of wolves, and the effects of attitudes
and tolerance on the illegal killing and
overall mortality of wolves. We have
revised this final rule to provide
additional information and clarity on
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69865
this topic (see Human-caused Mortality,
‘‘The Role of Public Attitudes’’).
Comment 87: Some commenters were
concerned that human-caused mortality
after delisting may halt or reverse gray
wolf ‘‘restoration.’’
Our Response: As we stated in the
Human-caused Mortality section of the
proposed rule, and this final rule,
human-caused mortality is likely to
increase post-delisting. This may
include increased use of lethal control
to mitigate depredations on livestock
and the implementation of public
harvest to stabilize or reduce wolf
population growth rates. Nonetheless,
based on past delisting efforts in the
Great Lakes area, and as demonstrated
by current State management of wolves
in the northern Rocky Mountains, we
conclude that moderate increases in
human-caused mortality after delisting
are unlikely to cause dramatic declines
in wolf populations across any of the
gray wolf entities evaluated. Wolves in
California, Colorado, and Washington
will continue to remain State-listed and
receive protections through State laws
and regulations. Although wolves are
delisted at the State level in Oregon,
they continue to receive protections
through the State Plan, its associated
regulation, and Oregon’s wildlife policy.
Comment 88: A few commenters were
concerned that with gray wolf delisting,
a lack of Federal protection and funding
will mean wolves will not be able to
reestablish in Colorado or contribute to
ecosystem benefits in Colorado. In
addition, they were concerned that postdelisting, human-caused mortality of
gray wolves in Wyoming will preclude
wolf movements from Wyoming to
Colorado, in turn failing to reestablish
populations in Colorado. The
commenters indicated that there are
currently no wolf packs in Colorado,
and that dispersal of wolves from
Canada to the northern Rocky
Mountains region was not quick even
following the end of ‘‘routine shooting
of wolves.’’ They indicated that the
presence of wolf populations in
Colorado would provide resiliency and
redundancy if wolf populations collapse
in other States due to habitat loss from
human development, disease, prey
population declines, or human-caused
mortality.
Our Response: In January 2020, a
group of six gray wolves was observed
traveling together in the northwestern
part of Colorado, indicating that gray
wolves are in the beginning stages of
recolonizing the State. In addition, since
publication of the proposed rule, a
dispersing individual from
northwestern Wyoming was
documented in Colorado in July 2019
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69866
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
and has remained in the State using a
defined territory since that time.
Additional populations of wolves in
Colorado would add to the resiliency
and redundancy of gray wolves in the
lower 48 United States. However, as
explained in this final rule, it is not
necessary for wolves to occupy all, or
most, of their historical range for us to
conclude that delisting is appropriate.
Our delisting of the gray wolf does not
preclude the continued recolonization
in Colorado or the future
reestablishment of wolves in any other
State. We appreciate the concern that
wolf dispersal may be affected by
increases in human-caused mortality,
which may delay recolonization of
vacant, suitable habitats in Colorado.
Although recolonization of vacant,
suitable habitats can occur relatively
quickly, it does still take time, whether
or not human-caused mortality is highly
regulated. However, the innate behavior
of wolves to disperse and locate other
dispersing individuals across vast
landscapes to, in some cases, fill social
openings in existing packs or form new
packs in part explains why wolf
populations are resilient to moderate
increases in human-caused mortality
and are highly capable of continuing to
recolonize vacant suitable habitats
where they exist.
Comment 89: Two commenters
opined that wolf recovery cannot be
achieved, and delisting is not
appropriate, until wolves have returned
to Utah. They indicated that much of
Utah is historical and current gray wolf
habitat, and pointed out that the
exclusion of Utah from the recovery area
for gray wolves is not explained. One
commenter claimed that northern Utah
was included in the NRM DPS as an
intended ‘‘migratory corridor,’’ and
asked why it was included as a
migratory corridor if it will never
function as one.
Our Response: As is stated in this
final rule, gray wolves need not occupy
all, or most, of their historical range in
order for us to conclude that delisting is
appropriate. See Our Response to
Comment 79 for additional information.
The NRM DPS boundary was delineated
to encompass an area sufficient for
recovery of gray wolves in the northern
Rocky Mountains. The northeast portion
of Utah was most recently delisted as
part of the NRM DPS in 2011. Similar
to many other areas in the NRM DPS,
that area will continue to provide
connectivity to areas outside the NRM
DPS, and this rule will not affect the
ability of wolves to use both suitable
and unsuitable habitats as dispersal
routes to recolonize new areas outside
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
the NRM DPS. See 72 FR 6112–6113, for
additional information.
Comment 90: One commenter
believed that delisting wolves at this
time is not appropriate because there are
large areas of unoccupied habitat,
which, if occupied, could help maintain
genetic diversity and resilience,
especially as climate change alters
habitats and prey availability. The
commenter cited Hendricks et al. (2019)
as using newer genetic techniques to
explain how wolves adapt to different
environments. In light of this research,
the commenter believed it was
premature to declare that self-sustaining
populations in the Great Lakes or
Northern Rocky Mountains are adequate
for long-term survival of the species.
Our Response: As is described in the
March 15, 2019, proposed rule and this
final rule, we evaluated the resiliency
(in addition to other factors) of the
Minnesota entity, 44-State entity,
combined listed entity, and lower 48
United States entity, and determined
that none of these entities meet the Act’s
definition of an endangered species or
threatened species. As part of this
evaluation, we assessed climate change,
prey availability, and the Hendricks et
al. (2019, entire) study. The northern
Rocky Mountains wolves remain
delisted and continue to expand beyond
the NRM DPS boundary. We expect that
wolves in the Great Lakes area will
remain recovered post-delisting. Also
see Our Response to Comment 113,
which addresses concerns related to
climate change effects on habitat and
prey. Our Response to Comment 79 is
also relevant to concerns raised by this
commenter.
Comment 91: Several commenters
asked specifically for the inclusion of
more details regarding suitable habitat
in unoccupied Rocky Mountain States
in our biological report and final rule.
They cited Carroll et al. (2006) and other
studies that found that Colorado and
Utah could support a population of over
1,000 wolves.
Our Response: Due to recent
information confirming the presence of
a group of six wolves in extreme
northwestern Colorado, and their
proximity to and potential use of
habitats within Utah, we conducted an
evaluation of suitable habitat in
Colorado and Utah in this rule (see
Habitat and Prey Availability).
Comment 92: One commenter asked
about the basis for our conclusions
regarding continued wolf viability in the
western Great Lakes and whether we
had conducted population viability
analyses. They requested that we state
our assumptions and clarify definitions
of terms. They also asked whether we
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
considered, in our assessment of wolf
viability, the likelihood of habitat
changes in a significant portion of the
range of the combined listed entity.
While the reviewer refers to the
combined listed entity, their comment
could apply to the analysis of other
entities now included in this final rule.
Our Response: We did not develop a
quantitative model of wolf population
dynamics for wolves in the Great Lakes
area. Once established, wolf populations
are known to be remarkably resilient to
human-caused mortality and are not
particularly sensitive to changes in
habitat as long as sufficient prey
populations are maintained (see Habitat
and Prey Availability section). The basis
for our conclusions that wolves are no
longer threatened or endangered in the
entities evaluated in this rule are
summarized in the Determination of
Status Throughout All of Its Range and
Determination of Status Throughout a
Significant Portion of Its Range sections
for each of the entities. In short, wolf
populations have remained above
recovery targets in the Great Lakes
region for almost two decades, and the
States have committed to maintaining
wolf populations well above these
targets for the foreseeable future. (See
also Our Response to Comment 20.)
Comment 93: Several commenters
were concerned that the removal of
Federal protections would inhibit the
recovery progress of gray wolves, setting
populations on a path toward extinction
that would upset ecological systems
kept in balance by wolves. Several
commented that loss of apex predators
substantially diminishes the functions
and resiliency of ecosystems. The
commenters claimed that ignoring the
gray wolf’s role in ecosystem function
similarly ignores the best available
science on this matter. Similarly, they
contended that the understanding of
wolf ecology and recovery has changed
since recovery plans were developed.
Additional commenters asserted that
the Act protects ecosystems needed by
endangered species and goes beyond
just protecting the minimum number of
individuals to prevent extinction.
Commenters also indicated that the
Service should consider ecosystem
value when evaluating a significant
portion of the range and the indirect
effects of wolf population decline postdelisting on ecosystem health and
function. Along these lines, commenters
stated that wolves ‘‘need to be restored
to ecologically functional population
sizes sufficient to influence ecosystems’’
(citing Belant and Adams 2010, entire).
Commenters pointed to numerous
studies in the northern Rocky
Mountains region and the Great Lakes
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
area, where wolf populations were
determined to influence ungulate and
other predator populations in such a
way that the dynamics of biological
diversity and ecosystem functions
produced trophic cascades. Finally,
another commenter stated that sufficient
research is not available on wolfecosystem effects, and that such
research needs to be conducted while
wolves are still federally protected so
the information can be used to inform
delisting decisions; when wolves are
delisted it would be difficult to obtain
funding to support this research.
Our Response: Wolves play a key role
in ecosystems, including their potential
to contribute to trophic cascades. While
some believe wolves should remain
listed until these cascading ecological
effects are restored throughout
ecosystems, this approach is not
required by the Act and is not necessary
for a determination that a species has
recovered (no longer meets the Act’s
definition of an endangered species or
threatened species). The Service is not
required to achieve or maintain
‘‘ecological effectiveness’’ (i.e.,
occupancy with densities that maintain
critical ecosystem interactions and help
ensure against ecosystem degradation)
(Soule et al. 2003, p. 1239). That said,
the concern that delisting would result
in declines or extinction is unfounded.
Service policy calls for an ecosystem
approach to carrying out programs for
fish and wildlife conservation (National
Policy Issuances 95–03 and 96–10; 59
FR 34274, July 1, 1994). The goal of this
approach is to contribute to the effective
conservation of natural biological
diversity through perpetuation of
dynamic, healthy ecosystems when
carrying out our various mandates and
functions. Preserving and recovering
endangered and threatened species is
one of the more basic aspects of an
ecosystem approach to conservation.
Successful recovery of an endangered
species or threatened species requires
that the necessary components of its
habitat and ecosystem be conserved,
and that diverse partnerships be
developed to ensure the long-term
protection of those components. Thus
the recovery success demonstrated for
gray wolves, a keystone or ‘‘highly
interactive species’’ (as defined by Soule
et al. 2003, p. 1239), also is an example
of the success of the ecosystem
approach.
Many new studies of wolf ecology and
its implications for recovery have been
published since the species was
originally listed. We incorporated the
best available scientific and commercial
data into the proposed rule and this
final rule (see Our Response to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Comment 27). We used this information
to reach our determination that gray
wolves do not meet the Act’s definition
of an endangered species or threatened
species and no longer require Federal
protections. Any influence this final
rule may have on funding additional
research is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking process.
Comment 94: Multiple commenters
favored the reintroduction of wolves to
suitable historical ranges ‘‘for the sake
of wolves’’ and to repair damages in
ecosystems due to a lack of large
predators.
Our Response: As discussed in this
final rule, we have determined that each
of the gray wolf entities evaluated does
not meet the Act’s definition of an
endangered species or threatened
species and does not warrant protection
under the Act (see Determination of
Species Status). Therefore, additional
reintroduction efforts by the Service are
not planned, as the currently listed gray
wolf entities have recovered. Because
we have determined that gray wolves
should not be federally listed, any
future wolf reintroduction into
additional areas would be at the
discretion of State and Tribal agencies.
The interaction of wolves and
ecosystems is addressed in Our
Response to Comment 93.
Comment 95: One commenter asked
that, rather than delist the gray wolf, we
reclassify C. lupus to accurately reflect
the species’ historical range and the
scope of the Service’s obligations under
the Act.
Our Response: We interpret this
comment as a recommendation to revise
the boundaries of the currently listed
gray wolf entities. For reasons explained
in this rule (see Approach for this Rule),
we evaluated the status of each of the
currently listed entities separately,
combined into a single entity, and the
two currently listed entities combined
with the NRM DPS (lower 48 United
States entity). Because we determined
that none of the gray wolf entities
evaluated meets the Act’s definition of
an endangered species or a threatened
species, we are removing the currently
listed gray wolf entities from the List.
Comment 96: A few commenters
expressed concern that delisting gray
wolves could harm Mexican wolves,
either by increasing human-caused
mortality of Mexican wolves dispersing
outside the Mexican Wolf Experimental
Population Area, or by potentially
reducing the likelihood of ‘‘genetic
rescue’’ via interbreeding with
dispersing gray wolves.
Our Response: This final rule has no
effect on the separate listing for the
Mexican wolf. The Mexican wolf will
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69867
remain listed as an endangered species
and continue to receive the protections
of the Act. The Act prohibits activities
that ‘‘take’’ endangered and threatened
species unless a Federal permit allows
such ‘‘take’’ (16 U.S.C. 1538). Therefore,
it will remain illegal under the Act for
members of the public to shoot a
Mexican wolf, regardless of State laws
pertaining to gray wolves or the
potential for mistaking a Mexican wolf
for a gray wolf or coyote, and members
of the public are obligated to ensure that
their activities are lawful. We will
continue to assess significant causes of
mortality as the experimental
population expands numerically and
geographically within the Mexican Wolf
Experimental Population Area.
Furthermore, although no information
exists that indicates Mexican wolves are
currently dispersing into neighboring
States, our 10(j) rule specifies that such
dispersers will be captured and returned
to the Mexican Wolf Experimental
Population Area south of I–40 in
Arizona and New Mexico, maintained
in captivity, or transferred to Mexico
(see 50 CFR 17.84(k)). Finally, if genetic
rescue is determined to be a necessary
tool for the Mexican wolf at some time
in the future, appropriate techniques
will be used at that time.
Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or
Population Trends
Comment 97: One commenter stated
that we misrepresented the best
available science pertaining to the
population and metapopulation
structure of wolves. They noted sections
of the proposed rule in which we stated
that wolves in the West Coast States and
the Great Lakes are both part of larger
metapopulations of wolves. They noted
that dispersal between those two areas
has not been documented and dispute
their connectivity. Further, they stated
that there is no evidence that wolves in
the Great Lakes comprise western gray
wolves and eastern wolves, due to the
aforementioned lack of connectivity
between wolves in the northern Rocky
Mountains and the Pacific Coast and the
Great Lakes.
Our Response: In this final rule we
clarify our statements about
metapopulations. Our intention in the
proposed rule was to convey that
wolves in the northern Rocky
Mountains and West Coast States were
part of a metapopulation that included
wolves in western Canada, and that
wolves in the Great Lakes area were part
of another metapopulation that included
wolves in those States as well as in
Ontario and Manitoba, Canada. The
intent was not to imply that all of those
wolves were meaningfully connected as
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69868
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
part of a single metapopulation; we
agree that there are no data to show
effective dispersal between those two
larger areas. We have reviewed and
clarified the text where necessary to
help ensure the correct interpretation.
As for the commenter’s statement about
western wolves in the Great Lakes area,
it is important to note that the term
‘‘western gray wolves’’ is used in the
taxonomy section to distinguish
between western and eastern wolves.
There is general agreement that western
wolves are Canis lupus, unlike the
eastern wolves, about which there is
significant debate, as explained in the
rule. These ‘‘western gray wolves,’’
therefore, are widely agreed to be the
same taxonomic species as the wolves
in the northern Rocky Mountains, but
that does not imply, nor do we indicate
in the rule, that there is current
dispersal or connectivity between the
‘‘western gray wolves’’ in the Great
Lakes area and wolves in the northern
Rocky Mountains or other parts of the
Western United States. We acknowledge
that the terminology surrounding
population structure and taxonomy can
be confusing and have tried to clarify
where possible.
Taxonomy
Comment 98: Some commenters
indicated that the eastern wolf is a
species (C. lycaon) recognized as
threatened in Canada, and that
dispersers into the Northeastern United
States should be protected.
Our Response: We consider these
wolves to be part of the gray wolf
entities we assess. As explained in this
rule, we have determined that none of
the entities we assess meet the Act’s
definition of a threatened species or an
endangered species (see Determination
of Species Status) and, therefore, none
warrant the protections of the Act. See
Our Response to Comment 46 and How
We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties in
this Rule.
Comment 99: We received several
comments that questioned how we
handled the uncertainty surrounding
the taxonomy of the gray wolf and the
distribution of subspecies.
Our Response: We have clarified our
view of the taxonomy and distribution
of wolves to the extent possible given
ongoing scientific uncertainty. The Act
requires us to conduct our analysis
based on the best available science. In
the case of canid taxonomy, that science
remains unresolved. In light of that
uncertainty, we made certain
assumptions and provided justification
as appropriate. We understand that,
absent complete scientific agreement on
the subject, there will be disagreement
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
about the correct interpretation of the
conflicting data. However, we conclude
that our approach satisfies the
requirement to use the best available
scientific data.
Human-Caused Mortality
Comment 100: One commenter
opined that there is a need for greater
public involvement in wildlife
conservation and management issues,
particularly related to predator control.
Our Response: While we appreciate
the commenter’s perspective, the level
of public involvement in wildlife
conservation is not a relevant factor in
our analysis for this final rule. However,
we note that at least three State agencies
(Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, and Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources) have
convened citizen advisory groups to
engage multiple stakeholders in
discussing present and future wolf
management in their respective States.
Furthermore, State wildlife agencies
generally have a citizen commission
that sets policy and regulation for the
agency through a public process that
allows for input from all members of the
public interested in a particular topic
prior to the commission voting on
policy decisions.
Comment 101: Two commenters
noted that USDA 2015 found that
wolves have minimal impact on the
livestock industry compared to other
causes. One commenter stated that
lethal control is not effective.
Our Response: The report cited by the
commenters surveys a random sample
of producers nationwide then
extrapolates information for each State
based on survey results. Although this
report demonstrates the minimal effect
wolves have on the entire livestock
industry at the national level, we
conclude that it does not adequately
address the local, and sometimes
significant, effects that repeated
depredations caused by wolves may
have on individual livestock producers
in occupied wolf range. Because the
report lacks actual numbers based on
confirmed and probable depredations,
the information presented is best used
to identify general cattle and calf death
loss trends over time at a very large
spatial scale. We rely more heavily on
the empirical information compiled by
State, Federal, and Tribal wildlife
management agencies that investigate
and classify depredations caused by
wolves. Much of this information is
provided in annual reports that are
available for public dissemination. See
Our Response to Comment 17 for
information about lethal control.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comment 102: Several commenters
addressed the influence a delisted wolf
population might have on acceptance
and tolerance of wolves by sportsmen
and -women. Most of these commenters
indicated that hunters and State wildlife
agencies share the burden of a recovered
wolf population due to reduced game
populations resulting in a reduction of
tags allocated for the hunt and reduced
revenue. One commenter indicated
wolves have had little impact on big
game populations. Commenters cited a
reference highlighting the need for
support from local communities to
recover Mexican wolf populations and a
reference noting that hunter and trapper
tolerance would decline if wolves were
to be relisted in Montana.
Our Response: We believe that local
support was critical to, and continues to
be critical to, the recovery and
successful management of the gray wolf.
Delisting may slowly improve tolerance
for the species among certain
stakeholders. However, we acknowledge
that other stakeholder groups may
experience frustration and reduced
tolerance for wolf management as it
changes from Federal to State authority.
Accordingly, we have updated and
revised the section Human-Caused
Mortality—‘‘The Role of Public
Attitudes’’ in this rule. Specifically, we
addressed the tolerance of wolves by
hunters/trappers and overall acceptance
of hunting and trapping as a tool used
to manage wolf populations. The
references provided by the commenters
have been incorporated into the
discussion as appropriate. Although the
commenter referenced a survey that
noted tolerance of respondents for
wolves would decrease if wolves were
relisted in Montana, neither our
proposed rule or this final rule
considered relisting wolves in Montana.
We conclude that big game
populations remain of sufficient size to
support both a viable wolf population
and recreational opportunities for both
consumptive and nonconsumptive users
of wildlife. However, we acknowledge
that, in some localized areas, wolves
may be a significant factor in observed
big game population declines, which
could result in reduced allocation of
hunting licenses and reduced revenue
for both local communities and State
wildlife agencies. While models
indicate that predators can limit prey
populations (Eberhardt 1997, entire), the
root cause of observed ungulate declines
or lack of population growth is often
more complex, and involves many more
factors, than simply the presence of
wolves. For example, habitat conditions
on summer ranges and environmental
factors (i.e., winter severity) across the
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Western United States can have a
significant influence on the nutritional
condition of adult female elk. This, in
turn, affects pregnancy rates, the
nutritional condition of calves, and
ultimately calf survival and recruitment
into the population (Cook et al. 2013,
entire; Middleton et al. 2013, entire;
Proffitt et al. 2016, entire; Horne et al.
2019b, entire). As a result, the effects of
predation on elk may be more
pronounced in populations suffering
from poor nutrition (Proffitt et al. 2016,
pp. 2167–2168).
Even if it is determined that predators
have a significant role in the dynamics
of ungulate populations, in many cases
further research would be necessary to
determine which predator is having the
most significant effect. Although some
studies have documented the ability of
wolves to limit the abundance of
ungulates (Boertje et al. 1996, entire;
Hebblewhite et al. 2002, entire; Hayes et
al. 2003, entire), recent studies of elk
population dynamics across Idaho
(Horne et al. 2019b, p. 1114) and in the
Bitterroot Valley of Montana (Eacker et
al. 2016, pp. 1354–1357) indicate that,
aside from the nutritional condition of
adult female elk, mountain lions play a
larger role in the dynamics of elk
populations than either black bears or
wolves. In the Great Lakes area,
environmental conditions have a greater
influence than predation on white-tailed
deer populations, the wolf’s primary
prey in much of this region. The effects
of environmental conditions on whitetailed deer populations in turn play a
large role in the dynamics of wolf
populations in the region, particularly
in regards to wolf abundance and
population growth rates (see the ‘‘Great
Lakes Area: Prey Availability’’ section of
this rule). For further information about
big game populations in the gray wolf
entities evaluated in this rule, refer to
the Habitat and Prey Availability
section of the rule.
Comment 103: One commenter
claimed that the livelihoods of people
who live in rural areas with wolves are
at stake; that wolves are killing their
livestock, pets, and working animals;
and that, if not provided relief, these
residents will fight back against wolves
and wolves will die. The commenter
believed implementing the proposed
rule was best for wolves and people
because it returns control to the States.
Our Response: As noted in the
Human-Caused Mortality—‘‘The Role of
Public Attitudes’’ section of the rule,
research and empirical data indicate
that illegal take occurs at a higher rate
when gray wolves are federally
protected by the Act as compared to
periods when wolves are managed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
under State authority. Surveys also
indicate that members of the public are
more trusting of their State fish and
wildlife agencies than their State or
Federal Government (Manfredo et al.
2018, pp. 8, 58–68).
Comment 104: One commenter noted
that attitudes towards wolves are largely
positive. They stated that wildlife
should not be managed based on the
public’s attitude regarding a species;
rather, it should be based on sound
science. The commenter also indicated
that agencies should work to dispel
misperceptions about wolves. Several
commenters stated that humans
continue to pose a major threat to wolf
populations.
Our Response: Regardless of the
current level of public tolerance for
wolves, we conclude that public
support may decrease if the species has
recovered, yet remains on the List. The
goal of the Act is to recover listed
species and then delist them when they
no longer require the Act’s protections
because they do not meet the definition
of a threatened species or endangered
species. After careful consideration of
the best commercial and scientific
information, the Service has determined
that the gray wolf listed entities are no
longer in need of the Act’s protections
and warrant removal from the List. See
the Human-Caused Mortality—‘‘The
Role of Public Attitudes’’ section of the
rule for more information about human
dimensions and wolves.
The Service agrees that humans
continue to pose the most significant
threat to wolf populations in the lower
48 United States. We also conclude that
adequate regulatory mechanisms that
will be, or currently are, implemented
by State, Federal, and Tribal wildlife
management agencies provide sufficient
protections to allow for the continued
natural recolonization of wolves where
vacant suitable habitat exists and will
ensure wolf populations remain viable
into the foreseeable future. For further
information, see the Human-caused
Mortality and Post-delisting
Management sections of the rule. Also
see Our Response to Comment 120.
Comment 105: One commenter was
concerned with our analysis of humancaused mortality in the West Coast
States. The commenter stated that the
proposed rule did not discuss: (a) Lethal
management by State and Federal land
and wildlife managers; (b) the impact of
recreational hunting in the NRM and its
effects on wolf dispersal and
recolonization of West Coast States; (c)
recreational hunting seasons on Tribal
lands, such as the unlimited, year-round
wolf hunting season on Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation lands,
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69869
which also allow certain hunting and
trapping activities outside of Tribal
lands; and (d) the loss of wolves at the
behest of livestock producers. The
commenter asserted that the threat to
wolves from human-caused mortality is
exacerbated by the lack of nonlethal
coexistence practices in key wolf
habitats in the West Coast States.
Our Response: With regards to lethal
management (including hunting) in the
NRM DPS and how that might impact
West Coast States wolves, see Our
Response to Comment 15. We address
the impacts of lethal management of
West Coast States, NRM DPS, and Great
Lake States wolves in our Humancaused Mortality and Post-delisting
Management sections. While nonlethal
coexistence practices are not in place
everywhere, State and Federal agencies
and Tribal governments have made
significant progress in deploying
nonlethal deterrents to address wolflivestock interactions in the West Coast
States. We have contributed
approximately $400,000 per year toward
a national wolf-livestock grant program
(inclusive of Mexican wolf) to
incentivize livestock producers to
implement nonlethal deterrents. Oregon
and Washington have received a portion
of these funds for the past several years,
while livestock producers or the State
have contributed an equal amount of
their own funding or in-kind services
toward nonlethal coexistence practices.
The commenter is correct that some
Tribes immediately outside of the 44State entity (and, consequently, the
combined listed entity) allow wolf
harvest. We have updated this final rule
to include this information (see Humancaused Mortality and Management in
the NRM DPS sections); although, we
note that the area affected by these
regulations is entirely within the NRM
DPS, where wolves are already federally
delisted.
Habitat and Prey Availability
Comment 106: We received multiple
comments related to habitat in the West
Coast States and the potential for
continued occupancy and expansion of
wolves into these States. Specifically,
commenters noted that wolves are
highly mobile and adaptable and are
likely to find suitable habitats amongst
the large blocks of State and Federal
land in those States. Similarly,
commenters noted that land use
planning in some States ensures that
private lands providing habitat will not
be significantly altered. In addition,
commenters noted that under State
management, wolves are likely to
continue to recolonize the West Coast
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69870
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
States, at least partially via dispersal
from the northern Rocky Mountains.
Our Response: We recognize the
contributions of suitable wolf habitats in
the areas described by the commenters.
Wolves dispersing from the northern
Rocky Mountains are important to the
continued expansion of wolf
populations in the West Coast States.
While continued wolf dispersal from the
northern Rocky Mountains into the
West Coast States is not required for our
findings in this final rule, we affirm that
post-delisting management by States
will continue to allow wolves to
disperse and occupy West Coast States
(see Post-delisting Management and
Post-delisting Monitoring).
Comment 107: One commenter stated
that the Pacific Northwest section 4
analysis in the proposed rule is flawed
for the following reasons: (a) The rule’s
analysis of suitable habitat was based
primarily on road density and human
population density, and does not
properly consider many other vital
habitat components (such as forest cover
and the availability of federally
protected or State-protected lands) and
fails to properly assess the threats facing
wolf habitat on a broader scale; (b) the
rule’s failure to consider important
connectivity corridors and habitats
necessary to foster movement into and
allow the recolonization of habitats
across the West Coast States by
dispersing wolves from the NRM DPS;
(c) the rule’s failure to consider the vast
areas of suitable habitat currently
unoccupied by wolves in the West Coast
States; and (d) the rule’s failure to
consider the adequacy or certainty of
State regulations and wolf management
plans (the commenter specifically notes
the lack of State-level listing protections
in Oregon).
Our Response: Our biological report,
as well as our proposed and final rules,
considered vital habitat components,
habitat corridors, and threats to habitat.
As noted in our final biological report
(see Suitable Habitat section) and this
final rule (see Habitat and Prey
Availability section), wolves are not
habitat specialists and can persist, and
travel through, nearly any habitat with
sufficient prey, provided that sources of
human-caused mortality are regulated.
While road density and human
population density are considered in
some of the wolf habitat models we cite,
other covariates include forest cover,
livestock density or stocking rates, and
land ownership (see Suitable Habitat
section of the biological report). While
there are large areas of unoccupied
suitable gray wolf habitat in the lower
48 United States, we focused our
analysis of habitat and prey availability
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
on areas currently occupied by wolves.
Because new information has emerged
since publication of our proposed rule
indicating that wolves now occupy a
portion of northwest Colorado, we have
included an analysis of wolf habitat and
prey availability in the central Rocky
Mountains in this final rule (see Habitat
and Prey Availability section).
We also fully considered the
adequacy and certainty of State
regulations and wolf management plans.
Our analysis of post-delisting
management considers the likelihood
that wolves will persist in the Pacific
Northwest following Federal delisting
(see ‘‘State Management in the West
Coast States’’). After delisting, wolves
will continue to be State-listed in
Washington and California until those
States determine that wolves are
recovered. Although wolves will not be
State-listed in Oregon following Federal
delisting, the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife is required by State
regulations to follow the Oregon Wolf
Conservation and Management Plan.
That plan includes program direction,
objectives, and strategies to manage gray
wolves in Oregon and defines the gray
wolf’s special status game mammal
designation (Oregon Administrative
Rule 635–110). Thus, there will
continue to be substantial regulatory
protections for gray wolves in the
Pacific Northwest following Federal
delisting.
Comment 108: One commenter asked
that we provide the basis for several
statements regarding changes to prey
availability or habitat in the western
Great Lakes. Specifically, they asked for
the basis of our conclusions regarding
the effects of ungulate harvest,
management of ungulate habitat, or
ungulate diseases on wolf prey
availability.
On the topic of ungulate diseases,
several commenters proposed that the
spread of chronic wasting disease
(CWD) can be controlled or otherwise
inhibited by wolves. They indicated that
the lack of large predators, including
wolves, played a role in the current
unnatural distribution and prevalence of
CWD, and that wolves prey upon
vulnerable animals, such as the weak,
sick, young, or old; killing sick animals
reduces the transmission of diseases,
including CWD. Commenters further
opined that CWD may never have
become established if wolves were
present to reduce or eliminate its spread
via selective predation on sick animals.
Our Response: We have updated our
analysis in the Habitat and Prey
Availability section of this rule to clarify
the basis for our conclusions regarding
the effects of ungulate harvest,
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
management of ungulate habitat, and
ungulate diseases on the viability of
wolves. While predation can reduce the
prevalence of infection in prey in some
circumstances (see Hobbs 2006, p. 8;
Wild et al. 2011, pp. 82–88; Tanner et
al. 2019, pp. 5–7), in areas of high CWD
disease prevalence this may not always
be true (see Miller et al. 2008, entire).
We decline to speculate whether or not
CWD would have become established if
wolves were present to reduce or
eliminate its spread, as such speculation
is immaterial to our decision.
Comment 109: One commenter stated
that the U.S. Forest Service could help
the gray wolf by fully implementing the
forest management goals in existing
National Forest Management Plans.
They stated that creation of early seral
habitats, which are generally favored by
large ungulate species, would benefit
wolves. They requested that we
recognize that not only do the National
Forests provide large blocks of
contiguous habitat that are unlikely to
be converted to other uses, but that they
also provide management opportunities
to increase prey availability through
forest management.
Our Response: Some National Forests
provide large blocks of contiguous
habitat for the gray wolf (see
Management on Federal Lands
sections), although wolves are not
limited to these areas. While it is true
that some forest management practices
can increase prey availability, wolves
can also persist in areas without
significant active forest management.
Finally, we did not find habitat or prey
availability to be a limiting factor in our
analysis of threat factors in this rule (see
Habitat and Prey Availability section).
Comment 110: One commenter asked
that we not specify road densities in
delisting decisions, as they may limit
management flexibility on National
Forests. They pointed to research (e.g.,
Wydeven et al. 2001) that appears to
indicate wolves can persist in some
areas with relatively high road densities.
The commenter is concerned that lower
road densities will limit access for forest
management and the creation of early
seral habitats for ungulates.
Our Response: In this final rule, we
refer to road densities reported in the
scientific literature because they have
been found to be correlated with wolf
mortality in some areas. We are not
aware of any scientific basis for the
concern that lower road densities would
substantially reduce prey availability for
wolves to the extent that it would
impact population viability.
Comment 111: One commenter
questioned why we believed wolves
would continue to expand in California
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
with the removal of Federal protections
under the Act.
Our Response: Wolves in California
are classified as endangered under the
California Endangered Species Act,
which prohibits take (defined as hunt,
pursue, catch, capture, kill, or attempts
to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill)
of listed wildlife species (California Fish
and Game Codes sections 86 and 2080).
This will not change with Federal
delisting. As we discuss in the Habitat
and Prey Availability section, the
available scientific literature shows
significant amounts of suitable
unoccupied wolf habitat in California.
Given their dispersal abilities (Jimenez
et al. 2017, entire), and continued State
regulatory protections in Oregon and
California (see Our Response to
Comment 16), we expect wolves to
continue to disperse into California
from Oregon and to spread outward
from the wolf pack currently located in
California. Additionally, as the number
of wolves and wolf packs increase in
western Oregon, this increase will
provide an additional supply of
dispersers to recolonize California.
Disease and Parasites
Comment 112: One commenter stated
that the Service addressed disease only
as a threat to wolves in the Great Lakes
area and did not address this issue for
west coast wolves. The commenter also
indicated that diseases are known
factors for wolf population crashes in
small and isolated populations, similar
to those in the West Coast States.
Another commenter sought clarification
as to which States collect biological
samples for disease monitoring, how
disease monitoring will occur in the
future, and if States are able to
sufficiently monitor disease as wolf
expansion continues.
Our Response: The analysis in the
Disease and Parasites section of this
final rule applies to the gray wolf
throughout its range in the lower 48
United States and is not limited to
wolves in the Great Lakes area. Further,
wolves in the West Coast States are an
extension of wolves from the NRM and
western Canada and are actively
recolonizing Washington, Oregon,
California, and Colorado. Thus, they are
not considered ‘‘small and isolated’’ as
indicated by the first commenter.
Similarly, our discussion of disease and
parasite monitoring clearly indicates
that all States that currently have
wolves monitor for disease. Through the
various State wolf management plans
that are in place, and will be in place
post-delisting, we conclude that States
are capable of adequately monitoring
disease and parasites into the future.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Effects of Climate Change
Comment 113: Three commenters
disagreed with our assessment of
climate change effects to wolves and
wolf prey. One commenter was
concerned about climate change-related
declines in moose populations (citing
Mech et al. 2018 and Nadeau et al.
2017), changes to ungulate
susceptibility to chronic wasting disease
(CWD), and loss of ungulate habitat to
uncharacteristic fire in the West, which
raised a question about the resilience of
wolves in the future. The commenter
felt a broader distribution of wolves is
needed to address the potential for local
population decreases or extirpations as
a result of these concerns. Another
commenter noted that, without
snowpack, large hoofed animals will be
able to out-run wolves and implied that
ungulate prey may become less
accessible to wolves. Similarly, this
commenter was concerned about the
loss of ice bridges in Isle Royale
National Park, leading to isolation and
population declines of wolves on the
island. A third commenter stated that
the role of climate change on wolf
recovery is unknown and recommended
that the impacts of climate change
should be researched before delisting
occurs.
Our Response: In this final rule, we
find that each of the gray wolf listed
entities evaluated is recovered and
warrants delisting. Through this
process, we evaluated factors potentially
threatening the gray wolf in the lower
48 United States, including climate
change (see Effects of Climate Change).
We determined that climate change is
not causing negative effects to the
viability of the gray wolf populations in
each of the entities evaluated and that
it is not likely to do so in the foreseeable
future. These comments do not alter the
substance of our analysis, for the
reasons explained below.
As discussed under Effects of Climate
Change, wolves are highly adaptable,
habitat and prey generalists. Similarly,
prey species including ungulates also
have reasonable adaptive capacity to
shift habitats in response to changing
conditions or potentially persist in
place. Mech et al. (2018, pp. 45–46) and
Nadeau et al. (2017, pp. 107–109)
speculate that climate change and its
combined potential habitat-related
conditions, including potential for heat
stress and rates of spread of disease and
parasites, may be limiting factors for
moose populations at the southern
extents of their range in Minnesota and
the Western United States. While
climate change may be detrimental to
moose populations in the Midwest, it
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69871
may benefit white-tailed deer
populations (Weiskopf et al. 2019, pp.
775–776), the wolf’s primary prey in the
region. Because historical evidence
indicates gray wolves and their prey
survived in hotter, drier environments,
we expect wolves could easily adapt to
the warmer and drier conditions that are
predicted with climate change,
including any northward expansion of
diseases, parasites, or reduction in
species currently at or near the southern
extent of their range.
With regard to decreased snow cover
in winter and the concern that prey
would have an advantage, we note that
such changes in snow cover could also
improve over-winter survival of prey.
Increases in overall ungulate
populations would thereby provide
more prey for wolves. Although climate
change may negatively affect moose in
parts of its range, in many areas, moose
are secondary or tertiary prey items for
wolves behind elk and deer in the West
and white-tailed deer in much of the
Great Lakes area. Therefore, the effects
of declining moose populations on
overall prey availability within the
entities evaluated is expected to be
minimal.
Because the wolves on Isle Royale do
not meaningfully contribute to the
viability of the gray wolf entities
evaluated in this rule, the continued
occurrence or loss of ice bridges does
not warrant further analysis.
Comment 114: We received a number
of comments that stated climate change
and its effects should be analyzed more
thoroughly as a threat to wolves, and
that climate change poses serious
challenges for many ecosystems and
species. These commenters provided
citations that document the current
global extinction crisis, relate that crisis
to climate change, report on the
ecosystem effects of losing top predators
or other megafauna, and discuss how
wolves may help to buffer climate
impacts.
Our Response: While we do not
dispute the findings in the sources cited
by the commenter, they are outside the
scope of our analysis in this rule. Our
analysis is limited to the specific threats
affecting the gray wolf in the lower 48
United States. Literature addressing
global conservation challenges can
provide important context, but are not
relevant to our analysis unless they
relate to threats faced by the gray wolf
in the lower 48 United States.
Additionally, in assessing the impacts of
climate change and other factors on
wolves, we are not required to evaluate
any effects the loss of wolves may have
on other species, because those effects,
even if significant, do not affect the
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69872
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
status of the gray wolf entities addressed
in this rule.
Comment 115: Several commenters
requested a more thorough analysis of
climate change effects on wolf habitat.
They noted that patterns of drought and
wildfire, changes in snowpack, and
suitability for different vegetation types,
including certain forest types, are likely
to change. One commenter cited
Gonzalez et al. (2018), which indicates
climate change effects may be more
pronounced in national parks, while
another cited the U.S. Global Climate
Change Research Program’s Fourth
National Assessment (2018), which
includes projections of habitat effects in
regions across the country.
Our Response: The cited papers and
other research indicate there are likely
to be habitat-level effects within the
range of the gray wolf in the lower 48
United States due to climate change,
including changes in precipitation,
forest composition, and other factors.
Depending on the region, there are also
likely to be shifts in the specific
composition, but not availability of, the
ungulate prey base as climate change
effects may be beneficial for some
ungulate species and detrimental for
others (Weiskopf et al. 2019). Wolves,
however, are highly adaptable and able
to exploit available resources, making it
unlikely that such shifts will become
limiting. As stated in our discussion of
life history and biology, wolf population
dynamics are strongly driven by the
availability of prey and protection from
persecution, not by specific habitat or
vegetation types. While there are many
habitat changes that may have local or
short-term effects, including wildfires,
or forest tree composition, the best
available information about wolf biology
indicates that these changes are not
likely to significantly impact wolf
population dynamics.
Genetics
Comment 116: Several commenters
recommended we address effective
population size, citing Frankham et al.
(2014) and the ‘‘50/500’’ or ‘‘100/1000’’
rules as targets for minimum effective
population sizes to ensure viability in
both the short term and in perpetuity.
They noted that effective population
size has not been measured for the
entire combined listed entity and that
we provided no calculated ratio of
census size to effective population size,
and stated that management in
Michigan and other States may allow
effective population sizes to drop below
sustainable levels.
Our Response: In response to these
comments, we added a section to
evaluate more thoroughly the available
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
data addressing wolf population
genetics (Genetic Diversity and
Inbreeding). This section includes
relevant literature on available estimates
of effective population size and why or
how it relates to other genetic issues for
wolves. Effective population size, as it
relates to viability, is generally
described as being important in the
short term to avoid the effects of
inbreeding, and in the long term to
allow for evolutionary processes and
adaptive capacity. As discussed in the
Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding
section, the available data do not
indicate that inbreeding or associated
effects are likely to pose a significant
threat to the gray wolf in the lower 48
United States. In the long term, we
expect that connectivity among States in
the Great Lakes area and between those
States and Canada will continue to
support a large and genetically diverse
population, as will connectivity among
the NRM States and West Coast States
and between those States and Canada.
Moreover, we also recognize that a
species’ adaptive capacity is derived not
only from genetic diversity, but also
from phenotypic plasticity and dispersal
ability (Nicotra et al. 2015, entire;
Beever et al. 2016, entire). These factors
are not included in general thresholds
such as that provided by Frankham et
al. (2014). Considering the life-history
characteristics of the wolf, including
high dispersal capability and
adaptability, along with the factors
discussed in the Genetic Diversity and
Inbreeding section, it is unlikely that the
wolf will be limited by adaptive
capacity in the foreseeable future.
Comment 117: Several commenters
recommended that we provide a more
explicit assessment of wolf population
genetics and a discussion of potential
issues or concerns related to genetic
diversity, including inbreeding or
reductions in genetic diversity.
Our Response: In response to these
comments, we added the section
Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding, which
evaluates potential genetic issues in
wolves, both generally and within the
gray wolf in the lower 48 United States
specifically. We acknowledge the
importance of considering genetic issues
more explicitly as they relate to the
current status of wolves and to potential
changes upon delisting. As stated in that
section, studies of genetic diversity have
generally found it to be relatively high
within the lower 48 United States (with
the exception of the wolves on Isle
Royale). Given our understanding of
population dynamics, dispersal, and
connectivity within and outside of the
gray wolf entities analyzed, we do not
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
expect genetic issues to significantly
impact the viability of those entities.
Additional Threats
Comment 118: One commenter
recommended that we consider
domestic and international trade as a
potential threat, including, for example,
export of wolf skins.
Our Response: Regardless of demand
for wolf skins, specimens collected for
domestic or international trade likely
occur through intentional means such as
trapping or hunting. Because we already
addressed intentional means of
mortality in our analysis of humancaused mortality, we find that this is not
a separate or different threat that
requires additional analysis.
Comment 119: One commenter stated
that agricultural development is a
source of historical ‘‘near extirpation’’ of
wolves. The commenter indicated that
this threat still exists today, as there is
more agricultural land present than
historically.
Our Response: In our March 15, 2019,
proposed rule and this final rule, we
acknowledge that large portions of the
gray wolf’s historical range are no longer
suitable habitat to support wolves.
However, we determined that sufficient
suitable habitat exists to continue to
support wolves into the future (see
‘‘Habitat and Prey Availability
Summary’’ in this final rule).
Post-Delisting Management
Comment 120: Several commenters
stated that there is a mentality among
some segments of the public to kill
every wolf on the landscape, and
without the protections of the Act, this
mentality could result in the increased
intentional killing of wolves (either
through legal or illegal actions) that
could once again threaten the continued
existence of wolves. One commenter
believed wildlife agencies were
complicit in this mentality and assist
the public by providing information to
further reduce wolf populations. Many
commenters were critical of the
adequacy of regulatory mechanisms at
the State level to maintain a recovered
wolf population. One commenter
indicated that management plans are
not legally binding documents so there
is no guarantee States will manage
wolves above recovery levels, and
others questioned the State management
agencies’ commitment or ability to do
so. Several commenters took issue with
the adequacy of State monitoring
programs to accurately document wolf
populations post-delisting. Five Tribal
organizations and numerous
commenters noted the declining trend
in wolf numbers and the total number
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
of wolves harvested post-delisting in the
NRM DPS. These commenters argue that
the same will occur elsewhere if wolves
are delisted. One commenter was
concerned about State funding for wolf
programs and its effect on State
monitoring programs to ensure a viable
wolf population is maintained.
Numerous commenters were concerned
about the potential for increased
mortality under State management and
the effect it may have on recolonization
of unoccupied, suitable habitat.
Several other commenters stated that
wolves will continue to disperse after
the protections of the Act have been
removed, as has been observed in the
NRM wolf population after delisting.
Commenters noted that hunting has had
little impact on wolf populations and
that wolf populations continue to grow
in number and expand geographically.
Commenters stated that State
management plans and regulatory
mechanisms have been more than
adequate to maintain wolf populations
well above recovery criteria and that the
public should be commended for the
work they have done to complete and
implement management plans.
Our Response: While we acknowledge
that some people have negative attitudes
towards wolves and may illegally kill
wolves as a result, we disagree with the
assertion that State wildlife agencies
assist members of the public in any way
to carry out these actions. States and
Tribes have rules and regulations
governing the take of wolves and all
wildlife, with professional staff
available to monitor wildlife
populations and enforce wildlife laws
under their jurisdiction. We
acknowledge that human-caused
mortality will likely increase postdelisting. Based on knowledge and
experience in areas that are already
delisted, we expect wolf numbers to
initially decline, followed by a period of
stabilization with slight fluctuations
around an equilibrium in subsequent
years as State and Tribal managers begin
to adaptively manage for sustainable
wolf populations. We conclude that
regulatory mechanisms that will guide
wolf management post-delisting are
adequate to ensure the long-term,
recovered status of wolves into the
foreseeable future and will provide
opportunities for the continued
recolonization of vacant suitable
habitats in the West Coast States and the
central Rocky Mountains (refer to the
Post-delisting Management section of
this rule for detailed information about
State plans). For further information, see
Our Response to Comments 14, 16, 19,
and 52 and the Human-caused Mortality
section of the rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Human-caused mortality is the
primary mortality factor for wolves
outside of large, protected areas and, if
left unregulated, can be a significant
threat to wolf populations. However, we
determined that regulatory mechanisms
currently in place provide sufficient
protections to ensure sustainable and
recovered wolf populations will persist
into the foreseeable future. We conclude
that it is reasonable to rely on State
statutes, regulations, and wolf
management plans to understand how
wolves will be managed after delisting.
Wolf management plans from the Great
Lakes States of Michigan, Minnesota,
and Wisconsin indicate that their
primary goal is to ensure the long-term
survival of wolves while concurrently
minimizing wolf-related conflicts. State
statutes and regulations are developed
and adopted to assist each individual
State in achieving this goal. Based on
our review of available information, we
expect that States will adaptively
manage wolves to ensure the continued
viability and recovered status of the
species, which has already been
demonstrated by wildlife managers in
the Great Lake States during past
delisting efforts (see Our Response to
Comment 130 and Post-delisting
Management). In addition, we may use
the Act’s listing provisions, including
emergency listing under sections 4(b)(7)
and 4(g)(2) of the Act, if appropriate, to
address any future threats to the
viability and sustainability of the wolf
population.
The West Coast States of Oregon,
Washington, and California have
adopted wolf-management plans
intended to provide for the continued
recolonization and conservation of
wolves while also working to minimize
wolf-related conflicts. Wolves
inhabiting the eastern one-third of both
Oregon and Washington were federally
delisted in 2011 (see 76 FR 25590; May
5, 2011) and have been managed under
State authority since that time. As a
result, lethal control has been used on
occasion to resolve repeated conflicts
with livestock in the delisted portions of
each State. Despite the delisting and
subsequent use of lethal control, wolves
have continued to increase in number
and recolonize vacant, suitable habitats
within each State. Wolves in California
and Washington are classified as
endangered at the State level and,
regardless of Federal status, are likely to
remain so until recovery objectives
outlined in their respective management
plans are achieved and statutory and
regulatory changes are made to
reclassify wolves in each State.
Washington recently initiated work to
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69873
develop a post-recovery wolf
management plan that would guide the
long-term conservation and
management of the species in the State.
Wolves in Oregon are classified as a
‘‘special status game mammal’’ under
Oregon Revised Statutes 496.004(9);
however, regulated take is not
anticipated to be a management option
for some years (see Our Response to
Comment 107 for further information
about Oregon). It is expected that wolf
populations in these States will
continue to increase as they recolonize
vacant, suitable habitat within the
region.
As stated previously in this rule, we
fully expect human-caused mortality to
increase post-delisting in Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin, as these
States attempt to stabilize or reduce
wolf population growth, but we do not
anticipate those declines will be
significant enough to threaten the
recovered status of wolves. The NRM
States of Idaho and Montana provide an
example of how wolf populations might
respond to increased human-caused
mortality post-delisting. In Idaho, the
wolf population peaked in 2009 at 870
animals and under State management,
including public harvest in all but one
year since 2009, the population
declined slightly and stabilized between
659 and 786 wolves during 2010–2015
(see table 3). Likewise, Montana wolves
have been managed under State
authority in all but one year since 2009.
Population estimates acquired by patch
occupancy modeling (Rich et al. 2013,
entire) indicate wolf numbers reached a
high of 1,088 wolves in 2013, but have
since (from 2016–2018) stabilized
between 800 and 850 animals (Inman et
al. 2019, p. 7). Wolf populations in the
Great Lakes States will likely follow a
similar trend of an initial decline
followed by long-term stabilization that
will fluctuate slightly around an
equilibrium as managers gain more
experience in adaptively managing
wolves. This equilibrium is expected to
be well above minimum recovery
criteria. The Service will evaluate
potential threats and wolf population
responses to delisting and subsequent
increases in human-caused mortality for
5 years post-delisting. It would not be in
the best interest of the Great Lake States
to severely reduce wolf populations or
manage wolves down to minimum
management levels, because doing so
would severely limit State flexibility to
address wolf conflict issues, limit wolf
harvest opportunities, and increase the
risk of relisting.
Another factor we considered
regarding likely long-term wolf
population levels is the practical
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69874
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
challenge of reducing wolf populations
down to levels that may threaten their
viability and maintaining such
reductions long term through legal,
public harvest alone (e.g., hunting and
trapping). These challenges include:
Wolves’ reproductive capacity, which
will require increased levels of mortality
to maintain populations well below
carrying capacity; wolf dispersal
capability, which allows for rapid
recolonization of vacant, suitable
habitats and the ability to locate social
openings in existing packs; the
likelihood that wolves will become
more challenging to harvest as their
numbers are reduced and as they
become more wary of humans; and the
likelihood that hunter and trapper
interest and dedication will diminish as
the wolf population is reduced, impacts
are less pronounced, and success rates
decline. It was primarily due to the
unregulated use of poisons that wolf
populations were extirpated in the
lower 48 United States outside of
Minnesota. At present, poisons are
either not used at all, or their use is
highly regulated and has not posed a
significant threat to wolf populations in
the United States in recent decades.
For information related to State
monitoring programs and the
methodology used to accurately
document wolf populations postdelisting see Our Response to Comment
14.
Wolf conservation and management
programs can be costly, which, as
discussed earlier, is a primary reason
many States are at the forefront in
developing alternative wolf monitoring
methods and continue to gather
information and explore techniques to
minimize risk associated with wolf
conflicts. Because cost effective wolf
monitoring and management requires
adequate funding, each State wolf
management plan discusses current and
future funding sources and needs. At
present, States within occupied wolf
range generally use a combination of
State and Federal funds and/or grants to
support wolf programs.
Although increased human-caused
mortality may result in an overall
decrease in the number of dispersers on
an annual basis, as well as a reduction
in dispersal distance as dispersers locate
vacant territories or fill social openings
nearer to their natal pack, dispersal is
innate to the biology of the wolf and
both short- and long-distance dispersal
events will continue to occur. These
movements will make it possible for
wolves to recolonize areas of vacant,
suitable habitat outside of currently
occupied range, especially in the central
Rocky Mountains and the West Coast
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
States where resident packs in
California, Oregon, and Washington
contribute annually to the number of
dispersing wolves on the landscape
available to fill social openings in
existing packs or to recolonize suitable
habitat both within and outside of each
State. By contrast, wolves have already
recolonized most of the available
suitable habitat in the Great Lake States,
and any wolves that attempt to
recolonize areas outside of the currently
occupied range are not likely to persist
long term due to the increased
probability of conflict in more
agriculturally oriented and humandominated landscapes (see Mech et al.
2019, entire). For further information on
this topic, see the Human-caused
Mortality section of the rule and Our
Response to Comment 15.
Comment 121: Two commenters
expressed concerns about Federal
compensation programs and the Federal
Government’s role in compensation
programs post-delisting. One spoke
specifically about the Livestock
Indemnity Program and how funds from
this program may be unavailable to
livestock producers who experience
losses to wolves in States that do not
currently have compensation programs
already in place. This commenter
believes that, without compensation
programs, social tolerance for wolves
will decrease, and wolves will be at
greater risk of increased human-caused
mortality. The other commenter stated
that the Federal Government did not
fulfill its responsibility to provide
compensation for wolf-caused livestock
losses and instead relied on States to
develop compensation programs and
distribute compensation funds. This
commenter would like to see a Federal
program that provides funds to States to
assist with compensation to livestock
producers who experience losses to
wolves.
Our Response: We agree that
compensation programs alleviate some
of the financial burdens experienced by
livestock producers resulting from wolf
depredations on livestock or pets and
may indirectly increase tolerance among
members of this stakeholder group for
having wolves on the landscape.
However, the Act does not allow us to
make listing determinations based on
whether State, Federal, or private
compensation programs are adequate or
will continue to be available to
producers post-delisting. At present, all
States within occupied wolf range,
except California and Colorado,
currently have some form of State
compensation to reimburse producers
for livestock lost to wolves. Although
the usefulness of the Livestock
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Indemnity Program may decline postdelisting, States and Tribes will
continue to have the opportunity to
apply for Federal grants (Wolf-Livestock
Demonstration Funds) that can be used
to help offset some of the costs
associated with the implementation of
nonlethal mitigation techniques and
State compensation programs.
Comment 122: Several commenters
expressed concern that State
management would not be adequate to
recover and maintain viability of wolves
post delisting. Specifically, they
contend that:
• California’s plan is relatively new;
• Oregon’s plan has become less
protective;
• wolves are not State-listed in
Oregon;
• Washington’s plan is under
legislative pressure and the State has
allowed lethal control;
• the Great Lakes States previously
allowed and will again allow
recreational hunting and trapping;
• penalties for illegally killing wolves
are inadequate;
• some States will manage wolves
only to the point that they would not
again require Federal listing;
• many States lack wolf management
plans or protections or will manage to
prevent establishment of wolves; and
• dispersal would be limited by
hunting.
Our Response: We conclude
otherwise, as reflected in the Postdelisting Management and Management
in the NRM DPS sections of this rule.
These State management plans contain
objectives to conserve and/or recover
gray wolves. To ensure healthy
populations are maintained, States will
monitor population abundance and
trends, habitat and prey availability, and
impacts of disease, and they will take
actions as needed to maintain
populations. Overall, State management
plans demonstrate State commitment to
wolf conservation, thus providing a high
level of assurance that healthy wolf
populations will persist. We do not have
authority to require specific State
management measures. Rather, our role
is to ensure that States implement
management and protective measures
that effectively conserve the wolves in
their States, such that the species will
not require Federal relisting.
Comment 123: One commenter
questioned the basis and rationale for
the conclusion in the proposed rule that
wolf populations in Wisconsin and
Michigan have exceeded 200 animals
for about 20 years.
Our Response: The statement the
commenter references is included in our
discussion of Recovery Progress toward
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
meeting the recovery criteria from the
revised recovery plan (USFWS 1992, pp.
24–26). 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). Per the
recovery plan, if that population is
isolated, it should consist of at least 200
wolves for at least 5 years to be
considered viable. The populations in
Wisconsin and Michigan (although not
isolated) have been above 200 for about
20 years (since 1998–1999 in Wisconsin,
and since 1999–2000 in Michigan);
therefore, they have met the recovery
criteria for an isolated population.
Comment 124: One commenter felt
that wolves should remain federally
protected on all Federal lands in the
western Great Lakes. Other commenters
indicated we failed to analyze forest
management plans in Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin and how
those plans affect wolves through
livestock grazing, maintenance of prey
populations, and regulation of hunting
and trapping activities. One of these
commenters further opined that we
should have analyzed plans of every
other Federal agency in the Midwest,
and must evaluate every rule and
regulation that may affect wolves and
their habitat.
Our Response: Different Federal land
management agencies have varied
missions that guide the use of their
lands, and some Federal lands play an
essential role in wolf recovery.
However, maintaining Federal
protections for wolves on Federal lands
is not necessary for the continued
viability of wolves in the Great Lakes
region. Unregulated take, inclusive of
targeted poisoning across all land
ownerships, was the primary factor
leading to the near extirpation of wolves
across the lower 48 United States. In
addition to protections afforded by the
Act, changes in State and Federal rules
and regulations that provided regulatory
mechanisms that prevented or limited
take and prosecuted illegal take of
wolves have allowed for the
conservation and recovery of the gray
wolf in the lower 48 United States to a
level that warrants removal of both gray
wolf listed entities from the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
For further information, see
Management on Federal Lands section
of this rule.
Comment 125: Several commenters
noted that killing predators for sport or
trophy hunts is morally and ethically
wrong, and will threaten the viability of
wolf populations post-delisting. One
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
commenter objected to the use of
hounds to legally harvest a wolf in
Wisconsin when wolves were delisted.
Our Response: We recognize that
many find some or all forms of humancaused wolf mortality ethically and
morally objectionable. We have
encouraged hunting as a long-term
strategy to conserve wolf populations
because it is a valuable, efficient, and
cost-effective tool to help manage many
wildlife populations (Bangs et al. 2009,
p. 113). However, the methods that may
be used to legally harvest wolves after
delisting are not relevant to our
analysis. The Act requires that we make
listing determinations based on whether
the species meets the definition of a
threatened species or an endangered
species because of the five statutory
factors. The manner in which
individuals may be harvested postdelisting is not a factor we consider,
unless it would affect the viability of the
species. How wolves may be legally
harvested post-delisting will be subject
to State authority and regulation. Based
on the available information, we do not
find any persuasive information to
indicate that the manner in which
wolves may be harvested will affect
their viability in the lower 48 United
States.
Comment 126: One commenter
indicated that, without protection
provided by the Act, wolves will have
a more difficult time establishing a
population in California. The
commenter stated that the Service failed
to consider threats to gray wolves from
‘‘other manmade factors,’’ specifically
illegal killing and poaching.
Our Response: Our March 15, 2019,
proposed rule and this final rule address
human-caused mortality, as do multiple
responses to comments from peer
reviewers and State agencies (see
Human-Caused Mortality section of this
final rule and Our Responses to
Comments 15, 18, and 52. Our analysis
of threats sufficiently considers ‘‘other
manmade factors,’’ including illegal
killing and poaching.
Comment 127: One commenter stated
that, while the Wisconsin population
management goal of 350 wolves is above
the goal required for Federal delisting,
that goal was generally considered
‘‘unscientific and outdated’’ by
Wisconsin wildlife professionals. The
commenter stated that a goal of 650 was
considered ‘‘more reasonable’’ and
‘‘realistic,’’ and relatively ‘‘better’’ than
the alternatives presented. The
commenter further opined that the
previous wolf management goal of 350
should be reevaluated, as it is no longer
compatible with the scientific
understanding of wolf biological
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69875
carrying capacity or human attitudes
and tolerance of wolves in the State.
Our Response: After delisting, the
States will be responsible for setting
specific wolf management goals. Thus,
Wisconsin may decide to manage for a
higher number of wolves following
delisting. For the purposes of this
delisting determination, we evaluate
whether wolves are endangered or likely
to become endangered in the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of their range. In that context,
we considered all aspects of the
Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan,
including that they would manage for a
minimum of 350 wolves in the State,
and whether that, in combination with
management in the rest of the entity
evaluated, would maintain wolves such
that they are not endangered or likely to
become endangered in the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of their range.
Comment 128: Several commenters
expressed concern that the States would
implement a public harvest or
recreational hunting after wolves are
federally delisted. Others commented
that they support a public harvest or
recreational hunting.
Our Response: Unregulated killing
(specifically, killing through the use of
poisons and government bounties) was
the primary threat to the gray wolf in
the lower 48 United States historically.
Current rules and regulations as well as
State management plans that will be
implemented after delisting provide
protection from unregulated killing. For
the purposes of this rule, we are not
required to decide whether a regulated
harvest is an appropriate management
tool. Instead, we evaluate whether the
use of that management tool may reduce
the number of wolves in the gray wolf
entities to the extent that they would
meet the definition of a threatened
species or an endangered species under
the Act. As has been observed in the
NRM States of Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming, we conclude that regulated
wolf harvest can be carried out in a
manner that would not threaten their
recovered status.
Comment 129: Several commenters
expressed distrust for State wolf
protection, based on past State programs
aimed at wolf eradication. Another
commenter noted that delisting is based
in part on the adequacy of State
management plans, without taking into
consideration the fact that aspects of
these plans have been and will continue
to be altered by State legislation. The
commenter expressed concern that
politically based management is a
serious threat to wolves and cannot be
underestimated.
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69876
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Our Response: We acknowledge the
past involvement of State and Federal
Government agencies in intensive, and
largely successful, programs to eradicate
wolves. Based on existing State laws
and State management plans, as well as
the track record of States where wolves
have been federally delisted, we
conclude that it is appropriate to rely on
the States to provide sufficient
protection to wolves. We will monitor
any changes in regulatory mechanisms
affecting the protection or management
of wolves, their prey, and their habitat
for at least 5 years following delisting
and evaluate whether, as a result of
those changes, the delisted gray wolf
entities meet the definition of a
threatened species or an endangered
species.
Comment 130: One commenter
questioned whether Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan adaptively
managed wolves in the past to maintain
wolf populations at or above minimum
management levels or if it was just
written into each State’s management
plans, and asked whether we analyzed
this information.
Our Response: In responding to the
comment, we assume that the
commenter refers to the period between
2012 and 2014 when wolves were
federally delisted in the western Great
Lakes and States implemented regulated
public harvests. During that time, the
States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan adaptively managed their
respective wolf populations and
maintained wolf populations well above
minimum management levels defined in
their respective management plans. This
information is discussed in the Postdelisting Management section of the
rule for each State. Nonetheless, we
further clarify below how the western
Great Lake States used an adaptive
approach to manage wolf harvest
between 2012 and 2014.
Adaptive management may be used to
evaluate the effects of a management
action to determine if it is being
implemented effectively to achieve a
desired outcome. In wildlife science, it
is an effective method to manage
populations when the effect of the
management action is unknown or is
not well understood, or if managers
simply want to take a cautious
approach. This allows managers to
evaluate population responses over a set
time period and then make minor
adjustments, if necessary, prior to
implementing the management action
over another set time period in order to
continue working toward the desired
management outcome. In the case of
wolf harvest in the western Great Lakes,
States developed harvest quotas to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
achieve a management outcome using
the best information possible. Managers
then evaluated the results of harvest in
conjunction with other population
metrics obtained through population
monitoring efforts, as well as other
factors, and made minor adjustments to
the following season’s harvest
regulation. These adjustments were
evaluated and made on an annual basis
and are likely to be evaluated annually
post-delisting.
For example, Minnesota’s wolf
population objective is to maintain a
late-winter wolf population of at least
1,600 wolves. Using the best
information available, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources set a
quota of 400 wolves for the first season
in 2012, and a total of 413 wolves were
harvested. After evaluating the harvest
and other factors, the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
decreased the quota to 220 wolves in
2013, and a total of 238 wolves were
harvested. Once again, after evaluation,
the 2014 quota was raised slightly to
250 wolves, and a total of 272 wolves
were harvested. Population estimates
indicated wolf numbers fluctuated
between 2,200 and 2,400 animals during
this time. Thus, harvest had minimal
impact on the population, and it
remained well above Minnesota’s
management objective.
Similarly, the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources designed harvest
zones and quotas for the first season in
2012, to begin reducing the population
toward the management goal of 350
wolves off reservation lands, while
concurrently directing harvest to areas
with the greatest number of wolf-related
conflicts. Although seasons were
designed using a total quota system,
separate quotas were developed for
lands on and off reservations in the
State. In 2012, a quota of 201 wolves
(116 off reservation; 85 on reservation)
was set, and a total of 117 wolves were
harvested, all of which were taken off
reservation lands. Harvest quotas were
adjusted for the start of the 2013 season
with a quota of 275 wolves (251 off
reservation; 24 on reservation), and a
total of 257 wolves were harvested, all
of which were taken, again, off
reservation lands. After evaluating
harvest and population metrics, the
2014 quota was reduced to 156 wolves
(150 off reservation; 6 on reservation),
and 154 wolves were harvested (all off
reservation lands). Meanwhile, between
2012 and 2015, Wisconsin’s wolf
population was estimated to be 815 and
746, respectively. Although this
represented an 8 percent decline, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources partially achieved their
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
objective of reducing wolf abundance
while maintaining wolf populations
well above State management goals.
The Michigan Department of Natural
Resources implemented public harvest
of wolves during the 2013 season only,
and a total of 22 wolves were harvested
during the season. Although the effect of
harvest may have been evaluated by
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources biologists, no changes were
implemented since no seasons occurred
in subsequent years.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Comment 131: A few commenters
urged the Service to update the 2008
post-delisting monitoring plan.
Our Response: The post-delisting
monitoring plan that was developed in
2008 for wolves in the Great Lakes area
is adequate under section 4(g)(1) of the
Act and remains applicable today (for
more information, see Post-delisting
Monitoring). The post-delisting
monitoring plan for wolves in the Great
Lakes area relies on a continuation of
State monitoring activities, similar to
those that have been conducted by
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
Departments of Natural Resources in
recent years, and Tribal monitoring.
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
Departments of Natural Resources have
monitored wolves for several decades
with significant assistance from
numerous partners, including the U.S.
Forest Service, National Park Service,
Wildlife Services, Tribal natural
resource agencies, and the Service. To
maximize comparability of future postdelisting monitoring data with data
obtained before delisting, all three State
Departments of Natural Resources have
committed to continue their previous
wolf-population-monitoring
methodology, or to make changes only
if they will not reduce the comparability
of pre- and post-delisting data.
General
Comment 132: A few commenters
noted that the Federal Government has
a public trust responsibility to maintain
wolves for future generations and the
ecosystem functions they support, and,
generally, to preserve our Nation’s
heritage.
Our Response: Our responsibilities
with respect to wolves and other listed
species are not defined by general
principles of public trust, but by the
requirements of the Act. As a result of
the efforts of many partners in the
private and public sector to conserve,
protect, and enhance gray wolf
populations, the gray wolf entities
evaluated in this rule do not qualify for
protection under the Act.
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Comment 133: One commenter
submitted a petition for reclassification
of gray wolves in the lower 48 United
States. In this petition, they request that
we determine the listing status of gray
wolves (1) in the lower 48 United States,
or (2) in two entities: the Eastern United
States and the Western United States, or
(3) in four entities: the U.S. West Coast
region, the southern Rocky Mountains,
the Northeastern United States, and the
Midwestern United States. It is the same
petition the commenter submitted
directly to us on December 17, 2018,
and supplemented on February 26,
2019, prior to the publication of our
proposal (84 FR 9648, March 15, 2019)
for this final rule.
Our Response: We have addressed the
petition, as a separate action, elsewhere
in this document (see Evaluation of a
Petition to Revise the Listings for the
Gray Wolf Under the Act). We reviewed
all information submitted with the
petition and incorporated information,
as appropriate, into this final rule.
Policy
Comment 134: One commenter
asserted that wolves are an ‘‘endangered
species’’ or ‘‘threatened species’’
because they inhabit only about 15
percent of their historical range, which
is not a significant portion of their
historical range.
Our Response: The assertion that the
gray wolf has not recolonized enough of
its range in the lower 48 United States
to reach the standard of a significant
portion is inconsistent with Service
policy because it equates the term
‘‘range’’ in the Act’s definitions of
‘‘threatened species’’ and ‘‘endangered
species’’ with historical range. (See Our
Response to Comment 37).
Comment 135: One commenter
suggested that data collected by the
States may be biased against wolves and
should therefore be excluded from our
analysis. They also stated that our status
assessment process for gray wolves is
biased in favor of agencies,
organizations, and individuals that
support the killing of wolves and
requested clarification on how agencies,
organizations, and individuals are
chosen to participate in the process.
Our Response: We are required by the
Act to make our determinations based
solely on the best scientific and
commercial data available. Therefore,
we include in our analysis any relevant
data collected by the States, Tribes, or
members of the public that falls into this
category.
To assist us in gathering all available
information, we ask all members of the
public, including States, Tribes,
organizations, and individuals, to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
submit relevant information to us for
our consideration. The Act requires us
to cooperate with the States to ‘‘the
maximum extent practicable’’ (16 U.S.C.
1535(a)). However, although we
acknowledge the unique positions of
States and our obligation to consult with
them, we do not assign different weight
to the scientific information that they
provide. Rather, we evaluate all
information we receive, from all
sources, to determine whether it is
relevant to our assessment and
constitutes the best available scientific
and commercial data. For additional
information on data collected by States,
see Our Response to Comment 120.
Comment 136: A few commenters
stated that combining the two currently
listed gray wolf entities, i.e., (1)
Minnesota and (2) the lower 48 United
States and Mexico outside of Minnesota,
excluding the NRM DPS, for evaluation
was inappropriate. They argued that
combining the entities is arbitrary and
not based on science. Some also
maintained that we are obligated,
through regulations, to assess each of
the two entities separately.
Our Response: We clarify in this final
rule our reasons for combining the two
currently listed C. lupus entities for
analysis, and our regulations regarding
listed entities that are not ‘‘species’’ as
defined by the Act (see The Currently
Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the
Statutory Definition of a ‘‘Species’’ and
Why and How We Address Each
Configuration of Gray Wolf Entities).
Further, while not required by our
regulations, in response to these and
other comments we have added separate
analyses of the status of each of the two
currently listed entities to this rule (See
Approach for this Rule).
Comment 137: Some commenters
questioned our conclusion that West
Coast States wolves are not discrete
from NRM wolves. They felt that our
application of ‘‘discreteness’’ is not
consistent with our DPS policy (61 FR
4722, 4725, February 7, 1996), historical
information on wolves in the Pacific
Northwest, or wolf biology.
Our Response: Our DPS policy states
that a population segment of a
vertebrate species may be considered
discrete if 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.’’
We conducted a detailed analysis of the
discreteness of ‘‘Pacific Northwest’’
wolves (wolves in the West Coast States
portion of the combined listed entity
and 44-State entity) in our 2013 status
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69877
review for gray wolves in the Pacific
Northwest (78 FR 35709–35713, June
13, 2013). This included analysis of
discreteness based on physical,
physiological, ecological, and
behavioral factors and included analysis
of historical information on wolves in
the region. We concluded that wolves in
the West Coast States are not discrete
from wolves in the NRM DPS. Recent
scientific information only confirms our
2013 conclusion. Wolf numbers on both
sides of the NRM DPS boundary in
Washington, Oregon, and California
continue to increase, and wolf range in
the West Coast States continues to
expand (USFWS 2020, p. 28, Appendix
2). Also, data from collared wolves, as
well as genetic analyses, show wolves
are dispersing between West Coast
States where gray wolves are federally
protected (California, western Oregon,
and western Washington) and the NRM
where wolves are delisted (Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, eastern Oregon,
eastern Washington, and north-central
Utah) (USFWS 2020, pp. 5, 17–18, 28).
Moreover, recent genetic research shows
that most wolves in Washington and
Oregon are dispersers from the NRM or
descendants of those dispersers
(Hendricks et al. 2018, entire). Thus, the
best available information indicates that
wolves in the West Coast States portion
of the combined listed entity (and 44State entity) are not discrete from NRM
wolves.
Comment 138: Referring to statements
in the Approach for This Proposed Rule
section of our March 15, 2019, proposed
rule, one commenter stated that ‘‘Pacific
Northwest’’ wolves (wolves in western
Washington, western Oregon, and
northern California) harbor genetic
ancestry from Pacific coastal rainforest
wolves not present in the northern
Rocky Mountains and are not, therefore,
simply an extension of the NRM
population.
Our Response: Wolves with Pacific
coastal wolf genetic ancestry have been
reported from both the NRM DPS and
the West Coast States. See Our Response
to Comment 43.
Comment 139: One commenter
indicated that the proposed rule
requires further environmental
assessment under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Our Response: As noted in the March
15, 2019, proposed rule, NEPA does not
apply to our actions taken pursuant to
section 4(a) of the Act (i.e., listings,
delistings, and reclassifications). Thus,
we are not required to prepare an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement, or
otherwise meet the requirements of
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69878
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
NEPA, before issuing this final rule. A
notice outlining the Service’s reasons
for this determination was published in
the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244).
Comment 140: One commenter
indicated that a lack of reliable data
precludes us from making a finding on
the status of the gray wolves.
Our Response: The Act instructs us to
make our determinations based on the
best scientific and commercial data
available. We cannot await the
development of additional scientific
information; rather, we must act on the
basis of the data currently available to
us. Moreover, we disagree with the
commenter that we lack sufficient
reliable data to support our
determination. Wolves are among the
most studied mammals in the world. A
great deal of reliable information exists
on their ecology and population
dynamics.
Comment 141: Several commenters
questioned our SPR analysis. Some
thought our SPR analysis was
inadequate or inconsistent with case
law because they believed we relied on
the viability of the Great Lakes
metapopulation to render all other
portions insignificant, or because we
did not assess areas of unoccupied
historical range to determine if they are
significant portions of the range of the
combined listed entity. Some disagreed
with our conclusions, providing
arguments for why they believed
specific portions were significant and in
danger of extinction. Commenters
focused mainly on the West Coast States
portion and specific areas of
unoccupied historical range.
Our Response: To determine whether
any portions of the entity’s range may be
significant, and thus warrant further
consideration in our SPR analysis, we
evaluated whether any portions could
be considered significant under any
reasonable definition of ‘‘significant.’’
We asked whether any portions of the
range may be biologically meaningful in
terms of the resiliency, redundancy, or
representation of the entity being
evaluated. This approach is consistent
with the Act, our implementing
regulations, our policies, and case law.
As explained in this rule, we consider
the term ‘‘range’’ in the SPR phrase to
be the area occupied by the species at
the time we make our determination
(see Our Response to Comment 37).
Thus, we did not evaluate portions of
unoccupied historical range in our SPR
analysis. We also did not rely on the
viability of the Great Lakes portion to
determine whether portions might be
significant. Rather, we determined
whether any portions may be significant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
by looking at whether they may be
biologically meaningful in terms of the
resiliency, redundancy, or
representation of the entity being
evaluated (see Determination of Species
Status).
Comment 142: One commenter stated
that the Washington Wolf Plan lacks
regulatory assurances or binding
commitments that we could reasonably
rely upon to know how the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife intends
to manage wolves into the future. They
also noted that the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife is
embarking on a State-level
Environmental Policy Act process to
consider potential changes to the
Washington Wolf Plan and its guidance
for wolf management in Washington.
The commenter contended that this
process could lead to fundamental
changes to how Washington manages
wolves, especially in a post-Federal
listing environment, giving the Service
no regulatory assurances as to whether
gray wolves will be responsibly
managed in Washington after a Federal
delisting decision. The commenter
believed this to be a clear violation of
the Act.
Our Response: The commenter
presents no information that would
indicate that Washington is likely to
abandon wolf recovery. To the contrary,
Washington has been proactive in
managing the recolonization of wolves.
The State developed a science-based
conservation and management plan that
has been implemented since 2011. The
plan was developed with the assistance
of a 17-member citizen advisory wolf
working group over nearly 5 years
(2007–2011). The process included
extensive public review (23 public
meetings and nearly 65,000 comments
submitted) and a blind scientific peer
review. The Washington Fish and
Wildlife Commission unanimously
adopted the plan in December 2011. The
purpose of the more recent planning
effort, referenced by the commenter, is
to proactively identify how Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife will
manage wolves to ensure their
continued conservation once they are
removed from the State’s endangered
species list. The Department is being
proactive in seeking public input in
designing their post-delisting
management strategy. Following Federal
delisting, wolves will retain regulatory
protections under Washington State law
(Revised Code of Washington 77.15.120;
Washington Administrative Code 220–
610–010) until they meet their State
recovery criteria and are delisted by the
Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. As explained elsewhere in this
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
rule, we find those regulatory
protections to be sufficient to conserve
wolves after delisting.
Evaluation of a Petition To Revise the
Listings for the Gray Wolf Under the
Act
Background
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations in title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth the
procedures for adding species to,
removing species from, or reclassifying
species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part
17. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires
that we make a finding on whether a
petition to add a species to the List (i.e.,
‘‘list’’ a species), remove a species from
the List (i.e., ‘‘delist’’ a species), or
change a listed species’ status from
endangered to threatened or from
threatened to endangered (i.e.,
‘‘reclassify’’ a species) presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are
to make this finding within 90 days of
our receipt of the petition and publish
the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our regulations establish that
substantial scientific or commercial
information with regard to a 90-day
petition finding refers to ‘‘credible
scientific or commercial information in
support of the petition’s claims such
that a reasonable person conducting an
impartial scientific review would
conclude that the action proposed in the
petition may be warranted’’ (50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)(i)).
A species may be determined to be an
endangered species or a threatened
species because of one or more of the
five factors described in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The
five factors are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range
(Factor A);
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes (Factor B);
(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence (Factor
E).
These factors represent broad
categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an
effect on a species’ continued existence.
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
In evaluating these actions and
conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of
the species, as well as other actions or
conditions that may ameliorate any
negative effects or may have positive
effects.
We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in
general to actions or conditions that are
known to, or are reasonably likely to,
affect individuals of a species
negatively. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes
actions or conditions that have a direct
impact on individuals (direct impacts),
as well as those that affect individuals
through alteration of their habitat or
required resources (stressors). The term
‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either
together or separately—the source of the
action or condition, or the action or
condition itself. However, the mere
identification of any threat(s) may not
be sufficient to compel a finding that the
information in the petition is substantial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. The
information presented in the petition
must include evidence sufficient to
suggest that these threats may be
affecting the species to the point that the
species may meet the definition of an
endangered species or threatened
species under the Act.
If we find that a petition presents
such information, our subsequent status
review will evaluate all identified
threats by considering the individual-,
population-, and species-level effects
and the expected response by the
species. We will evaluate individual
threats and their expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative
effect of the threats on the species as a
whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those
actions and conditions that are expected
to have positive effects on the species—
such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts that
may ameliorate threats. It is only after
conducting this cumulative analysis of
threats and the actions that may
ameliorate them, and the expected effect
on the species now and in the
foreseeable future, that we can
determine whether the species meets
the definition of an endangered species
or threatened species under the Act. If
we find that a petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted, the
Act requires that we promptly
commence a review of the status of the
species, and we will subsequently
complete a status review in accordance
with our prioritization methodology for
12-month findings (81 FR 49248, July
27, 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Species and Range
The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is
currently listed as: (1) Threatened in
Minnesota; and (2) endangered in all or
portions of 44 of the contiguous United
States. The petition includes three
alternatives, each representing a
separate petitioned action, for revising
the currently listed gray wolf entities.
Each of the alternatives involve splitting
and/or combining the gray wolf in the
lower 48 United States into DPSs, and
all exclude the Mexican wolf
subspecies. Two of the alternatives
involve relisting gray wolves in the
Northern Rocky Mountains. Because
each alternative represents a separate
petitioned action, we evaluated them
separately.
1. lower-48 DPS—list as threatened;
or
2. Western and Eastern DPSs—both
list both as threatened; or
3. Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM)
DPS—remain delisted,
Midwest DPS—list as threatened,
West Coast DPS—list as endangered,
Southern Rockies DPS—list as
endangered, and
Northeast DPSs—list as endangered.
Petition History
On December 17, 2018, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity and the Humane Society of the
United States, requesting that the
existing listing for gray wolf be revised.
The petition clearly identified itself as
such and included the requisite
identification information for the
petitioners, required at 50 CFR
424.14(c). Additional supporting
materials required under 50 CFR
424.14(b) were received on February 26,
2019. This finding addresses the
petition.
Findings
Alternatives 1 and 2
We reviewed the petition, sources
cited in the petition, and other readily
available information. We considered
the factors under section 4(a)(1) and
assessed the cumulative effect that the
threats identified within the factors may
have on the species now and in the
foreseeable future. We considered a
‘‘threat’’ as any action or condition that
may be known to, or is reasonably likely
to, negatively affect individuals of a
species. This includes those actions or
conditions that may have a direct
impact on individuals, as well as those
that may affect individuals through
alteration of their habitat or required
resources. The mere identification of
threats is not sufficient to constitute
substantial information indicating that
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69879
revising the current gray wolf listed
entities may be warranted. Based on our
review of the petition, sources cited in
the petition, and other readily available
information, regarding development and
unoccupied suitable habitat (Factor A),
human-caused mortality and mortality
rates (Factor B), disease (Factor C), and
reduced genetic diversity (Factor E), we
find that the petition does not provide
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that revising the
listings for the gray wolf (Canis lupus)
to: (1) A threatened lower-48 DPS; or (2)
threatened Western and Eastern DPSs
may be warranted.
Alternative 3
Based on our review of the petition,
sources cited in the petition, and other
readily available information, we find
that the petition does not provide
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the West
Coast, Southern Rockies, or Northeast
gray wolf petitioned entities may qualify
as DPSs and, therefore, that they may be
listable entities under the Act. Although
we find the petition provides substantial
information indicating that the Midwest
population may qualify as a valid DPS,
we do not undertake further evaluation
of Alternative 3 because the petitioners
failed to present substantial information
for us to conclude that this entire set of
petitioned entities, comprising five
DPSs (including the currently delisted
NRM DPS), is a valid option for revising
the current gray wolf (Canis lupus)
listed entities. Petitioners presented
substantial information only with
respect to a Midwest DPS of gray wolf,
and did not present any information
that would allow us to evaluate whether
the remainder of the currently listed 44State entity may be a listable entity and,
if so, whether it may warrant listing as
threatened or endangered. Finally, we
would reach this same conclusion even
if the petitioner had provided
substantial information that the
Southern Rockies petitioned entity may
qualify as a valid listable entity under
the Act.
The basis for our findings on this
petition, and other information
regarding our review of the petition, can
be found as an appendix at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–HQ–ES–2018–0097 under the
Supporting Documents section.
Determination of Species Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
for determining whether a species meets
the definition of an ‘‘endangered
species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’. The
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69880
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Act defines endangered species as a
species ‘‘in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,’’ and a threatened species as
a species ‘‘likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ For a
more detailed discussion on the factors
considered when determining whether a
species meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened
species and our analysis on how we
determine the foreseeable future in
making these decisions, see Regulatory
Framework.
If we determine that any of the
entities evaluated in this rule are not in
danger of extinction now or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, we then
consider whether it may be in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future in a significant
portion of its range 6— that is, whether
there is any portion of the species’ range
for which it is true that both (1) the
portion is significant; and (2) the species
is in danger of extinction now or likely
to become so in the foreseeable future in
that portion. Depending on the case, it
might be more efficient for us to address
the ‘‘significance’’ question or the
‘‘status’’ question first. We can choose to
address either question first. Regardless
of which question we address first, if we
reach a negative answer with respect to
the first question that we address, we do
not need to evaluate the other question
for that portion of the species’ range.
Currently Listed Entities
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Minnesota: Determination of Status
Throughout All of Its Range
When wolves in Minnesota were first
listed under the Act in 1974, there were
approximately 750 wolves occupying
the northeast corner of the State. The
primary cause of the decline of wolves
was targeted elimination by humans.
However, gray wolves are highly
adaptable; their populations are
remarkably resilient as long as prey
availability, habitat, and regulation of
human-caused mortality are adequate.
Wolf populations can rapidly overcome
severe disruptions, such as pervasive
human-caused mortality or disease,
once those disruptions are removed or
reduced.
6 ‘‘Portion of its range’’ refers to the members of
the species that occur in a particular geographic
area of the species’ current range (not the habitat
in which those members occur). This is because,
while ‘‘portion of the range’’ is part of the species’
range (i.e., a geographical area), when we evaluate
a significant portion of its range, we consider the
contribution of the individuals in that portion.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
With the protections of the Act, gray
wolves began to increase in numbers
and expand their range in Minnesota;
because of this progress toward
recovery, they were reclassified as a
threatened species in 1978. Since that
time, the number of wolves and the
overall extent of their range in
Minnesota have increased further;
wolves in Minnesota now exist as a
large, stable population of about 2,655
individuals that are biologically
connected to expansive and robust
populations in Canada and adjacent
States of Wisconsin and Michigan.
To sustain populations over time, a
species must have a sufficient number
and distribution of healthy populations
to withstand annual variation in its
environment (resiliency), novel changes
in its biological and physical
environment (representation), and
catastrophes (redundancy) (Shaffer and
Stein 2000, pp. 308–311; Smith et al.
2018, p. 304). A species with a sufficient
number and distribution of healthy
populations is generally better able to
adapt to future changes and to tolerate
stressors (factors that cause a negative
effect to a species or its habitat).
Wolves in Minnesota are highly
abundant, have a stable trend (USFWS
2020, pp. 20–22 and Appendix 1), and
are broadly distributed throughout highquality habitat in the State (see Great
Lakes Area Suitable Habitat—MN
discussion). Their high reproductive
potential (USFWS 2020, p. 8) enables
them to withstand high mortality levels
and their ability to disperse long
distances allows them to quickly
expand and recolonize vacant habitats
(USFWS 2020, p. 7). Wolves are also
highly adaptable animals; they are able
to inhabit and survive in a variety of
habitats and are efficient at shifting their
prey to exploit available food resources
(USFWS 2020, p. 6). Furthermore,
wolves in Minnesota do not function as
an isolated population occurring only
within the boundaries of the State. They
are interconnected with the large,
expansive population of wolves in
Canada and with wolves in Wisconsin
and Michigan (USFWS 2020, p. 28).
Populations that are connected to and
interact with other populations of the
same species (metapopulations) are
widely recognized as being more secure
over the long term than are several
isolated populations that contain the
same total number of packs and
individuals (USFWS 1994, appendix 9).
This security arises because adverse
effects experienced by one of its
subpopulations resulting from genetic
drift, demographic shifts, and local
environmental fluctuations can be
asynchronous and countered by
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
occasional influxes of individuals from
other subpopulations in the
metapopulation, which can increase or
better maintain genetic diversity. Thus,
the high levels of genetic diversity
evident in Minnesota wolves (see
discussion under Genetic Diversity and
Inbreeding) are supported through
interconnections with wolves in Canada
and neighboring States. This genetic
diversity provides wolves in Minnesota
with a greater ability to adapt to both
short-term and long-term changes in
their environment.
Wolves in Minnesota are highly
resilient to perturbations because of
their abundance and broad distribution
across high-quality habitat in the State.
Biological factors also play an important
part in the resiliency of wolves in
Minnesota, namely their high
reproductive capacity and genetic
diversity. Those factors provide
resiliency in the face of stochastic
variability (annual environmental
fluctuations, periodic disturbances, and
impacts of anthropogenic stressors).
Life-history characteristics of the wolf,
including high dispersal capability and
adaptability, along with the high genetic
diversity evident in Minnesota wolves,
provides sufficient adaptive capacity
such that their long-term survival in the
State is assured. Additionally,
catastrophic events have not affected
wolf populations at a State-wide scale in
Minnesota, and we found no indication
that these events would impact the longterm survival of wolves throughout this
State in the future.
The recovery of wolves in Minnesota
is attributable primarily to successful
interagency cooperation in the
management of human-caused
mortality. That mortality is the most
significant barrier to the long-term
conservation of wolves. Therefore, this
source of mortality remains the primary
challenge in managing the wolf
population to maintain its recovered
status into the foreseeable future. Legal
harvest and agency control to mitigate
depredations on livestock are the
primary human-caused mortality factors
that managers can manipulate to
achieve management objectives and
minimize depredation risk associated
with repeated conflicts, respectively,
once delisting occurs. Wolves in
Minnesota now greatly exceed the
recovery criteria in the revised recovery
plan that the Minnesota population
must be stable or growing and its
continued survival be assured, with a
population goal of 1,251–1,400 wolves.
As a result, we can expect to see some
reduction in wolf populations in
Minnesota as managers begin to
institute management strategies with the
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
objective of stabilizing or reversing
population growth while continuing to
maintain wolf populations well above
Federal recovery criteria.
Using an adaptive-management
approach that adjusts harvest based on
population estimates and trends, the
initial objectives of the State may be to
reduce wolf populations and then
manage for sustainable populations,
similar to how States manage all other
game species.
Based on our analysis, we conclude
that Minnesota will maintain an
abundant and well-distributed wolf
population that will remain above
recovery levels for the foreseeable
future, and that the threat of humancaused mortality has been sufficiently
addressed. The State of Minnesota has
wolf-management laws, plans, and
regulations that adequately regulate
human-caused mortality. The State has
committed to manage its wolf
population at or above recovery levels,
has recently demonstrated this
commitment, and expect this
commitment to continue into the
foreseeable future. Adequate wolfmonitoring programs, as described in
the State wolf-management plan, are
likely to identify high mortality rates or
low birth rates that warrant corrective
action by the management agency.
Based on our review, we conclude that
regulatory mechanisms in Minnesota are
adequate to maintain the recovered
status of wolves in the State once they
are federally delisted.
Based on the biology of wolves and
our analysis of threats, we conclude that
wolf populations in Minnesota will
continue to be maintained at or above
identified recovery levels. As a result,
wolf biology (namely the species’
reproductive capacity, adaptability, and
dispersal ability) and the availability of
large, secure blocks of suitable habitat
within the occupied areas will ensure
the maintenance of populations capable
of withstanding all other foreseeable
threats. The amount and distribution of
occupied wolf habitat currently
provides, and will continue to provide
into the foreseeable future, large core
areas that contain high-quality habitat of
sufficient size and with sufficient prey
to support a recovered wolf population.
Our analysis of land management shows
these areas, specifically Minnesota wolf
management zone A, will maintain their
suitability into the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we conclude that, Minnesota
contains a sufficient amount of highquality wolf habitat to support wolf
populations above recovery levels into
the future.
While disease and parasites can
temporarily affect individuals, specific
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
packs, or small, isolated populations
(e.g., Isle Royale), seldom do they pose
a significant threat to large wolf
populations, such as those that occur in
Minnesota. As long as wolf populations
are managed above recovery levels,
these factors are not likely to threaten
the viability of the wolf population in
Minnesota at any point in the
foreseeable future. Climate change is
also likely to remain an insignificant
factor affecting the population dynamics
of wolves into the foreseeable future,
due to the adaptability of the species.
Finally, based on our analysis, we
conclude that cumulative effects of
threats do not now, nor are likely to
within the foreseeable future, threaten
the viability of wolves throughout their
range in Minnesota.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to wolves in
Minnesota. We evaluated the status of
wolves in Minnesota and assessed the
factors likely to negatively affect them,
including threats identified at listing, at
the time of reclassification, now, and
into the foreseeable future. The best
available information indicates that
wolves in Minnesota are recovered and
do not meet the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened
species because of any one or a
combination of the five factors set forth
in the Act.
Specifically, we have determined,
based on the best available information,
that human-caused mortality (Factor C);
habitat and prey availability (Factor A);
disease and parasites (Factor C); genetic
diversity and inbreeding (Factor E);
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational uses (Factor B); climate
change (Factor E); or other threats,
singly or in combination, are not of
sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate that wolves in
Minnesota are in danger of extinction or
likely to become so within the
foreseeable future throughout all of their
range. We have also determined that
ongoing effects of recovery efforts,
which resulted in a significant
expansion of the occupied range of and
number of wolves in Minnesota over the
past decades, in conjunction with State,
Tribal, and Federal agency wolf
management and regulatory
mechanisms that will be in place
following delisting across their
occupied range, will be adequate to
ensure the conservation of wolves in
Minnesota. These activities will
maintain an adequate prey base,
preserve denning and rendezvous sites,
monitor disease, restrict human take,
and maintain wolf populations well
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69881
above the recovery criteria established
in the revised recovery plan (USFWS
1992, pp. 25–28).
We have identified the best available
scientific studies and information
assessing human-caused mortality;
habitat and prey availability; the
impacts of disease and parasites;
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational uses; gray wolf adaptability,
including with respect to changing
climate; recovery activities and
regulatory mechanisms that will be in
place following delisting; and
predictions about how these may affect
wolves in Minnesota in making
determinations about their future status,
and we conclude that it is reasonable to
rely on these sources. Therefore, after
assessing the best available information,
we have determined that wolves in
Minnesota are not in danger of
extinction throughout all of their range,
nor are they likely to become so in the
foreseeable future.
Because we determined that wolves in
Minnesota are not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future throughout all of their
range, we will consider whether there
are any significant portions of their
range in Minnesota that are in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future.
Minnesota: Determination of Status
Throughout a Significant Portion of Its
Range
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species warrants listing if
it is in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range (SPR). Having determined that
wolves in Minnesota are not in danger
of extinction now or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all
of their range in Minnesota, we now
consider whether they may be in danger
of extinction or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future in a significant
portion of their range in Minnesota.
After reviewing the biology of and
potential threats of wolves in
Minnesota, we have not identified any
portions of the State for which both (1)
gray wolves may be in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future (i.e., areas in which
threats may be concentrated) and (2) the
portion may be significant. While some
portions may be at increased risk from
human-caused mortality or factors
related to small numbers, we did not
find that any of these portions may be
significant. We provide our analysis
below.
First, portions outside the core wolf
range in northern Minnesota may be at
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69882
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
greater risk from human-caused
mortality or from factors related to small
numbers of individuals. However, these
portions are not biologically meaningful
in terms of their contribution to the
resiliency, redundancy, or
representation of wolves in Minnesota
because they contain only lone
dispersers from the core wolf range that
are not members of established breeding
packs. Thus, they do not contribute to
the overall demographic or genetic
health of the Minnesota population and
they lack genetic or ecological
uniqueness relative to other wolves in
Minnesota. Therefore, we find that these
portions are not ‘‘significant’’ under any
reasonable definition of that term
because they are not biologically
meaningful to the Minnesota entity in
terms of its resiliency, redundancy, or
representation.
Second, the State wolf-management
zone (Zone B) in which post-delisting
depredation control would be allowed
under a broader set of circumstances
than in the core population zone, and,
thus, would likely experience higher
levels of human-caused mortality upon
delisting, is not significant under any
reasonable definition of ‘‘significant.’’
The wolves in this zone occur on the
periphery of the large core population,
occur in areas of limited habitat
suitability, and do not contribute
appreciably to (and are thus not
biologically meaningful to) the
resiliency, redundancy, or
representation of the Minnesota entity.
Wolves in this higher intensity
management zone are not meaningful to
the resiliency of the Minnesota entity
because they constitute a small
proportion of wolves in Minnesota
(Zone B contains about 15 percent of the
Minnesota wolf population). Thus,
wolves in the higher intensity
management zone do not contribute
meaningfully to the ability of wolves in
Minnesota to withstand stochastic
processes.
Likewise, the higher intensity
management zone is not meaningful to
the redundancy of the Minnesota entity
because wolves in this zone represent a
relatively small number and distribution
of wolves in Minnesota and catastrophic
events have not affected wolf
populations at a State-wide scale in
Minnesota, and we found no indication
that these events would impact the longterm survival of wolves throughout this
State in the future. Thus, wolves in the
higher intensity management zone do
not contribute meaningfully to the
ability of wolves in Minnesota to
withstand catastrophic events. Wolves
in the higher intensity management
zone are not meaningful to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
representation of wolves in Minnesota
because they are genetically similar to
other wolves in the core area of
Minnesota and because gray wolves are
a highly adaptable generalist species
with high dispersal capability, thus
allowing them to adapt to changing
environmental conditions. Therefore,
we do not find that these portions may
be significant under any reasonable
definition of ‘‘significant’’ because they
are not biologically meaningful to
wolves in Minnesota in terms of
resiliency, redundancy, or
representation.
Minnesota: Final 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 species’’ and ‘‘endangered
species’’ contained in the Act and the
reasons for delisting as specified at 50
CFR 424.11(e), we conclude that
removing the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in
Minnesota from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11)
is appropriate. Although this entity is
not a species as defined under the Act,
we have collectively evaluated the
current and potential threats to gray
wolves in Minnesota, including those
that result from past loss of historical
range. Wolves in Minnesota do not meet
the definition of a threatened species or
an endangered species as a result of the
reduction of threats as described in the
analysis of threats and are neither
currently in danger of extinction, nor
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future, throughout all or a significant
portion of their range within the State.
44-State Entity: Determination of Status
Throughout All of Its Range
In 1978, when gray wolves were listed
in the conterminous States other than
Minnesota, there was a small group of
wolves on Isle Royale (Michigan) in
Lake Superior and perhaps a few
individual wolves in northern Michigan
and Wisconsin. The primary cause of
the decline of wolves in the 44-State
entity was targeted elimination by
humans. However, gray wolves are
highly adaptable; their populations are
remarkably resilient as long as prey
availability, habitat, and regulation of
human-caused mortality are adequate.
Wolf populations can rapidly overcome
severe disruptions, such as pervasive
human-caused mortality or disease,
once those disruptions are removed or
reduced.
With the protections of the Act, gray
wolves began to repopulate Michigan
and Wisconsin through expansion of the
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
populations in Minnesota and Canada.
Wolves in the 44-State entity now
primarily exist as a large, stable to
growing, population of about 1,576
individuals in Wisconsin and Michigan
that is biologically connected to
expansive and robust populations in
Canada and the adjacent State of
Minnesota. Within the 44-State entity
there are also a small number of
colonizing wolves in the West Coast
States and central Rocky Mountains that
represent the expanding edge of a larger
population outside the 44-State entity
(in the northern Rocky Mountains and
western Canada) (figure 2). We focus our
analysis where wolves occur.
The recovery criteria for wolves in the
Eastern United States, as outlined in the
Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan and
Revised Recovery Plan, includes the
maintenance of the Minnesota
population and reestablishment of at
least one viable wolf population within
the historical range of the eastern timber
wolf outside of Minnesota and Isle
Royale, Michigan (see Recovery Criteria
for the Eastern United States). The
viable population outside of Minnesota
has been reestablished in Wisconsin and
Michigan.
Within the 44-State entity, the wolf
population in Wisconsin and Michigan
is stable to slightly increasing and
currently numbers at least 1,576 (914 in
Wisconsin and 695 in Michigan)
(USFWS 2020, pp. 21–24 and Appendix
1). Wolves are broadly distributed
throughout high-quality habitat in the
northern portions of both States (see
Great Lakes Area Suitable Habitat—WI
and MI discussions). Their high
reproductive potential (USFWS 2020, p.
8) enables them to withstand increased
levels of human-caused mortality and
their ability to disperse long distances
allows them to quickly expand and
recolonize vacant habitats (USFWS
2020, p. 7). Wolves are also highly
adaptable animals; they are able to
inhabit and survive in a variety of
habitats and take advantage of available
food resources (USFWS 2020, p. 6).
Furthermore, biologically, wolves in
Wisconsin and Michigan do not
function as an isolated population. They
are interconnected with the large,
expansive population of wolves in
Canada and with wolves in Minnesota
(USFWS 2020, p. 28).
Populations that are connected to and
interact with other populations of the
same species (metapopulations) are
widely recognized as being more secure
over the long term than are several
isolated populations that contain the
same total number of packs and
individuals (USFWS 1994, appendix 9).
This is because adverse effects
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
experienced by one of its
subpopulations resulting from genetic
drift, demographic shifts, and local
environmental fluctuations can be
asynchronous and countered by
occasional influxes of individuals from
other subpopulations in the
metapopulation, which can increase or
better maintain genetic diversity. Thus,
the genetic diversity of the wolves in
Wisconsin and Michigan (see discussion
under Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding)
is supported through interconnections
with wolves in Canada and neighboring
Minnesota. This genetic diversity
provides wolves in Wisconsin and
Michigan with a greater ability to adapt
to both short-term and long-term
changes in their environment. A
mixture of western gray wolves and
eastern wolves in the Great Lakes area
may provide additional adaptive
capacity (USFWS 2020, pp. 2–3).
Wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan
are highly resilient to perturbations
because of their abundance and broad
distribution across high-quality habitat
in these States. Biological factors also
play an important part in the resiliency
of wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan,
namely their high reproductive capacity
and genetic diversity. Those factors
provide resiliency in the face of
stochastic variability (annual
environmental fluctuations, periodic
disturbances, and impacts of
anthropogenic stressors). Life-history
characteristics of the wolf, including
high dispersal capability and
adaptability, along with the high genetic
diversity evident in wolves in
Wisconsin and Michigan, provides
sufficient adaptive capacity such that
their long-term survival is assured.
Additionally, catastrophic events have
not affected wolf populations at a multiState scale in Wisconsin and Michigan,
and we found no indication that these
events would impact the long-term
survival of wolves throughout these
States in the future.
The wolves in Wisconsin and
Michigan contain sufficient resiliency,
redundancy, and representation to
sustain populations within the 44-State
entity over time. Therefore, we conclude
that the relatively few wolves that occur
within the 44-State entity outside of
Wisconsin and Michigan, including
those in the West Coast States and
central Rocky Mountains as well as lone
dispersers in other States, are not
necessary for the recovered status of the
44-State entity. However, the viability of
the entity is further enhanced by wolves
that occur outside of Wisconsin and
Michigan. Wolves from the northern
Rocky Mountains and western Canada
are expanding into the 44-State entity in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Oregon, Washington, California, and
Colorado (figure 2). With ongoing State
management in the NRM DPS, further
expansion of wolves into the 44-State
entity is likely to continue in the West
Coast States and possibly the central
Rocky Mountains. Although wolves in
these areas would add to resiliency,
redundancy, and representation, they
are not necessary in order to conserve
wolves to the point that they no longer
meet the definitions of endangered or
threatened under the Act. Furthermore,
although having wolves in unoccupied
areas could also contribute to resiliency,
redundancy, and representation, they
are not necessary in order to conserve
wolves to the point that they no longer
meet the definitions of endangered or
threatened under the Act.
The recovery of the 44-State entity is
attributable primarily to successful
interagency cooperation in the
management of human-caused
mortality. That mortality is the most
significant barrier to the long-term
conservation of wolves. Therefore, this
source of mortality remains the primary
challenge in managing the wolf
population to maintain its recovered
status into the foreseeable future. Legal
harvest and agency control to mitigate
depredations on livestock are the
primary human-caused mortality factors
that management agencies can
manipulate to achieve management
objectives and minimize depredation
risk associated with repeated conflicts,
respectively, once delisting occurs.
Wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan
now greatly exceed the recovery criteria
in the revised recovery plan for a second
population outside Minnesota and Isle
Royale (for both a population that is
connected to Minnesota (at least 100
wolves) and a population that is
separated from Minnesota (at least 200
wolves)). As a result, we can expect to
see some reduction in wolf populations
in Wisconsin and Michigan as those
States begin to institute management
strategies (such as increased
depredation control and wolf-hunting
seasons) with the objective of stabilizing
or reversing population growth while
continuing to maintain wolf populations
well above Federal recovery
requirements. Using an adaptivemanagement approach that adjusts
harvest based on population estimates
and trends, the initial objectives of
States may be to reduce wolf
populations and then manage for
sustainable populations, similar to how
States manage all other game species.
For example, in 2013–2014, during a
period when gray wolves were federally
delisted in the Great Lakes area,
Wisconsin reduced the State’s wolf
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69883
harvest quota by 43 percent in response
to a reduced (compared to the previous
year) estimated size of the wolf
population. We expect Washington,
Oregon and California will manage
wolves through appropriate laws and
regulations to ensure that the recovery
objectives outlined in their respective
wolf management plans are achieved,
even though wolves in these areas are
not necessary in order to conserve
wolves to the point that they no longer
meet the definitions of endangered or
threatened under the Act.
Based on our analysis, we conclude
that Wisconsin and Michigan will
maintain an abundant and welldistributed wolf population in their
States above recovery levels for the
foreseeable future, and that the threat of
human-caused mortality has been
sufficiently reduced. Both States have
wolf-management laws, plans, and
regulations that adequately regulate
human-caused mortality. Each of the
States has committed to manage its wolf
population at or above viable
population levels (at least 350 in
Wisconsin and at least 200 in Michigan;
see State Management in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan), and we do
not expect this commitment to change.
Adequate wolf-monitoring programs, as
described in the State wolf-management
plans, are likely to identify high
mortality rates or low birth rates that
warrant corrective action by the
management agencies. Based on our
review, we conclude that regulatory
mechanisms in both States are adequate
to maintain the recovered status of
wolves in the 44-State entity once they
are federally delisted. Further, while
relatively few wolves occur in the west
coast portion of the 44-State entity at
this time, and State wolf-management
plans for Washington, Oregon, and
California do not yet include population
management goals, these plans include
recovery objectives intended to ensure
the reestablishment of self-sustaining
populations in these States. In addition,
we expect wolves in the NRM and
western Canada to continue to expand
into unoccupied suitable habitats in the
Western United States, as envisioned in
State wolf conservation and
management plans. Although this range
expansion would provide for additional
redundancy, it is not needed to recover
the gray wolf in the 44-State entity.
Based on the biology of wolves and
our analysis of threats, we conclude
that, as long as wolf populations in
Wisconsin and Michigan are maintained
at or above identified recovery levels,
wolf biology (namely, the species’
reproductive capacity) and the
availability of large, secure blocks of
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69884
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
suitable habitat within the occupied
areas will enable the maintenance of
populations capable of withstanding all
other foreseeable threats. Although
much of the historical range of the 44State entity is no longer occupied, we
find that the amount and distribution of
occupied wolf habitat currently
provides, and will continue to provide
into the foreseeable future, large core
areas that contain high-quality habitat of
sufficient size and with sufficient prey
to support a recovered wolf population.
Our analysis of land management shows
these areas, specifically Wisconsin Wolf
Zone 1 and the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan, will maintain their suitability
into the foreseeable future. Therefore,
we conclude that, despite the loss of
large areas of historical range for the 44State entity, Wisconsin and the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan contain a
sufficient amount of high-quality wolf
habitat to support wolf populations
above recovery levels into the future.
While disease and parasites can
temporarily affect individuals, specific
packs, or small, isolated populations
(e.g., Isle Royale), seldom do they pose
a significant threat to large wolf
populations, such as those found in
Wisconsin and Michigan. As long as
wolf populations are managed above
recovery levels, these factors are not
likely to threaten the viability of the
wolf population in the 44-State entity at
any point in the foreseeable future.
Climate change is also likely to remain
an insignificant factor affecting the
population dynamics of wolves into the
foreseeable future, due to the
adaptability of the species. Finally,
based on our analysis, we conclude that
cumulative effects of threats do not
now, nor are they likely to within the
foreseeable future, threaten the viability
of the 44-State entity throughout the
range of wolves in the 44-State entity.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the 44-State entity.
We evaluated the status of the 44-State
entity and assessed the factors likely to
negatively affect it, including threats
identified at listing, at the time of
reclassification, now, and into the
foreseeable future. While wolves in the
44-State entity currently occupy only a
portion of wolf historical range, the best
available information indicates that the
44-State entity is recovered and does not
meet the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species because
of any one or a combination of the five
factors set forth in the Act.
Specifically, we have determined,
based on the best available information,
that human-caused mortality (Factor C);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
habitat and prey availability (Factor A);
disease and parasites (Factor C); genetic
diversity and inbreeding (Factor E);
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational uses (Factor B); climate
change (Factor E); or other threats,
singly or in combination, are not of
sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate that the 44-State
entity is in danger of extinction or likely
to become so within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range. We
have also determined that ongoing
effects of recovery efforts, which
resulted in a significant expansion of
the occupied range of and number of
wolves in the 44-State entity over the
past decades, in conjunction with State,
Tribal, and Federal agency wolf
management and regulatory
mechanisms that will be in place
following delisting of the entity across
its occupied range, will be adequate to
ensure the conservation of wolves in the
44-State entity. 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 recovery criteria established in the
revised recovery plan (USFWS 1992, pp.
25–28).
We have identified the best available
scientific studies and information
assessing human-caused mortality;
habitat and prey availability; the
impacts of disease and parasites;
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational uses; gray wolf adaptability,
including with respect to changing
climate; recovery activities and
regulatory mechanisms that will be in
place following delisting; and
predictions about how these may affect
the 44-State entity in making
determinations about the 44-State
entity’s future status, and we conclude
that it is reasonable to rely on these
sources. Therefore, after assessing the
best available information, despite the
large amount of lost historical range (see
Historical Context of Our Analysis), we
have determined that the 44-State entity
is not in danger of extinction throughout
all of its range, nor is it likely to become
so in the foreseeable future.
Because we determined that the gray
wolf 44-State entity is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future throughout all of its
range, we will consider whether there
are any significant portions of its range
that are in danger of extinction or likely
to become so in the foreseeable future.
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
44-State Entity: Determination of Status
Throughout a Significant Portion of Its
Range
After reviewing the biology of the 44State entity and potential threats, we
have not identified any portions of the
44-State entity for which both (1) gray
wolves may be in danger of extinction
or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future (i.e., areas in which threats may
be concentrated) and (2) the portion
may be significant. We reiterate that
‘‘range’’ refers to the general
geographical area within which the
species is found at the time of our
determination (see Definition and
Treatment of Range). ‘‘Portion of its
range’’ refers to the members of the
species that occur in a particular
geographic area of the species’ current
range. This is because, while ‘‘portion of
the range’’ is part of the species’ range
(i.e., a geographical area), when we
evaluate a significant portion of its
range, we consider the contribution of
the individuals that are in that portion
at the time we make a determination.
While some portions may be at
increased risk from human-caused
mortality or factors related to small
numbers, we did not find that any of
these portions may be significant. We
provide our analysis below.
First, portions peripheral to the
Wisconsin-Michigan population that
may frequently contain lone dispersing
wolves (e.g., the Lower Peninsula of
Michigan, eastern North and South
Dakota) or may contain few wolves (e.g.,
Isle Royale) may be at greater risk from
human-caused mortality or from factors
related to small numbers of individuals.
However, these portions are not
biologically meaningful to the 44-State
entity in terms of resiliency,
redundancy, or representation because
they contain only lone dispersers from
the core wolf range or few or no
breeding pairs. Thus, they do not
contribute to the overall demographic or
genetic diversity of the WisconsinMichigan population and they lack
genetic or ecological uniqueness relative
to other wolves in the States. Therefore,
we find that these portions are not
‘‘significant’’ under any reasonable
definition of that term because they are
not biologically meaningful to the 44State entity in terms of its resiliency,
redundancy, or representation.
Second, State wolf-management zones
in which post-delisting depredation
control would be allowed under a
broader set of circumstances than in
core population zones (and, thus, would
likely experience higher levels of
human-caused mortality upon the 44State entity’s delisting), such as
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Wisconsin Wolf Management Zones 3
and 4, are not significant under any
reasonable definition of ‘‘significant.’’
The wolves in these zones occur on the
periphery of a large population (the
Wisconsin-Michigan population), occur
in areas of limited habitat suitability,
and do not contribute appreciably to
(and are thus not biologically
meaningful to) the resiliency,
redundancy, or representation of the 44State entity.
Wolves in these higher intensity
management zones are not meaningful
to the resiliency of the 44-State entity
because, even though they contain
multiple established packs in addition
to lone wolves, they constitute a small
proportion of wolves in the WisconsinMichigan population and, consequently,
the 44-State entity (Zones 3 and 4
contain about 6 percent of the
Wisconsin wolf population). Upon
delisting, a large population of wolves
will still exist in Wisconsin and
Michigan outside of these areas. Thus,
wolves in these higher intensity
management zones do not contribute
meaningfully to ability of wolves in the
44-State entity to withstand stochastic
processes.
Likewise, these higher intensity
management zones are not meaningful
to the redundancy of the 44-State entity
because wolves in these zones represent
a relatively small number and
distribution of populations or packs in
Wisconsin and Michigan and
catastrophic events have not affected
wolf populations at a multi-State scale
in Wisconsin and Michigan, and we
found no indication that these events
would impact the long-term survival of
wolves throughout these two States in
the future. Thus, wolves in these higher
intensity management zones do not
contribute meaningfully to the ability of
the Wisconsin-Michigan population, or
44-State entity, to withstand
catastrophic events.
Finally, wolves in these higher
intensity management zones are not
meaningful to the representation of the
44-State entity because they are
genetically similar to other wolves in
the Wisconsin-Michigan area of the 44State entity and because gray wolves are
a highly adaptable generalist species
with high dispersal capability, thus
allowing them to adapt to changing
environmental conditions. Therefore,
we do not find that these portions may
be significant under any reasonable
definition of ‘‘significant’’ because they
are not biologically meaningful to the
44-State entity in terms of its resiliency,
redundancy, or representation.
Third, the small number of wolves
occurring in the West Coast States and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
the central Rocky Mountains are not a
significant portion of the 44-State entity.
Our evaluation of whether any portions
of the range may be ‘‘significant’’ is a
biological inquiry. We consider whether
any portions are biologically meaningful
in terms of the resiliency, redundancy,
or representation of gray wolves in the
44-State entity. When the gray wolf was
listed in 1978, there were about 1,200
wolves in Minnesota, and those wolves
later expanded into Wisconsin and
Michigan (USFWS 2020, pp. 20–23).
Unlike wolves that are dispersing from
the Great Lakes metapopulation, the
wolves that are presently found in the
West Coast States and the central Rocky
Mountains originated primarily from the
NRM wolves (USFWS 2020, pp. 3–5).
As the delisted NRM population has
continued to expand under State
management, those wolves have moved
into California, Oregon, and
Washington, and most recently into
Colorado. Those wolves are not
connected biologically to the core
populations in the 44-State entity, and
are not biologically ‘‘significant’’ to this
entity.
We acknowledge that both the West
Coast States and central Rocky
Mountains portions of the 44-State
entity may be at greater risk from
human-caused mortality or from factors
related to small numbers of individuals.
However, wolves in these portions are
not meaningful to the redundancy or
resiliency of the 44-State entity because
they occur in small numbers and
include relatively few breeding pairs.
There are seven known breeding pairs
in the West Coast States, and a single
group of six known individuals in
Colorado. Because these wolves
represent the expanding edge of a
recovered and stable source population
(the NRM DPS), and are therefore not an
independent population within the 44State entity, the relatively small number
of wolves there do not contribute
meaningfully to the ability of any
population to withstand stochastic
events, nor to the entire entity’s ability
to withstand catastrophic events. These
portions are also not meaningful in
terms of representation, because (1) gray
wolves are a highly adaptable generalist
carnivore capable of long-distance
dispersal, and (2) the gray wolves in this
area are an extension of a large
population of wolves in the northern
Rocky Mountains. They are not an
isolated population with unique or
markedly different genotypic or
phenotypic traits that is evolving
separate from other wolf populations.
They are also well-represented in the
lower 48 United States as a result of
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69885
recovery in the NRM DPS. Therefore, we
do not find that this portion may be
significant, under any reasonable
definition of ‘‘significant,’’ to the 44State entity in terms of its resiliency,
redundancy, or representation.
We conclude that there are no
portions of the 44-State entity for which
both (1) gray wolves may be in danger
of extinction or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future and (2) the
portion may be significant. As discussed
above, portions that may be in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future are not significant
under any reasonable definition of that
term. Conversely, other portions that are
or may be significant (i.e., the core areas
of the Wisconsin-Michigan population)
are not in danger of extinction or likely
to become so in the foreseeable future.
Because we did not identify any
portions of the 44-State entity where
threats may be concentrated and where
the portion may be biologically
meaningful in terms of the resiliency,
redundancy, or representation of the 44State entity, a more thorough analysis is
not required. Therefore, we conclude
that the 44-State entity is not in danger
of extinction or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future within a
significant portion of its range.
44-State Entity: Final 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 species’’ and ‘‘endangered
species’’ contained in the Act and the
reasons for delisting as specified at 50
CFR 424.11(e), we conclude that
removing the 44-State entity of the gray
wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(50 CFR 17.11) is appropriate. Although
this entity is not a species as defined
under the Act, we have collectively
evaluated the current and potential
threats to gray wolves in the 44-State
entity, including those that result from
past loss of historical range. Wolves in
the 44-State entity do not meet the
definition of a threatened species or an
endangered species as a result of the
reduction of threats as described in the
analysis of threats and are neither
currently in danger of extinction, nor
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future, throughout all or a significant
portion of their range.
Although substantial contraction of
gray wolf historical range occurred
within the 44-State entity since
European settlement, the range of the
gray wolf has expanded significantly
since its original listing in 1978, and the
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69886
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
impacts of lost historical range are no
longer manifesting in a way that
threatens the viability of the species.
The causes of the previous contraction
(for example, targeted extermination
efforts), and the effects of that
contraction (for example, reduced
numbers of individuals and
populations, and restricted gene flow),
in addition to the effects of all other
threats, have been ameliorated or
reduced such that the 44-State entity no
longer meets the Act’s definitions of
‘‘threatened species’’ or ‘‘endangered
species.’’
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Combined Listed Entity
Combined Listed Entity: Determination
of Status Throughout All of Its Range
We have determined that Minnesota
and the 44-State entity are each not an
endangered species or a threatened
species. Therefore, no entity which
includes any of those components can
be in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range because we
have already conclude that it is not
threatened or endangered throughout
some of its range. Nonetheless, below
we independently analyze whether the
combined listed entity is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so
throughout all of its range. Then we turn
to the question, not already resolved, of
whether that entity is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in a
significant portion of its range.
Prior to listing in the 1970s, wolves in
the combined listed entity had been
reduced to about 1,000 individuals and
extirpated from all of their range except
northeastern Minnesota and Isle Royale,
Michigan. The primary cause of the
decline of wolves in the combined listed
entity was targeted elimination by
humans. However, gray wolves are
highly adaptable; their populations are
remarkably resilient as long as prey
availability, habitat, and regulation of
human-caused mortality are adequate.
Wolf populations can rapidly overcome
severe disruptions, such as pervasive
human-caused mortality or disease,
once those disruptions are removed or
reduced.
With the protections of the Act, the
size of the gray wolf population
increased to over four times that at the
time of the initial gray wolf listings in
the early 1970s, and more than triple
that at the time of the 1978
reclassification (a figure which does not
include the wolves currently found in
the northern Rocky Mountains, which
was part of those earlier listings,
although not now part of the current
combined listed entity). The range has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
expanded outside of northeastern
Minnesota to central and northwestern
Minnesota, northern and central
Wisconsin, and the entire Upper
Peninsula of Michigan, and is in the
early stages of expanding into western
Washington, western Oregon, northern
California, and Colorado. Wolves in the
combined listed entity now primarily
exist as a large, stable to growing,
metapopulation of about 4,200
individuals in the Great Lakes area and
a small number of colonizing wolves in
the West Coast States and Colorado that
represent the expanding edge of a large
metapopulation outside the combined
listed entity (in the northern Rocky
Mountains and western Canada and,
more recently the central Rocky
Mountains (figure 2)). We focus our
analysis where wolves occur.
The recovery criteria for wolves in the
Eastern United States, as outlined in the
Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan and
Revised Recovery Plan, includes the
maintenance of the Minnesota
population and reestablishment of at
least one viable wolf population within
the historical range of the eastern timber
wolf outside of Minnesota and Isle
Royale, Michigan (see Recovery Criteria
for the Eastern United States). The
viable population outside of Minnesota
has been reestablished in Wisconsin and
Michigan.
Within the combined listed entity, the
wolf metapopulation in the Great Lakes
area is stable to slightly increasing,
currently numbers at least 4,231 wolves
(2,655 in Minnesota, 914 in Wisconsin,
and 695 in Michigan) (USFWS 2020, pp.
21–24 and Appendix 1), is broadly
distributed throughout high-quality
habitat in the northern portions of the
three States (see Great Lakes Area
Suitable Habitat—MN, WI and MI
discussions), and contains high levels of
genetic diversity (see Genetic Diversity
and Inbreeding). Further, the high
reproductive potential of gray wolves
(USFWS 2020, p. 8) enables them to
withstand increased levels of mortality,
their ability to disperse long distances
allows them to quickly expand and
recolonize vacant habitats (USFWS
2020, p. 7), and the fact that they are
highly adaptable animals enables them
to inhabit and survive in a variety of
habitats and take advantage of available
food resources (USFWS 2020, p. 6).
The wolf metapopulation in the Great
Lakes area is highly resilient to
perturbations because of its abundance
and broad distribution across highquality habitat in the Great Lakes area.
Biological factors also play an important
part in the resiliency of wolves in the
Great Lakes area, namely their high
reproductive capacity and genetic
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
diversity. Those factors provide
resiliency in the face of stochastic
variability (annual environmental
fluctuations, periodic disturbances, and
impacts of anthropogenic stressors).
Life-history characteristics of the wolf,
including high dispersal capability and
adaptability, along with the high genetic
diversity evident in wolves in the Great
Lakes area, provides sufficient adaptive
capacity such that their long-term
survival is assured. Additionally,
catastrophic events have not affected
wolf populations at a multi-State scale
in the Great Lakes area, and we found
no indication that these events would
impact the long-term survival of wolves
throughout the Great Lakes area in the
future.
Thus, the metapopulation of wolves
in the Great Lakes area and,
consequently, the combined listed
entity, contain sufficient resiliency,
redundancy, and representation to
sustain populations within the
combined listed entity over time.
Therefore, we conclude that the
relatively few wolves that occur within
the combined listed entity outside of the
Great Lakes area, including those in the
West Coast States and central Rocky
Mountains as well as lone dispersers in
other States, are not necessary for the
recovered status of the combined listed
entity. However, the viability of the
entity is enhanced even further by
wolves that occur outside of the Great
Lakes area and also by those that occur
outside the combined listed entity. First,
the viability of the combined listed
entity is increased even further via
connectivity of the entity to populations
in Canada. Connection of the
metapopulation of wolves in the Great
Lakes area to a population of about
12,000–14,000 wolves in eastern Canada
further increases the resiliency and
representation (via gene flow) of wolves
in the Great Lakes area, increasing the
viability of the combined listed entity.
Second, wolves from the northern
Rocky Mountains and western Canada
are expanding into the combined listed
entity in Oregon, Washington,
California, and Colorado (figure 2). With
ongoing State management in the NRM
DPS, further expansion of wolves into
the combined listed entity is likely to
continue in the West Coast States and
possibly the central Rocky Mountains.
Although wolves in these areas would
add to resiliency, redundancy, and
representation, they are not necessary in
order to conserve wolves to the point
that they no longer meet the definitions
of endangered or threatened under the
Act. Furthermore, although having
wolves in unoccupied areas could also
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
contribute to resiliency, redundancy,
and representation, they are not
necessary in order to conserve wolves to
the point that they no longer meet the
definitions of endangered or threatened
under the Act.
The recovery of the combined listed
entity is attributable primarily to
successful interagency cooperation in
the management of human-caused
mortality. That mortality is the most
significant barrier to the long-term
conservation of wolves. Therefore, this
source of mortality remains the primary
challenge in managing the wolf
population to maintain its recovered
status into the foreseeable future. Legal
harvest and agency control to mitigate
depredations on livestock are the
primary human-caused mortality factors
that management agencies can
manipulate to achieve management
objectives and minimize depredation
risk associated with repeated conflicts,
respectively, once delisting occurs.
Wolves in the Great Lakes area greatly
exceed the Federal recovery
requirements defined in the revised
recovery plan. As a result, we can
expect to see some reduction in wolf
populations in the Great Lakes areas as
States begin to institute management
strategies (such as increased
depredation control and wolf-hunting
seasons) with the objective of stabilizing
or reversing population growth while
continuing to maintain wolf populations
well above Federal recovery
requirements. Using an adaptivemanagement approach that adjusts
harvest based on population estimates
and trends, the initial objectives may be
to reduce wolf populations and then
manage for sustainable populations,
similar to how States manage all other
game species. For example, in 2013–
2014, during a period when gray wolves
were federally delisted in the Great
Lakes area, Wisconsin reduced the
State’s wolf harvest quota by 43 percent
in response to a reduced (compared to
the previous year) estimated size of the
wolf population. We expect
Washington, Oregon, and California will
manage wolves through appropriate
laws and regulations to ensure that the
recovery objectives outlined in their
respective wolf management plans are
achieved.
Based on our analysis, we conclude
that Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan will maintain an abundant
and well-distributed metapopulation in
the Great Lakes area that will remain
above recovery levels for the foreseeable
future, and that the threat of humancaused mortality has been sufficiently
reduced. All three States have wolfmanagement laws, plans, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
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 we do not expect
this commitment to change. Adequate
wolf-monitoring programs, as described
in the State wolf-management plans, are
likely to identify high mortality rates or
low birth rates that warrant corrective
action by the management agencies.
Based on our review, we conclude that
regulatory mechanisms in all three
States are adequate to maintain the
recovered status of wolves in the
combined listed entity once they are
federally delisted. Further, while
relatively few wolves occur in the west
coast portion of the combined listed
entity at this time, and State wolfmanagement plans for Washington,
Oregon, and California do not yet
include population management goals,
these plans include recovery objectives
intended to ensure the reestablishment
of self-sustaining populations in these
States. In addition, we expect the wolf
metapopulation in the western U.S. and
western Canada to continue to expand
into unoccupied suitable habitats in the
Western United States, as envisioned in
State wolf conservation and
management plans.
Based on the biology of wolves and
our analysis of threats, we conclude
that, as long as wolf populations in the
Great Lakes States are maintained at or
above identified recovery levels, wolf
biology (namely the species’
reproductive capacity) and the
availability of large, secure blocks of
suitable habitat within the occupied
areas will enable the maintenance of
populations capable of withstanding all
other foreseeable threats. Although
much of the historical range of the
combined listed entity is no longer
occupied, we find that the amount and
distribution of occupied wolf habitat
currently provides, and will continue to
provide into the foreseeable future, large
core areas that contain high-quality
habitat of sufficient size and with
sufficient prey to support a recovered
wolf population. Our analysis of land
management shows these areas,
specifically Minnesota Wolf
Management Zone A (Federal Wolf
Management Zones 1–4), Wisconsin
Wolf Zone 1, and the Upper Peninsula
of Michigan, will maintain their
suitability into the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we conclude that, despite the
loss of large areas of historical range for
the combined listed entity, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan contain a sufficient amount of
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69887
high-quality wolf habitat to support
wolf populations into the future.
While disease and parasites can
temporarily affect individuals, specific
packs, or small, isolated populations
(e.g., Isle Royale), seldom do they pose
a significant threat to large wolf
populations (e.g., core populations in
the NRM DPS and Great Lakes area) as
a whole. As long as wolf populations are
managed above recovery levels, these
factors are not likely to threaten the
viability of the wolf population in the
combined listed entity at any point in
the foreseeable future. Climate change is
also likely to remain an insignificant
factor affecting the population dynamics
of wolves into the foreseeable future,
due to the adaptability of the species.
Finally, based on our analysis, we
conclude that cumulative effects of
threats do not now, and are not likely
to within the foreseeable future,
threaten the viability of the combined
listed entity throughout the range of
wolves in the combined listed entity.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the combined
listed entity. We evaluated the status of
the combined listed entity and assessed
the factors likely to negatively affect it,
including threats identified at listing, at
the time of reclassification, now, and
into the foreseeable future. While
wolves in the combined listed entity
currently occupy only a portion of wolf
historical range, the best available
information indicates that the combined
listed entity is recovered and does not
meet the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species because
of any one or a combination of the five
factors set forth in the Act.
Specifically, we have determined,
based on the best available information,
that human-caused mortality (Factor C);
habitat and prey availability (Factor A);
disease and parasites (Factor C); genetic
diversity and inbreeding (Factor E);
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational uses (Factor B); climate
change (Factor E); or other threats,
singly or in combination, are not of
sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate that the combined
listed entity is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its
range. We have also determined that
ongoing effects of recovery efforts,
which resulted in a significant
expansion of the occupied range of and
number of wolves in the combined
listed entity over the past decades, in
conjunction with State, Tribal, and
Federal agency wolf management and
regulatory mechanisms that will be in
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69888
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
place following delisting of the entity
across its occupied range, will be
adequate to ensure the conservation of
wolves in the combined listed entity.
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 recovery
criteria established in the revised
recovery plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 25–
28).
We have identified the best available
scientific studies and information
assessing human-caused mortality;
habitat and prey availability; the
impacts of disease and parasites;
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational uses; gray wolf adaptability,
including with respect to changing
climate; recovery activities and
regulatory mechanisms that will be in
place following delisting; and
predictions about how these may affect
the combined listed entity in making
determinations about the combined
listed entity’s future status, and we
conclude that it is reasonable to rely on
these sources. Therefore, after assessing
the best available information, despite
the large amount of lost historical range
(see Historical Context of Our Analysis),
we have determined that the combined
listed entity is not in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range,
nor is it likely to become so in the
foreseeable future.
Because we determined that the
combined listed entity is not in danger
of extinction or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range, we will consider whether
there are any significant portions of its
range that are in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future.
Combined Listed Entity: Determination
of Status Throughout a Significant
Portion of Its Range
After reviewing the biology of the
combined listed entity and potential
threats, we have not identified any
portions of the combined listed entity
for which both (1) gray wolves may be
in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future (i.e.,
areas in which threats may be
concentrated) and (2) the portion may
be significant. We reiterate that ‘‘range’’
refers to the general geographical area
within which the species is found at the
time of our determination (see
Definition and Treatment of Range).
‘‘Portion of its range’’ refers to the
members of the species that occur in a
particular geographic area of the
species’ current range. This is because,
while ‘‘portion of the range’’ is part of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
the species’ range (i.e., a geographical
area), when we evaluate a significant
portion of its range, we consider the
contribution of the individuals that are
in that portion at the time we make a
determination. While we identified
some portions that may be at increased
risk from human-caused mortality or
factors related to small numbers, we did
not find that any of these portions may
be significant. We provide our analysis
below.
First, portions peripheral to the Great
Lakes metapopulation that may
frequently contain lone dispersing
wolves (e.g., Lower Peninsula of
Michigan, eastern North and South
Dakota) or may contain few wolves (e.g.,
Isle Royale) may be at greater risk from
human-caused mortality or from factors
related to small numbers of individuals.
However, wolves in these portions are
not meaningful to resiliency or
redundancy of the combined listed
entity because they are lone dispersers
from core wolf range or few or no
breeding pairs or are few in number and
likely to remain so (e.g., Isle Royale).
They are not contributing to
representation of the combined listed
entity because they dispersed or
descend from the core wolf populations
in the Great Lakes metapopulation or, in
the case of Isle Royale, are genetically
isolated and therefore have a low
probability of long-term genetic health.
Thus, these portions do not contribute
to the overall demographic or genetic
diversity of the lower 48 United States
entity and they lack genetic uniqueness
relative to other wolves in the entity.
Further, gray wolves are a highly
adaptable species with high dispersal
capability, thus allowing them to adapt
to changing environmental conditions.
Therefore, we find that these portions
are not ‘‘significant’’ because they are
not biologically meaningful to the
combined listed entity in terms of its
resiliency, redundancy, or
representation.
Second, State wolf-management zones
in which post-delisting depredation
control would be allowed under a
broader set of circumstances than in
core population zones (and, thus, would
likely experience higher levels of
human-caused mortality upon the
combined listed entity’s delisting), such
as Minnesota Wolf Management Zone B
(Federal Wolf Management Zone 5) or
Wisconsin Wolf Management Zones 3
and 4 may be at greater risk from
human-caused mortality or from factors
related to small numbers of individuals.
However, the wolves in these portions
occur on the periphery of a large
metapopulation (the Great Lakes
metapopulation), occur in areas of
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
limited habitat suitability, and do not
contribute appreciably to (and are thus
not biologically meaningful to) the
resiliency, redundancy, or
representation of the combined listed
entity. In fact, the Revised Recovery
Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf
advises against restoration of wolves in
State Zone B (Federal Zone 5).
Wolves in these higher intensity
management zones are not meaningful
to the resiliency of the combined listed
entity because, even though they
contain multiple established packs in
addition to lone wolves, they constitute
a small proportion of wolves in the
Great Lakes metapopulation and,
consequently, the combined listed
entity (Zone B contains approximately
15 percent of the Minnesota wolf
population; Zones 3 and 4 contain about
6 percent of the Wisconsin wolf
population). Thus, wolves in these
higher intensity management zones do
not contribute meaningfully to the
ability of wolves in the combined listed
entity to withstand stochastic processes.
Likewise, these higher intensity
management zones are not meaningful
to the redundancy of the combined
listed entity because wolves in these
zones represent a relatively small
number and distribution of packs in
their respective States and catastrophic
events have not affected wolf
populations at a multi-State scale in the
Great Lakes area, and we found no
indication that these events would
impact the long-term survival of wolves
throughout these States in the future.
Thus, wolves in these higher intensity
management zones do not contribute
meaningfully to the ability of wolf
populations in these States, the Great
Lakes metapopulation, or, consequently,
the combined listed entity, to withstand
catastrophic events. Wolves in these
higher intensity management zones are
not meaningful to the representation of
the combined listed entity because they
are genetically similar to other wolves
in the Great Lakes area of the combined
listed entity and because gray wolves
are a highly adaptable species with high
dispersal capability, thus allowing them
to adapt to changing environmental
conditions. Therefore, we do not find
that these portions may be significant
because they are not biologically
meaningful to the combined listed
entity in terms of its resiliency,
redundancy, or representation.
Third, the small number of wolves
occurring in the West Coast States and
the central Rocky Mountains are not a
significant portion of the combined
listed entity. Our evaluation of whether
any portions of the range may be
‘‘significant’’ is a biological inquiry. We
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
consider whether any portions are
biologically meaningful in terms of the
resiliency, redundancy, or
representation of gray wolves in the
combined listed entity. When the gray
wolf was listed in 1978, there were
about 1,200 wolves in Minnesota, and
those wolves later expanded into
Wisconsin and Michigan (USFWS 2020,
pp. 20–23). Unlike wolves that are
dispersing from the Great Lakes
metapopulation, the wolves that are
presently found in the West Coast States
and the central Rocky Mountains
originated primarily from the NRM
wolves (USFWS 2020, pp. 3–5). As the
delisted NRM population has continued
to expand under State management,
those wolves have moved into
California, Oregon, and Washington,
and most recently into Colorado. Those
wolves are not connected biologically to
the core populations in the combined
listed entity, and are not biologically
‘‘significant’’ to this entity.
We acknowledge that both the West
Coast States and central Rocky
Mountain portions of the combined
listed entity may be at greater risk from
human-caused mortality or from factors
related to small numbers of individuals.
However, wolves in these portions are
not meaningful to the redundancy or
resiliency of the combined listed entity
because they occur in extremely small
numbers and include relatively few
breeding pairs. There are seven known
breeding pairs in the West Coast States,
and a single group of six known
individuals in Colorado. Because these
wolves represent the expanding edge of
a recovered and stable source
population (the NRM DPS), and are
therefore not an independent
population within the combined listed
entity, the relatively small number of
wolves there do not contribute
meaningfully to the ability of any
population to withstand stochastic
events, nor to the entire entity’s ability
to withstand catastrophic events. These
portions are also not meaningful in
terms of representation, because (1) gray
wolves are a highly adaptable generalist
carnivore capable of long-distance
dispersal, and (2) the gray wolves in this
area are an extension of a large
population of wolves in the northern
Rocky Mountains. They are not an
isolated population with unique or
markedly different genotypic or
phenotypic traits that is evolving
separate from other wolf populations.
They are also well-represented in the
lower 48 United States as a result of
recovery in the NRM DPS. Therefore, we
do not find that this portion may be
significant to the combined listed entity
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
in terms of its resiliency, redundancy, or
representation.
We conclude that there are no
portions of the combined listed entity
for which both (1) gray wolves may be
in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future and
(2) the portion may be significant. As
discussed above, some may be in danger
of extinction or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future, but we do not
find that these portions may be
significant under any reasonable
definition of that term because they are
not biologically meaningful to the
combined listed entity in terms of its
resiliency, redundancy, or
representation. Conversely, other
portions that are or may be significant
(i.e., the core areas of the Great Lakes
metapopulation) are not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future. Because we could
not answer both screening questions in
the affirmative for these portions, we
conclude that these portions of the
range do not warrant further
consideration as a significant portion of
its range. Therefore, we conclude that
the combined listed entity is not in
danger of extinction or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future within a
significant portion of its range.
Combined Listed Entity: Final
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 species’’ and ‘‘endangered
species’’ contained in the Act and the
reasons for delisting as specified at 50
CFR 424.11(e), we conclude that
removing the two currently listed
entities of gray wolf (Canis lupus) from
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is appropriate.
Although this entity is not a species as
defined under the Act, we have
collectively evaluated the current and
potential threats to the combined listed
entity, including those that result from
past loss of historical range. Wolves in
the combined listed entity do not meet
the definition of a threatened species or
an endangered species as a result of the
reduction of threats as described in the
analysis of threats and are neither
currently in danger of extinction, nor
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future, throughout all or a significant
portion of their range.
Although substantial contraction of
gray wolf historical range occurred
within the combined listed entity since
European settlement, the range of the
gray wolf has expanded significantly
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69889
since its original listing in 1978, and the
impacts of lost historical range are no
longer manifesting in a way that
threatens the viability of the species.
The causes of the previous contraction
(for example, targeted extermination
efforts), and the effects of that
contraction (for example, reduced
numbers of individuals and
populations, and restricted gene flow),
in addition to the effects of all other
threats, have been ameliorated or
reduced such that the combined listed
entity does not meet the Act’s
definitions of ‘‘threatened species’’ or
‘‘endangered species.’’
Lower 48 United States Entity
Lower 48 United States Entity:
Determination of Status Throughout All
of Its Range
We have determined that Minnesota,
the 44-State entity, and the combined
listed entity are each not an endangered
species or a threatened species.
Therefore, no entity which includes any
of those components can be in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future throughout all of its
range because we have already conclude
that it is not threatened or endangered
throughout some of its range.
Nonetheless, below we independently
analyze whether the lower 48 United
States entity is in danger of extinction
or likely to become so throughout all of
its range. Then we turn to the question,
not already resolved, of whether that
entity is in danger of extinction or likely
to become so in a significant portion of
its range.
At the time gray wolves were first
listed under the Act in the 1970s,
wolves in the lower 48 United States
had been reduced to about 1,000
individuals and extirpated from all of
their range except northeastern
Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan, a
small fraction of the species’ historical
range in the lower 48 United States. The
primary cause of the decline of wolves
in the lower 48 United States was
targeted elimination by humans.
However, gray wolves are highly
adaptable; their populations are
remarkably resilient as long as prey
availability, habitat, and regulation of
human-caused mortality are adequate.
Established wolf populations can
rapidly overcome severe disruptions,
such as pervasive human-caused
mortality or disease, once those
disruptions are removed or reduced.
Provided the protections of the Act,
the number of gray wolves in the lower
48 United States (greater than 6,000
wolves) has increased more than sixfold
since the initial listings and about
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69890
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
fivefold since the 1978 reclassification.
The range of the species has expanded
from northeast Minnesota and Isle
Royale, Michigan, to include central and
northwestern Minnesota, the entire
Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and
northern and central Wisconsin in the
Eastern United States. In addition,
wolves in the Western United States
were functionally extinct at the time of
listing, but now viable populations
occupy large portions of Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, eastern
Washington, and eastern Oregon in the
Western United States. They are also
currently expanding from the NRM
region into the West Coast States
(western Washington, western Oregon,
northern California), and Colorado.
Despite the substantial increase in
gray wolf numbers and distribution
within the lower 48 United States since
1978, the species currently occupies
only a small portion of its historical
range within this area. This loss of
historical range has resulted in a
reduction of gray wolf individuals,
populations, and suitable habitat within
the lower 48 United States compared to
historical levels. Changes resulting from
range contraction for the lower 48
United States have increased the
vulnerability of the lower 48 United
States entity to threats such as reduced
genetic diversity and restricted gene
flow (reduced representation),
catastrophic events (reduced
redundancy), or stochastic disturbances
(reduced resiliency), such as annual
environmental fluctuations (prey
availability, pockets of disease
outbreaks) and anthropogenic stressors.
Wolves in the lower 48 United States
now exist primarily as two large,
genetically diverse, stable to growing
metapopulations, one currently
numbering over 4,200 individuals in the
Eastern United States (in the Great
Lakes area) and another numbering
about 1,900 individuals in 2015 in the
Western United States (in the NRM and
West Coast States) (figure 3). The
current number of individuals in the
western U. S. metapopulation is similar
to that in 2015, and this metapopulation
is currently recolonizing western
Washington, western Oregon, northern
California, and Colorado. Gray wolf
metapopulations—populations that are
connected to and interact with other
populations of the same species—are
widely recognized as being more secure
over the long term than are several
isolated populations that contain the
same total number of packs and
individuals (USFWS 1994, appendix 9).
This outcome is because adverse effects
experienced by one of its
subpopulations resulting from genetic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
drift, demographic shifts, and local
environmental fluctuations can be
countered by occasional influxes of
individuals and their genetic diversity
from other subpopulations in the
metapopulation. Furthermore, the high
reproductive potential of gray wolves
(USFWS 2020, p. 8) enables them to
withstand increased levels of mortality
and their ability to disperse long
distances allows them to quickly
expand and recolonize vacant habitats
(USFWS 2020, p. 7). Gray wolves are
also able to inhabit and survive in a
variety of habitats and take advantage of
available food resources (USFWS 2020,
p. 6).
Gray wolves in the lower 48 United
States entity are highly resilient to
perturbations because of their
abundance and broad distribution
across high-quality habitat in the entity.
Biological factors also play an important
part in the resiliency of wolves in the
entity, namely their high reproductive
capacity and genetic diversity. The large
sizes of the two metapopulations in the
entity, the high quality of the habitat
they occupy, and those biological
factors provide the entity resiliency in
the face of stochastic (random)
variability (annual environmental
fluctuations in, for example, prey
availability, pockets of disease
outbreaks; periodic disturbances, and
anthropogenic stressors). Further, the
two metapopulations and their broad
distribution across several States
provides the entity the redundancy to
survive a catastrophic event because
such an event is unlikely to
simultaneously affect gray wolf
populations in all the States across
which these metapopulations are
distributed. Lastly, the gray wolf is a
highly adaptable species that can
inhabit a variety of ecosystem types and
exploit available food resources in a
diversity of areas. Genetic, general size,
habitat, and dietary differences between
gray wolves currently found in the
Eastern United States (Great Lakes area)
and Western United States (NRM and
West Coast States) provide the entity
additional adaptive capacity. Thus, the
lower 48 United States entity contains
sufficient capacity to adapt to future
changes in the environment such that
their long-term survival is assured. In
sum, wolves in the Eastern and Western
United States contain sufficient
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to sustain populations in
the lower 48 United States entity over
time. This alone is sufficient for us to
determine that the lower 48 United
States entity is not currently in danger
of extinction throughout all of its range.
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
While the lower 48 United States
entity contains sufficient resiliency,
redundancy, and representation to
sustain the entity over time, the viability
of the entity is increased even further
via connectivity of the entity to
populations in Canada. Connection of
the Great Lakes metapopulation and
western U.S. metapopulation to a
population of about 12,000–14,000
wolves in eastern Canada and 15,000
gray wolves in western Canada,
respectively, further increases the
resiliency, and representation (via gene
flow), of the Great Lakes and western
U.S. metapopulations, increasing the
viability of the entity. Further, with
ongoing State management in the NRM
States, expansion of the western U. S.
metapopulation into unoccupied
suitable habitat in the West is likely to
continue, as envisioned in State wolf
conservation and management plans,
further increasing the resiliency and
redundancy of the lower 48 United
States entity in the future.
Our conclusion that the lower 48
United States entity is not currently in
danger of extinction in all of its range
is consistent with our historical view of
the recovery of the species. We have
long considered gray wolf recovery in
the lower 48 states to mean recovery in
three regions: The NRM, Eastern United
States, and, as explained above,
Southwestern United States. Wolves in
the Southwestern United States
(Mexican wolves) are listed separately
with ongoing recovery efforts, and that
listing is not affected by this final rule.
Wolves in the remaining two regions,
the NRM and Eastern United States,
exist in two metapopulations that
greatly exceed the recovery criteria for
gray wolves in each region. Gray wolves
in the NRM and Eastern United States
(the Great Lakes area) meet the longheld recovery criteria set by the NRM
Recovery Team and Eastern Timber
Wolf Recovery Team (respectively)
because these areas contain sufficient
wolf numbers and distribution, threats
have been alleviated, and the States and
Tribes are committed to continued
management such that the long-term
survival of the gray wolf in these two
regions is ensured. Although there is no
requirement that the criteria in a
recovery plan be satisfied before a
species may be delisted, the fact that
wolves in the NRM and Eastern United
States regions have met the recovery
criteria supports our conclusion that the
metapopulations together contain
sufficient wolf numbers and distribution
to ensure the long-term survival of the
lower 48 United States entity.
The recovery of the lower 48 United
States entity is attributable primarily to
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
successful interagency cooperation in
the management of human-caused
mortality. That mortality is the most
significant barrier to the long-term
conservation of wolves. We expect that
wildlife managers will implement, or
continue to use, an adaptive
management approach to wolves that
ensures maintenance of a recovered
wolf population into the foreseeable
future. Legal harvest and lethal control
to reduce depredations on livestock are
the primary human-caused mortality
factors that State, Tribal, and Federal
agencies can manipulate to achieve
management objectives and minimize
depredation risk once delisting occurs.
In the Western United States, the
NRM States have successfully managed
for sustainable wolf populations since
the NRM DPS was first delisted in
2008–2009 (Idaho, Montana, eastern
one-third of Washington and Oregon,
north-central Utah) and 2008 and 2012
(Wyoming). Even with increased levels
of human-caused mortality, gray wolf
numbers have remained relatively stable
in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming since
the delisting of the NRM DPS and have
increased in the broader Western United
States as NRM wolves have expanded
their range into the Washington and
Oregon part of the NRM DPS, the West
Coast States (western Washington,
western Oregon, and northern
California), and Colorado.
The core NRM wolf populations occur
in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
These States have demonstrated their
commitment to managing their wolf
populations at or above recovery levels
for years, and we do not expect this
commitment to change. Further, while
State wolf-management plans for
Washington, Oregon, and California do
not yet include population management
goals, these plans include recovery
objectives intended to ensure the
reestablishment of self-sustaining
populations in these States. We expect
Washington, Oregon, and California will
manage wolves through appropriate
laws and regulations to ensure that the
recovery objectives outlined in their
respective wolf management plans are
achieved.
Wolves in the Eastern United States
are well above Federal recovery levels
defined in the revised Eastern Timber
Wolf Recovery Plan. As a result, we can
expect to see some reduction in wolf
populations in the Great Lakes area as
States begin to institute management
strategies designed to stabilize or
reverse population growth, while
continuing to maintain wolf populations
well above Federal recovery levels in
their respective States. Using an
adaptive-management approach that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
adjusts harvest based on population
estimates and trends, the initial
objectives of States may be to reduce
wolf populations and then manage for
sustainable populations, similar to how
States manage all other game species.
For example, in 2013–2014, during a
period when gray wolves were federally
delisted in the Great Lakes area,
Wisconsin reduced the State’s wolf
harvest quota by 43 percent in response
to a population count that was lower
than expected compared to the previous
year.
Based on our analysis, we conclude
that eastern U.S. States will maintain,
and NRM States will continue to
maintain, wolf populations that will
remain above recovery levels for the
foreseeable future because the threat of
unregulated human-caused mortality
has been sufficiently reduced. The NRM
States have successfully managed gray
wolves well above recovery levels for
years and we have no reason to believe
this will change. As demonstrated by
current State management, maintenance
of the recovered wolf population in the
NRM States is likely to continue,
providing ample opportunities for
wolves to continue to recolonize vacant
suitable habitat in the West. In the
Eastern United States, States have wolfmanagement laws, plans, and
regulations that adequately regulate
human-caused mortality and each has
committed to manage its wolf
population at or above recovery levels.
We expect this commitment to continue
into the foreseeable future. Wolfmonitoring programs, as described in
the State wolf-management plans, are
likely to identify population parameters
and trends that warrant corrective
action, and we have no information that
would lead us to question the
commitment of wildlife management
agencies to implementing these adaptive
changes to ensure the recovered status
of wolves. Based on our review, we
conclude that regulatory mechanisms
are adequate to maintain the recovered
status of wolves in the two
metapopulations in the lower 48 United
States and, consequently, the lower 48
United States entity, once the currently
listed gray wolf entities are federally
delisted.
Although much of the historical range
of the lower 48 United States is no
longer occupied, we find that the
amount and distribution of occupied
wolf habitat currently provides, and will
continue to provide, large core areas
that contain high-quality habitat of
sufficient size and with sufficient prey
to support recovered wolf populations.
Our analysis of land management shows
these areas, specifically Minnesota Wolf
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69891
Management Zone A (Federal Wolf
Management Zones 1–4), Wisconsin
Wolf Zone 1, and the Upper Peninsula
of Michigan in the Eastern United
States, and large areas of Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming in the Western
United States, will maintain their
suitability into the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we conclude that, despite the
loss of large areas of historical range in
the lower 48 United States, the States of
Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin in
the East and Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming, in the West contain a
sufficient amount of high-quality wolf
habitat to support viable and recovered
wolf populations into the foreseeable
future. Further, Washington, Oregon,
California, Colorado, and Utah contain
suitable wolf habitat, much of which is
currently unoccupied, that is capable of
supporting additional wolves.
Expansion of the NRM population into
unoccupied suitable habitat in the
Western United States is ongoing and is
likely to continue post-delisting, which
will increase wolf abundance and
distribution in the United States.
Although wolves in these areas would
add additional redundancy, they are not
necessary in order to conserve wolves to
the point that they no longer meet the
definitions of endangered or threatened
under the Act.
While disease and parasites can
temporarily affect individuals, specific
packs, or small, isolated populations
(e.g., Isle Royale), seldom do they pose
a significant threat to large wolf
populations (e.g., core populations in
the western United States and Great
Lakes area) as a whole. As long as wolf
populations are managed above
recovery levels, these factors are not
likely to threaten the viability of the
wolf population in the lower 48 United
States entity at any point in the
foreseeable future. Similarly, while
changes in genetic diversity or
population structuring may occur postdelisting, they are not likely to be of
such a magnitude that they pose a
significant threat to the entity; available
evidence indicates that continued
dispersal, even at a lower rate, within
and among areas of the lower 48 United
States will be adequate to maintain
sufficient genetic diversity for
continued viability. Climate change is
also likely to remain an insignificant
factor affecting the population dynamics
of wolves into the foreseeable future,
due to the adaptability of the species.
Finally, based on our analysis, we
conclude that cumulative effects of
threats do not now, nor are likely to
within the foreseeable future, threaten
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
69892
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
the viability of the lower 48 United
States entity throughout its range.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the lower 48
United States. We evaluated the status
of the lower 48 United States entity and
assessed the factors likely to negatively
affect it, including threats identified at
listing, at the time of reclassification,
now, and into the foreseeable future.
While wolves currently occupy only a
portion of their historical range in the
lower 48 United States, the best
available information indicates that the
lower 48 United States entity does not
meet the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species because
of any one or a combination of the five
factors set forth in the Act.
Specifically, we have determined,
based on the best available information,
that human-caused mortality (Factor C);
habitat and prey availability (Factor A);
disease and parasites (Factor C); genetic
diversity and inbreeding (Factor E);
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational uses (Factor B); climate
change (Factor E); or other threats,
singly or in combination, are not of
sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate that the lower 48
United States entity is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so within
the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range. We have also determined that
ongoing recovery efforts, which resulted
in a significant expansion of the
occupied range of and number of wolves
in the lower 48 United States over the
past decades, in conjunction with
regulatory mechanisms developed and
implemented by State, Tribal, and
Federal managers, are or will be
adequate to ensure the conservation of
wolves in the lower 48 United States.
These recovery efforts will maintain an
adequate prey base, preserve denning
and rendezvous sites, monitor disease,
regulate human take, and maintain wolf
populations well above the recovery
criteria established in the revised
Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan and
NRM recovery plan (USFWS 1992, pp.
25–28; USFWS 1987, p. 12). Based on
our analysis of threats we conclude that,
as long as wolf populations in the
Eastern United States are maintained at
or above identified recovery levels and
core wolf populations in the NRM States
continue to be maintained well above
recovery levels, wolf biology (namely
the species’ reproductive capacity and
dispersal capability) and the availability
of large, secure blocks of suitable habitat
within the occupied areas will allow
wolf populations to withstand all other
foreseeable threats.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Therefore, after assessing the best
available information, despite the large
amount of lost historical range (see
Historical Context of Our Analysis), we
have determined that the lower 48
United States entity is not in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range,
nor is it likely to become so in the
foreseeable future.
Because we determined that the lower
48 United States entity is not in danger
of extinction or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range, we will consider whether
there are any significant portions of its
range that are in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable
future.
Lower 48 United States Entity:
Determination of Status Throughout a
Significant Portion of Its Range
After reviewing the biology of the
lower 48 United States entity and
potential threats, we have not identified
any portions of the entity’s range for
which both (1) gray wolves may be in
danger of extinction or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future (i.e., areas in
which threats may be concentrated) and
(2) the portion may be significant. We
reiterate that ‘‘range’’ refers to the
general geographical area within which
the species is found at the time of our
determination (see Definition and
Treatment of Range). ‘‘Portion of its
range’’ refers to the members of the
species that occur in a particular
geographic area of the species’ current
range. This is because, while ‘‘portion of
the range’’ is part of the species’ range
(i.e., a geographical area), when we
evaluate a significant portion of its
range, we consider the contribution of
the individuals that are in that portion
at the time we make a determination.
While we identified some portions that
may be at increased risk from humancaused mortality or factors related to
small numbers, we did not find that any
of these portions may be significant. We
provide our analysis below.
First, portions peripheral to the Great
Lakes metapopulation within the lower
48 United States that may frequently
contain lone dispersing wolves (e.g., the
Lower Peninsula of Michigan, North
and South Dakota) or contain relatively
few wolves (e.g., Isle Royale) may be at
greater risk from human-caused
mortality or from factors related to small
numbers of individuals. However,
wolves in these portions are not
meaningful to resiliency or redundancy
because they contain few wolves, or few
or no breeding pairs. They are not
contributing to representation because
they dispersed or descend from the core
wolf populations in the Great Lakes
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
metapopulation or, in the case of Isle
Royale, are genetically isolated. Thus,
these portions do not contribute to the
overall demographic or genetic diversity
of the lower 48 United States entity, and
they lack genetic uniqueness relative to
other wolves in the entity. Further, gray
wolves are a highly adaptable species
with high dispersal capability, thus
allowing them to adapt to changing
environmental conditions. Therefore,
we do not find that these portions may
be ‘‘significant’’ because they are not
biologically meaningful to the lower 48
United States entity in terms of its
resiliency, redundancy, or
representation.
Second, portions peripheral to the
western United Sates metapopulation
within the lower 48 United States entity
that may frequently contain lone
dispersing wolves or contain relatively
few wolves (e.g., central Rocky
Mountains, western Washington,
western Oregon, northern California)
may be at greater risk from humancaused mortality or from factors related
to small numbers of individuals.
However, wolves in these portions are
not meaningful to resiliency or
redundancy because they contain few
wolves, or few or no breeding pairs.
They are not contributing to
representation because they dispersed
or descend from the core wolf
populations in the NRM. Thus, these
portions do not contribute to the overall
demographic or genetic diversity of the
lower 48 United States entity and they
lack genetic uniqueness relative to other
wolves in the entity. Further, gray
wolves are a highly adaptable species
with high dispersal capability, thus
allowing them to adapt to changing
environmental conditions. Therefore,
we do not find that these portions may
be ‘‘significant’’ because they are not
biologically meaningful to the lower 48
United States entity in terms of its
resiliency, redundancy, or
representation.
Third, State wolf-management zones
in which post-delisting depredation
control would be, or is, allowed under
a broader set of circumstances than in
core population zones (and, thus, would
likely experience higher levels of
human-caused mortality when the
currently listed C. lupus entities are
delisted), such as Minnesota Wolf
Management Zone B, Wisconsin Wolf
Management Zones 3 and 4, and areas
of Wyoming in which wolves are
managed as predators, may be at greater
risk from human-caused mortality or
from factors related to small numbers of
individuals. However, the wolves in
these portions occur on the periphery of
large populations, occur in areas of
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
limited habitat suitability, and do not
contribute appreciably to (and are thus
not biologically meaningful to) the
resiliency, redundancy, or
representation of the lower 48 United
States entity.
Wolves in these higher intensity
management zones are not meaningful
to the resiliency of the lower 48 United
States entity because, even though they
may contain multiple established packs
in addition to lone wolves, they
constitute a small proportion of wolves
in their respective populations and,
consequently, the lower 48 United
States entity (Minnesota Zone B
contains about 15 percent of the
Minnesota wolf population, Wisconsin
Zones 3 and 4 contain about 6 percent
of the Wisconsin wolf population, and
the Wyoming predator zone contains
about 8 percent of the Wyoming wolf
population (based on an estimated
population of 26 wolves in this zone in
2019)). Thus, wolves in the higher
intensity management zones do not
contribute meaningfully to the ability of
wolves in the lower 48 United States
entity to withstand stochastic processes.
Likewise, these higher intensity
management zones are not meaningful
to the redundancy of the lower 48
United States entity because wolves in
these zones represent a relatively small
number and distribution of packs or
individuals in their respective States,
and we found no indication that
catastrophic events are likely to occur at
a scale that would impact the long-term
survival of wolves throughout these
States. Thus, wolves in these higher
intensity management zones do not
contribute meaningfully to the ability of
wolf populations in these States, the
two metapopulations, or, consequently,
the lower 48 United States entity, to
withstand catastrophic events. Wolves
in these higher intensity management
zones are not meaningful to the
representation of the lower 48 United
States entity because they are
genetically similar to other wolves in
the western U.S. or Great Lakes
metapopulation and because gray
wolves are a highly adaptable species
with high dispersal capability, thus
allowing them to adapt to changing
environmental conditions. Therefore,
we do not find that these portions may
be significant because they are not
biologically meaningful to the lower 48
United States entity in terms of its
resiliency, redundancy, or
representation.
We conclude that there are no
portions of the lower 48 United States
entity for which both (1) gray wolves
may be in danger of extinction or likely
to become so in the foreseeable future
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
and (2) the portion may be significant.
As discussed above, some may be in
danger of extinction or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future, but we do
not find that these portions may be
significant under any reasonable
definition of that term because they are
not biologically meaningful to the lower
48 United States entity in terms of its
resiliency, redundancy, or
representation. Conversely, other
portions that are or may be significant
(i.e., the core areas of the Great Lakes
and western U.S. metapopulations) are
not in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, because we could not answer
both screening questions in the
affirmative for these portions, we
conclude that these portions of the
range do not warrant further
consideration as a significant portion of
its range. Therefore, we conclude that
the lower 48 United States entity is not
in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future
within a significant portion of its range.
Lower 48 United States Entity: Final
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 species’’ and ‘‘endangered
species’’ contained in the Act and the
reasons for delisting as specified at 50
CFR 424.11(e), we conclude that
removing gray wolves currently listed in
the lower 48 United States from the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(50 CFR 17.11) is appropriate. Although
this entity is not a species as defined
under the Act, we have collectively
evaluated the current and potential
threats to the lower 48 United States
entity, including those that result from
past loss of historical range. Wolves in
the lower 48 United States entity do not
meet the definition of a threatened
species or an endangered species as a
result of the reduction of threats as
described in the analysis of threats and
are neither currently in danger of
extinction, nor likely to become so in
the foreseeable future, throughout all or
a significant portion of their range.
Although substantial contraction of
gray wolf historical range occurred
within the lower 48 United States entity
since European settlement, the range of
the gray wolf has expanded significantly
since its original listing in 1978, and the
impacts of lost historical range are no
longer manifesting in a way that
threatens the viability of the species.
The causes of the previous contraction
(for example, targeted extermination
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
69893
efforts), and the effects of that
contraction (for example, reduced
numbers of individuals and
populations, and restricted gene flow),
in addition to the effects of all other
threats, have been ameliorated or
reduced such that the lower 48 United
States entity does not meet the Act’s
definitions of ‘‘threatened species’’ or
‘‘endangered species.’’
Determination of Species Status:
Conclusion
Gray wolves were listed under the Act
in the 1970s, when the species
numbered only about 1,000 individuals
and occupied only northeastern
Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan, a
small fraction of its historical range in
the lower 48 United States. Since then,
our longstanding approach to gray wolf
recovery has been to establish healthy
populations of gray wolves in three
areas of ecological or genetic diversity:
The Western United States (the NRM),
the Eastern United States, and the
Southwestern United States. In two of
those areas—the NRM and Eastern
United States—wolves are now
recovered. As a result, gray wolves in
the lower 48 states (excepting the
Mexican wolf) are recovered. The
western U.S. metapopulation, with
stable populations of about 1,900
wolves (in 2015) distributed across
several States, has been delisted for
years and remains recovered. The
successful recovery of wolves in the
NRM is highlighted by the recent and
ongoing extension of the population
farther westward, into western
Washington, western Oregon, northern
California, and southward into
Colorado. The Great Lakes
metapopulation, with stable or growing
populations totaling over 4,200 wolves
in three States, is also recovered for the
reasons explained in this final rule. In
the third area on which we have focused
our recovery efforts—the Southwestern
United States—the Mexican wolf
subspecies of gray wolf is now
separately listed as an endangered
species and has not yet recovered.
Recovery and delisting of gray wolves in
the NRM and Eastern United States is
consistent with the requirements of the
Act and will further its conservation
purposes by allowing us to focus our
recovery efforts on imperiled wolves in
the Southwestern United States.
Effects of This Rule
This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) by
removing the two existing C. lupus
listed entities from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
This rule also removes the special
regulations found at 50 CFR 17.40(d) for
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
69894
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
wolves in Minnesota and the
designation of critical habitat found at
50 CFR 17.95(a) for gray wolves in
Minnesota and on Isle Royale,
Michigan.
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. Under section
4(g)(2) of the Act, we are required to
make prompt use of the emergencylisting authority 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. However, 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
State and Federal agencies or Tribal
governments that are expected to
assume management authority for the
species’ conservation. In some cases,
agencies have already devoted
significant resources toward wolf
monitoring efforts.
Our monitoring activities will focus
on wolves within Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan. Although the
entities evaluated in this rule include
wolves outside of those states, we have
determined that it is appropriate to
focus on the Great Lakes area because it
includes the currently-listed Minnesota
entity and that portion of the 44-State
entity that is most significant in terms
of vulnerability of the species following
removal of the Act’s protections.
Therefore, by evaluating the monitoring
data from the Great Lakes states, we can
effectively monitor the status of the
species. As explained above (see
Determination of Species Status),
wolves occupying other portions of the
lower 48 United States (the West Coast
States and the central Rocky Mountains)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
occur in small numbers and are part of
the recovered and delisted population of
gray wolves in the NRM DPS. In the
NRM states, post-delisting monitoring is
either already completed (Idaho and
Montana) or currently in place
(Wyoming). This rule does not affect the
status of wolves in the NRM DPS
because they are already delisted and
we are not revisiting that determination.
Thus, even though we evaluated a lower
48 United States entity, the wolves in
the NRM states are not included in our
post-delisting monitoring activities for
this rule.
We will monitor wolves in the Great
Lakes area in accordance with our
February 2008 Post-Delisting
Monitoring Plan for the Western Great
Lakes Distinct Population Segment of
the Gray Wolf, which we developed
with the assistance of the Eastern
Timber Wolf Recovery Team.
The 2008 plan, although written for a
distinct population segment that no
longer exists, is still applicable within
the Great Lakes area because it focuses
on monitoring wolves within the
borders of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and
we have determined that there is no
new information that would cause us to
revise the plan. The plan is available on
our website at https://www.fws.gov/
midwest/wolf/population/.
Under the plan, we will rely on a
continuation of State monitoring
activities, similar to those that have
been conducted by the Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan Departments
of Natural Resources in recent years,
and Tribal monitoring. These activities
will include both population monitoring
and health monitoring of individual
wolves. During the PDM period, the
Service 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, and range
expansion or contraction) to determine
if the population of wolves within the
borders of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
warrants expanded monitoring,
additional research, consideration for
relisting as threatened or endangered, or
emergency listing.
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
Departments of Natural Resources have
monitored wolves for several decades
with significant assistance from
numerous partners, including the U.S.
Forest Service, National Park Service,
Wildlife Services, Tribal natural
resource agencies, and the Service. To
maximize comparability of future PDM
data with data obtained before delisting,
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
all three State Departments of Natural
Resources have committed to continue
their previous wolf-populationmonitoring methodology, or will make
changes to that methodology only if
those changes will not reduce the
comparability of pre- and post-delisting
data. Occupancy modeling has emerged
as a scientifically valid technique for
estimating population size (Rich et al.
2013, entire; Ausband et al. 2014, entire)
and is currently used by numerous
States to track wolf numbers (e.g., Idaho,
Minnesota, Montana). Wisconsin has
begun to explore using data from
traditional track surveys and radiocollared wolves in an occupancy
modeling framework to develop modeldriven estimates of wolf population
size. However, current count-based
estimates based on track surveys and
data from radio-collared wolves will
continue to be reported in future years,
ensuring comparability of pre- and postdelisting population size estimates and
allowing validation of estimates derived
from occupancy models. Wisconsin may
modify data collection methods in the
future to more fully embrace the
occupancy modeling approach, but only
after validation of occupancy models for
a minimum of 3 years and in
consultation with Service staff.
In addition to monitoring wolf
population numbers and trends, postdelisting monitoring will evaluate postdelisting threats, in particular humancaused 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
consider relisting the gray wolf, if
warranted.
We will implement post-delisting
monitoring for 5 years beyond the
effective date of this rule (see DATES,
above). We believe that 5 years of postdelisting monitoring is sufficient for the
reasons stated in the 2008 plan: (1) The
Great Lakes population is estimated to
be several times greater than the
numerical delisting criteria in the
recovery plan; and (2) we do not
envision any threat or combination of
threats that is or are likely to lead to a
rapid decline in wolf numbers in those
states. At the end of the 5-year
monitoring period, we will conduct a
final review and we may request
reviews by former members of the
Eastern Gray Wolf Recovery Team and
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
other independent specialists. We will
post the results of the review on our
website. Based on the final review, we
will determine whether to continue
monitoring and evaluate whether the
gray wolf meets the definition of a
threatened species or an endangered
species.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act
We determined that we do not need
to prepare an environmental assessment
or an environmental impact statement,
as defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 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).
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Nov 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
We coordinated the proposed rule
with the affected Tribes and,
furthermore, throughout several years of
development of earlier related rules and
the March 15, 2019, 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 changes, and (2) to
understand their concerns with those
changes. Upon publication of the
proposed rule, we invited federally
recognized Tribes to consult on a
government-to-government basis on our
March 15, 2019, proposed rule. We also
presented an overview of the proposed
rule at the 37th Annual-Native
American Fish and Wildlife Society
Conference. In preparation of this rule,
we met with the Chippewa Ottawa
Resources Authority Board and the
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission’s Voigt Inter-Tribal Task
Force to discuss the proposal. We also
offered to meet individually with and
discuss the proposal with any Tribe that
wanted to do so and met with the
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community
Natural Resources Program, Fond du
Lac Band of Chippewa Indians, and the
Nez Perce. Additionally, we have fully
considered all of the comments on the
proposed rule submitted by Tribes and
Tribal organizations and have attempted
to address concerns, new data, and new
information where appropriate.
If requested, we will conduct
additional consultations with Native
American Tribes and multi-Tribal
organizations subsequent to this final
rule to facilitate the transition to State
and Tribal management of wolves
within the lower 48 United States
outside of the NRM DPS, where wolves
are already under State and Tribal
management.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this rule is available at https://
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
69895
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–HQ–ES–2018–0097 or upon
request from the Service’s Headquarters
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are
Service staff members.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby amend part
17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set
forth below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
§ 17.11
[Amended]
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing both
entries for ‘‘Wolf, gray (Canis lupus)’’
under Mammals in the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
■
§ 17.40
[Amended]
3. Amend § 17.40 by removing and
reserving paragraph (d).
■
§ 17.95
[Amended]
4. Amend § 17.95(a) by removing the
critical habitat entry for ‘‘Gray Wolf
(Canis lupus).’’
■
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–24171 Filed 11–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM
03NOR3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69778-69895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24171]
[[Page 69777]]
Vol. 85
Tuesday,
No. 213
November 3, 2020
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf
(Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 69778]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 212]
RIN 1018-BD60
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray
Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule and notification of petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS),
have evaluated the classification status of the gray wolf (Canis lupus)
entities currently listed in the lower 48 United States and Mexico
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on
our evaluation, we are removing the gray wolf entities in the lower 48
United States and Mexico, except for the Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi),
that are currently on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
We are taking this action because the best available scientific and
commercial data available establish that the gray wolf entities in the
lower 48 United States do not meet the definitions of a threatened
species or an endangered species under the Act. The effect of this
rulemaking action is that C. lupus is not classified as a threatened or
endangered species under the Act. This rule does not have any effect on
the separate listing of the Mexican wolf subspecies (Canis lupus
baileyi) as endangered under the Act. In addition, we announce a 90-day
finding on a petition to maintain protections for the gray wolf in the
lower 48 United States as endangered or threatened distinct population
segments. Based on our review, we find that the petition does not
present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, we are not
initiating status reviews of the petitioned entities in response to the
petition.
DATES: This rule is effective January 4, 2021.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, the post-delisting monitoring plan, and the
summary of the basis for the petition finding contained in this
document are available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097 or https://ecos.fws.gov. Comments
and materials we received, as well as some supporting documentation we
used in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at
https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bridget Fahey, Chief, Division of
Classification and Conservation, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Headquarters Office, MS: ES, 5275, Leesburg Pike,
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone (703) 358-2163. Persons who use
a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act and our regulations,
if we determine that a species is no longer threatened or endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we must remove
the species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.11 and
17.12). The Act requires us to issue a rule to remove a species from
the List (``delist'' it) (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)).
What this document does. This rule removes from the List gray
wolves that are currently listed as threatened or endangered species in
the lower 48 United States and Mexico. This rule does not have any
effect on the separate listing of the Mexican wolf subspecies as
endangered under the Act (80 FR 2487, January 16, 2015).
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we determine whether a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any one or more
of five factors or the cumulative effects thereof: (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 (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1(A)). We have
determined that the gray wolf entities currently listed in the lower 48
United States and Mexico (not including the Mexican wolf subspecies) do
not meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species
under the Act.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments on the proposed
delisting rule from independent specialists to ensure that this rule is
based on reasonable assumptions and scientifically sound data and
analyses. We also considered all comments and information we received
during the proposed delisting rule's comment period.
Table of Contents
Previous Federal Actions
General Background
The 1978 Reclassification
National Wolf Strategy
The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory
Definition of a ``Species''
Approach for This Rule
The Gray Wolf Entities Addressed in This Rule
Why and How We Address Each Configuration of Gray Wolf Entities
The Two Listed Entities Assessed Separately
The Two Listed Entities Assessed in Combination
The Two Listed Entities and the NRM DPS Assessed in Combination
How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing
How We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties in This Rule
Definition and Treatment of Range
Summary of Our Approach
Species Information
Biology and Ecology
Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America
Range and Population Trends Prior to 1978 Reclassification
Historical Range
Historical Abundance
Historical Trends in Range and Abundance
Distribution and Abundance at the Time of the 1978
Reclassification
Current Distribution and Abundance
Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery Implementation
Recovery Criteria for the Eastern United States
Recovery Progress in the Eastern United States
Recovery Criteria for the NRM
Recovery Progress in the NRM DPS
Historical Context of Our Analysis
Regulatory Framework
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Human-Caused Mortality
Human-Caused Mortality in the Currently Listed Entities
Human-Caused Mortality in the NRM DPS
Regulated Harvest in Idaho
Depredation Control in Idaho
Wolf Population and Human-Caused Mortality in Idaho Summary
Regulated Harvest in Montana
Depredation Control in Montana
Wolf Population and Human-Caused Mortality in Montana Summary
Regulated Harvest in Wyoming
Depredation Control in Wyoming
Wolf Population and Human-Caused Mortality in Wyoming Summary
Regulated Harvest in Oregon
Depredation Control in Oregon
Wolf Population and Human-Caused Mortality in Oregon Summary
Regulated Harvest in Washington
Depredation Control in Washington
Wolf Population and Human-Caused Mortality in Washington Summary
[[Page 69779]]
Effects on Wolf Social Structure and Pack Dynamics
The Role of Public Attitudes
Human-Caused Mortality Summary
Habitat and Prey Availability
Great Lakes Area: Suitable Habitat
Great Lakes Area: Prey Availability
NRM DPS: Suitable Habitat
NRM DPS: Prey Availability
West Coast States: Suitable Habitat
West Coast States: Prey Availability
Central Rocky Mountains: Suitable Habitat
Central Rocky Mountains: Prey Availability
Habitat and Prey Availability Summary
Disease and Parasites
Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding
Effects of Climate Change
Cumulative Effects
Ongoing and Post-Delisting State, Tribal, and Federal Wolf
Management
Ongoing Management in the Delisted NRM DPS
State Management
Idaho
Montana
Wyoming
Tribal Management and Conservation of Wolves
Wind River Indian Reservation
Blackfeet Indian Reservation
Flathead Indian Reservation
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Management on Federal Lands
Summary of Management in the NRM DPS
Post-Delisting Management Where Wolves are Currently Listed
State Management in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
The Minnesota Wolf Management Plan
Depredation Control in Minnesota
Post-Delisting Depredation Control in Minnesota
Post-Delisting Regulated Harvest in Minnesota
The Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan
Depredation Control in Wisconsin
Post-Delisting Depredation Control in Wisconsin
Post-Delisting Regulated Harvest in Wisconsin
The Michigan Wolf Management Plan
Depredation Control in Michigan
Post-Delisting Depredation Control in Michigan
Post-Delisting Regulated Harvest in Michigan
State Management in the West Coast States
The Oregon Wolf Management Plan
The Washington Wolf Management Plan
The California Wolf Management Plan
State Management in the Central Rocky Mountains
Post-Delisting Management in Colorado
Post-Delisting Management in Utah
Tribal Management and Conservation of Wolves
Management on Federal Lands
Great Lakes Area
West Coast States
Central Rocky Mountains
Summary of Post-Delisting Management
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
Peer Reviewer Comments
Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or Population Trends
Human-Caused Mortality
Habitat and Prey Availability
Disease and Parasites
Post-Delisting Management
General
Biological Report
Policy
State and Federal Agency Comments
Recovery and Delisting
Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or Population Trends
Taxonomy
Human-Caused Mortality
Effects of Climate Change
Genetics
Post-Delisting Management
Policy
Tribal and Tribal Organization Comments
Public Comments
Recovery and Delisting
Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or Population Trends
Taxonomy
Human-Caused Mortality
Habitat and Prey Availability
Disease and Parasites
Effects of Climate Change
Genetics
Additional Threats
Post-Delisting Management
Post-Delisting Monitoring
General
Policy
Evaluation of a Petition To Revise the Listings for the Gray Wolf
Under the Act
Background
Species and Range
Petition History
Findings
Alternatives 1 and 2
Alternative 3
Determination of Species Status
Currently Listed Entities
Minnesota: Determination of Status Throughout All of Its Range
Minnesota: Determination of Status Throughout a Significant
Portion of Its Range
Minnesota: Final Determination
44-State Entity: Determination of Status Throughout All of Its
Range
44-State Entity: Determination of Status Throughout a
Significant Portion of Its Range
44-State Entity: Final Determination
Combined Listed Entity
Combined Listed Entity: Determination of Status Throughout All
of Its Range
Combined Listed Entity: Determination of Status Throughout a
Significant Portion of Its Range
Combined Listed Entity: Final Determination
Lower 48 United States Entity
Lower 48 United States Entity: Determination of Status
Throughout All of Its Range
Lower 48 United States Entity: Determination of Status
Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Lower 48 United States Entity: Final Determination
Determination of Species Status: Conclusion
Effects of This Rule
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
Previous Federal Actions
Gray wolves were originally listed as subspecies or as regional
populations \1\ of subspecies in the lower 48 United States and Mexico.
Early listings were under legislative predecessors of the Act--the
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and the Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1969. Later listings were under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973. The Federal Register citations for all the
rulemaking actions described in the following paragraphs are provided
in table 1, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A group of fish or wildlife in the same taxon below the
subspecific level, in common spatial arrangement that interbreed
when mature (50 CFR 17.3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1978, we published a rule reclassifying the gray wolf throughout
the lower 48 United States and Mexico, subsuming the earlier listings
of subspecies or regional populations of subspecies. In that rule, we
classified gray wolves in Minnesota as a threatened species and gray
wolves elsewhere in the lower 48 United States and Mexico as an
endangered species (table 1). At that time, we considered the gray
wolves in Minnesota to be a listable entity under the Act, and we
considered the gray wolves in the lower 48 United States and Mexico,
other than Minnesota, to be another listable entity (43 FR 9607 and
9610, respectively, March 9, 1978). The earlier subspecies listings
thus were subsumed into two listed entities: The gray wolf in
Minnesota; and the gray wolf in the rest of the lower 48 United States
and Mexico.
The 1978 reclassification was undertaken to address changes in our
understanding of gray wolf taxonomy and protect all gray wolves in the
lower 48 United States and Mexico (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). In
addition, we also clarified that the gray wolf was only listed south of
the Canadian border.
The 1978 reclassification rule stipulated 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).
Accordingly, we implemented three gray wolf recovery programs in three
regions of the country--the
[[Page 69780]]
northern Rocky Mountains, the Southwestern United States, and the
Eastern United States (including the Great Lakes States). The recovery
programs were pursued to establish and prioritize recovery criteria and
actions appropriate to the unique local circumstances of the gray wolf
(table 1). Recovery in one of these regions (Southwestern United
States) included reintroduction of gray wolves in an experimental
population (table 1). Recovery in a second region (northern Rocky
Mountains) included reintroduction of gray wolves in an experimental
population (table 1) and natural recolonization. Recovery in the third
region (Eastern United States) relied on natural recolonization and
population growth.
Between 2003 and 2015, we published several rules revising the 1978
listed entities to acknowledge new information regarding taxonomy,
comport with current policy and practices, and recognize the biological
recovery of gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) and
Eastern United States. Previous rules were challenged and subsequently
invalidated or vacated by various courts based, in part, on their
determinations that our distinct population segment (DPS) designations
were legally flawed (table 1).
Of particular relevance to this rule is our 2011 final rule
addressing wolf recovery in the western Great Lakes (WGL) area of the
Eastern United States (76 FR 81666, Dec. 28, 2011). In that rule, we
recognized the expansion of the Minnesota wolf population by revising
the previously listed Minnesota entity to include all or portions of
six surrounding States, classified the expanded population as the WGL
DPS, and determined that the WGL DPS did not meet the definition of a
threatened or an endangered species due to recovery. Also in 2011, we
published a final rule that implemented section 1713 of Public Law 112-
10, reinstating our 2009 delisting rule for the NRM DPS and, with the
exception of Wyoming, removed gray wolves in that DPS from the List. In
2012, we finalized a rule removing gray wolves in Wyoming from the
List. That rule was later vacated by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia. In 2013, we published a proposed rule to: (1)
Delist C. lupus in the remaining listed portions of the United States
and Mexico outside of the delisted NRM and WGL DPSs; and (2) keep
Mexican wolf (C. l baileyi; occurring in the Southwestern United States
and Mexico) listed as an endangered subspecies (table 1).
In 2014, the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia
vacated the December 28, 2011, final rule identifying the WGL DPS and
removing it from the List (table 1). The district court's decision was
based, in part, on its conclusion that the Act does not allow the
Service to use its authority to identify a DPS solely for the purpose
of delisting it (Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Jewell, 76 F. Supp. 3d 69,
112-13 (D.D.C. 2014)). The U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling in
2017 that the Service had the authority to designate a DPS from a
larger listed entity and delist it in the same rule (table 1). That
court nonetheless upheld the district court's vacatur of the rule,
concluding that the Service failed to analyze or consider two
significant aspects of the rule: The impacts of delisting the DPS on
the rest of the listed entity and the impacts of the loss of historical
range (Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Zinke, 865 F.3d 585, 602-03, 605-
07).
In 2015, we finalized the portion of the 2013 proposed rule listing
the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies (table 1). In 2017, the
D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's decision and reinstated the
delisting of gray wolves in Wyoming (Defenders of Wildlife v. Zinke,
849 F.3d 1077 (DC Cir. 2017)). Thus, wolves are currently delisted in
the entire northern Rocky Mountains DPS (figure 1).
As a result of the above actions, the C. lupus listed entities in
50 CFR 17.11 currently include: (1) C. lupus in Minnesota listed as
threatened, and (2) C. lupus in all or portions of 44 U.S. States and
Mexico, listed as endangered (figure 1). In the United States, this
includes: All of Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Missouri,
Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin; and portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah, and Washington (figure 1).
On March 15, 2019, we published a proposed rule to delist the two
currently listed C. lupus entities in the Federal Register (84 FR
9648). The publication of the proposed delisting rule opened a 60-day
public comment period, which was scheduled to close on May 14, 2019.
Based on several requests from the public to extend the comment period,
we published a document on May 14, 2019, extending the comment period
60 days, to July 15, 2019 (84 FR 21312). We announced a public
information open house and public hearing on our proposed rule and the
availability of the final peer review report in the Federal Register on
June 6, 2019 (84 FR 26393). The public events were held in Brainerd,
Minnesota, on June 25, 2019.
For additional information on these Federal actions and their
associated litigation history, refer to the relevant associated rules
or the Previous Federal Actions sections of our recent gray wolf
actions (see table 1).
Table 1--Key Federal Regulatory Actions Under the Act and Predecessor Legislation \1\ Pertaining to Gray Wolf and, Where Applicable, Outcomes of Court
Challenges to These Actions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entity Year of action Type of action Federal Register citation Litigation history
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. lupus lycaon.................... 1967 \1\..................... List...................... 32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967... .........................
C. lupus irremotus................. 1973 \1\..................... List...................... 38 FR 14678, June 4, 1973.... .........................
C. l. lycaon....................... 1974......................... List...................... 39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974.. .........................
C. l. irremotus.................... 1974......................... List...................... 39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974.. .........................
C. l. baileyi...................... 1976......................... List (E).................. 41 FR 17736, April 28, 1976.. .........................
C. lupus monstrabilis 2............ 1976......................... List (E).................. 41 FR 24064, June 14, 1976... .........................
C. lupus in lower 48 U.S. (except 1978......................... Reclassify (E)............ 43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978 \3\ .........................
Minnesota) & Mexico.
[[Page 69781]]
C. lupus in Minnesota.............. 1978......................... Reclassify (T)............ 43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978 \3\ .........................
C. lupus........................... 1978 (revised 1992).......... Recovery Plan for Eastern n.a. .........................
Timber Wolf (eastern gray
wolf).
C. lupus........................... 1980 (revised 1987).......... Recovery Plan for NRM Gray n.a. .........................
Wolf.
C. lupus........................... 1982 (revised 2017).......... Recovery Plan for Mexican n.a. .........................
Gray Wolf (C. l. baileyi).
C. lupus........................... 1994......................... Establish experimental 59 FR 60266, November 22, .........................
population (southeastern 1994.
Idaho, southern Montana,
and Wyoming).
C. lupus........................... 1994......................... Establish experimental 59 FR 60252, November 22, Upholding reintroduction
population (central Idaho 1994. in the NRM region
& southwest Montana). (Wyoming Farm Bureau v.
Babbitt, 199 F.3d 1224
(10th Cir. 2000)).
C. lupus........................... 1998......................... Establish experimental 63 FR 1752, January 12, 1998. .........................
population (Arizona & New
Mexico).
C. lupus DPSs:..................... 2003......................... Designate DPS & classify/ 68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003... Rule vacated (Defenders
--Eastern DPS...................... reclassify as:. of Wildlife v. Norton,
--Western DPS...................... --Eastern DPS (T)......... 354 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (D.
--Southwestern U.S. & Mexico DPS... --Western DPS (T)......... Or. 2005); National
--Southwestern U.S. & Wildlife Federation v.
Mexico DPS (E). Norton, 386 F. Supp. 2d
--Delist in unoccupied non- 553 (D. Vt. 2005)).
historical range.
C. lupus WGL DPS................... 2007......................... Designate DPS & delist.... 72 FR 6052, February 8, 2007. Rule vacated (Humane
Society of the United
States v. Kempthorne,
579 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.
D.C. 2008)).
C. lupus NRM DPS................... 2008......................... Designate DPS & delist.... 73 FR 10514, February 27, Rule enjoined (Defenders
2008. of Wildlife v. Hall, 565
F. Supp. 2d 1160 (D.
Mont. 2008)), and
subsequently vacated and
remanded.
C. lupus DPSs:..................... 2008......................... Reinstatement of 73 FR 75356, December 11, .........................
--WGL DPS.......................... protections--NRM & WGL 2008.
--NRM DPS.......................... DPSs.
C. lupus WGL DPS................... 2009......................... Designate DPS & delist.... 74 FR 15070, April 2, 2009... Rule vacated (Humane
Society of the United
States v. Salazar, 1:09-
CV-1092-PLF (D.D.C.
2009)).
C. lupus NRM DPS (except Wyoming).. 2009......................... Designate DPS & delist 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009... Rule vacated (Defenders
(except in Wyoming). of Wildlife v. Salazar,
729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D.
Mont. 2010)).
C. lupus WGL DPS................... 2009......................... Reinstatement of 74 FR 47483, September 16, .........................
protections--WGL. 2009.
C. lupus NRM DPS................... 2010......................... Reinstatement of 75 FR 65574, October 26, 2010 .........................
protections--NRM DPS.
C. lupus NRM DPS................... 2011......................... Reissuance of 2009 NRM DPS 76 FR 25590, May 5, 2011..... Upholding Section 1713
delisting rule (as (Alliance for the Wild
required by Public Law Rockies v. Salazar, 672
112-10--The Department of F.3d 1170 (9th Cir.
Defense and Full-Year 2012)).
Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2011).
C. lupus WGL DPS................... 2011......................... Revise 1978 listing, 76 FR 81666, December 28, Rule vacated (Humane
designate DPS & delist. 2011. Society of the U.S. v.
Jewell, 76 F. Supp. 3d
69, 110 (D.D.C. 2014)) .
Vacatur upheld on appeal
(Humane Society of the
U.S. v. Zinke, 865 F.3d
585 (D.C. Cir. 2017)).
C. lupus in lower 48 U.S. and 2012......................... 5-Year Review............. n.a. .........................
Mexico, as revised.
C. lupus in Wyoming................ 2012......................... Delist in Wyoming......... 77 FR 55530, September 10, Rule vacated (Defenders
2012. of Wildlife v. Jewell,
68 F. Supp. 3d 193
(D.D.C. 2014)
Vacatur reversed on
appeal (Defenders of
Wildlife v. Zinke, 849
F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir.
2017)).
C. lupus in lower 48 U.S. (except 2013......................... Propose delist in lower 48 78 FR 35664, June 13, 2013... .........................
NRM & WGL DPSs) and Mexico. U.S. & list C. l. baileyi
(E); status review of
wolves in Pacific
Northwest.
C. l. baileyi...................... 2015......................... List E.................... 80 FR 2488, January 16, 2015. .........................
C. l. baileyi...................... 2015......................... Revised 1998 C. lupus 80 FR 2512, January 16, 2015. .........................
experimental population
and associated it with C.
l. baileyi listing.
C. lupus WGL DPS and C. lupus in 2015......................... Reinstatement of 80 FR 9218, February 20, 2015 .........................
Wyoming. protections--WGL DPS &
Wyoming.
C. lupus in Wyoming................ 2017......................... Reinstatement of 2012 82 FR 20284, May 1, 2017..... .........................
delisting--Wyoming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E = endangered species, T = threatened species, DPS = Distinct Population Segment, NRM = Northern Rocky Mountains, WGL = Western Great Lakes.
\1\ Action taken under the Endangered Species Preservation predecessor legislation (Endangered Species Act of 1966, Endangered Species Conservation Act
of 1969).
\2\ Later subsumed into C. l. baileyi due to taxonomic changes.
[[Page 69782]]
\3\ In this rule we also identified critical habitat in Michigan and Minnesota and promulgated special regulations under section 4(d) of the Act for
operating a wolf-management program in Minnesota. The special regulation was later modified (50 FR 50793, December 12, 1985).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO20.016
General Background
The 1978 Reclassification
When the gray wolf (C. lupus) was reclassified in March 1978
(replacing multiple subspecies entities with two C. lupus population
entities as described further in Previous Federal Actions), it had been
extirpated from much of its historical range in the lower 48 United
States. Although the 1978 reclassification listed two gray wolf
entities (a threatened population in Minnesota and an endangered
population throughout the rest of the lower 48 United States and
Mexico), these entities were not predicated upon a formal DPS analysis,
because the reclassification predated the November 1978 amendments to
the Act, which revised the definition of ``species'' to include DPSs of
vertebrate fish or wildlife, and our 1996 DPS Policy.
As indicated in Previous Federal Actions, the 1978 reclassification
was undertaken to address changes in our understanding of gray wolf
taxonomy and to ensure the gray wolf was protected wherever it was
found (as described in 47 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) in the lower 48
United States and Mexico, rather than an indication of where gray
wolves actually existed or where recovery efforts were considered
necessary. Thus, the 1978 reclassification resulted in inclusion of
large areas of the lower 48 United States where gray wolves were
extirpated, as well as the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States,
areas where long-held differences of opinion regarding the precise
boundary of the species' historical range remain (Young and Goldman
1944, pp. 413-416, 478; Hall 1981, p. 932; Nowak 1995, p. 395, Fig. 20;
Nowak 2009, p. 242; Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 251, Fig. 9.7). While
this generalized approach to the gray wolf listing facilitated recovery
of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Great Lakes, it
also erroneously included areas outside the species' historical range
and was misread by some members of the public as an expression of a
more expansive gray wolf recovery effort not required by the Act and
never intended by the Service. In fact, our longstanding approach to
recovery has focused on reestablishing wolf populations in three
specific regions of the country: The Eastern United States (including
the Great Lakes States), the northern Rocky Mountains, and the
Southwestern United States. We have consistently focused our recovery
efforts on reestablishing wolf populations in these specific regions
(see table 1 and Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery Implementation).
National Wolf Strategy
Although not required by the Act, in 2011 we described our national
wolf strategy in our proposed rule to revise the List for the gray wolf
in the Eastern United States (76 FR 26089-26090, May 5, 2011). This
strategy was 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.
[[Page 69783]]
Our strategy focused on the continued conservation of three extant
gray wolf entities (the Great Lakes population, the northern Rocky
Mountains population, and the southwestern population of Mexican
wolves) and consideration of conservation of a fourth, wolves in the
Pacific Northwest. In 2013 we completed a status review for gray wolves
in the Pacific Northwest (western Washington, western Oregon, and
northern California) (table 1) and determined that, under our DPS
policy, these wolves are not discrete from wolves in the recovered NRM
DPS (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and
north-central Utah) (see 78 FR 35707-35713). Therefore, since that
time, our strategy has been consistent with a focus on the western
Great Lakes, the northern Rocky Mountains, and the southwestern
population of Mexican wolves (see Previous Federal Actions).
The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory
Definition of a ``Species''
The gray wolf entities that are currently on the List do not meet
the Act's definition of a ``species'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The
original listing of certain gray wolf subspecies predated the Act. In
1967, under a precursor to the Act, we listed C. l. lycaon (Eastern
timber wolf) in the Great Lakes region (table 1). In 1973, under the
same precursor to the Act, we listed C. l. irremotus (Northern Rocky
Mountain wolf) (table 1). In 1974, these subspecies were listed under
the Act (table 1). In 2015, we subsequently listed C. l. baileyi
(Mexican wolf) as endangered in the Southwestern United States and
Mexico (table 1). Finally, on June 14, 1976, we listed a fourth gray
wolf subspecies, C. l. monstrabilis (table 1), which was later subsumed
within C. l. baileyi.
In 1978, we concluded that ``this listing arrangement has not been
satisfactory because the taxonomy of wolves is out of date, wolves may
wander outside of recognized subspecific boundaries, and some wolves
from unlisted subspecies may occur in certain parts of the lower 48
states'' (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). We wanted to clarify that C.
lupus was listed as threatened or endangered south of the Canadian
border, and we determined that the ``most convenient'' way to do so was
to list the entity at the species level rather than by subspecies (43
FR 9607, March 9, 1978). The separate subspecies listings were subsumed
into two entities that were defined geographically: (1) Threatened in
Minnesota; and (2) endangered throughout the rest of the lower 48
United States and Mexico (43 FR 9612, March 9, 1978). The 1978 rule
treated these entities as distinct ``species'' under the statutory
definition of the term that was in effect at that time (43 FR 9610,
March 9, 1978).
When the Act was adopted in 1973, the term ``species'' was defined
to include species, subspecies or ``any other group of fish or wildlife
of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that
interbreed when mature'' (Pub. L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884, 886 (1973)). In
November 1978, the Act was amended to introduce the concept of DPSs (16
U.S.C. 1532(16)). Unlike species and subspecies, DPS is not a taxonomic
term. Rather, it refers to certain populations of vertebrates (i.e.,
less than the entire range of a taxonomic vertebrate species or
subspecies). We issued a policy in 1996, in conjunction with the
National Marine Fisheries Service, to explain how we would apply this
statutory term (61 FR 4722-4725, February 7, 1996).
Since the concept of DPSs was introduced, we have attempted to
revise the lower 48 United States and Mexico listings to account for
the biological recovery of gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes (WGL)
and Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM). We published rules identifying
recovered DPSs, but some of those actions did not survive legal
challenges. For example, our 2007 and 2011 rules designating and
delisting a WGL DPS were vacated by the reviewing courts. Thus, wolves
in the WGL are part of the currently listed gray wolf entities. By
contrast, although our rules designating and delisting the NRM DPS were
also challenged in court, after several rounds of litigation and
congressional action the NRM DPS was delisted and remains so today (see
Previous Federal Actions).
The two currently listed entities are: (1) C. lupus in Minnesota
(listed as threatened); and (2) C. lupus in all or portions of 44 U.S.
States and Mexico (listed as endangered). Neither of the entities
encompasses an entire species, or a subspecies, of gray wolf. Thus, the
currently listed entities would only constitute listable entities
(i.e., meet the statutory definition of ``species'') if they qualified
as DPSs.
To constitute a DPS, a vertebrate population must be both discrete
from and significant to the remainder of the taxon (i.e., taxonomic
species or subspecies) (61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996). We consider
first whether the population is discrete and, if so, then we evaluate
its biological and ecological significance (61 FR 4725, February 7,
1996). A population segment may be considered discrete if it ``is
markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral
factors'' (61 FR 4725). For the reasons set forth below, the gray wolf
entities currently on the List do not meet this standard.
The two entities are not markedly separated from other populations
of the same taxon. The threatened Minnesota listed entity is not
discrete from the endangered listed entity where they abut in the Great
Lakes area because gray wolves in Minnesota are not discrete from gray
wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan. In 1978, gray wolves were largely
confined to northern Minnesota, with some wolves occupying Isle Royale
and possibly other individuals scattered in Wisconsin and Michigan (43
FR 9608). Wolves in northern Minnesota subsequently dispersed and
recolonized Wisconsin and Michigan, resulting in a metapopulation \2\
in the Great Lakes area (Mech 2010, p. 130). There are no significant
physical barriers separating Minnesota wolves from those in Wisconsin
and Michigan, as evidenced by frequent movement of wolves among the
three States (Treves et al. 2009, entire). In addition, genetic
analyses demonstrate that Wisconsin and Michigan wolves are mostly of
the same genetic makeup as Minnesota wolves and there is effective
interbreeding among wolves in the three States (Wheeldon et al. 2010,
p. 4438; Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 104; Fain et al. 2010, p. 1758;
see also Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America). Thus, gray wolves
in the Minnesota entity are not ``markedly separated'' from wolves in
the Great Lakes portion of the endangered listed entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A metapopulation is a population that exists as partially
isolated sets of subpopulations that ``interact'' when individuals
move from one subpopulation to another. A metapopulation is widely
recognized as being more secure over the long term than are several
isolated populations that contain the same total number of
individuals. A metapopulation is more secure because adverse effects
experienced by one of its subpopulations resulting from genetic
drift, demographic shifts, and local environmental fluctuations can
be countered by occasional influxes of individuals and their genetic
diversity from the other components of the metapopulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, the endangered listed entity is not discrete from other
populations of gray wolves. As noted above, gray wolves in the Great
Lakes portion of the endangered listed entity are connected to gray
wolves in Minnesota. And gray wolves in the West Coast States that are
part of the endangered listed entity are not discrete from the
recovered NRM population (78 FR 35664, June 13, 2013,
[[Page 69784]]
pp. 35707-35713; see also Current Distribution and Abundance). We
removed most of the NRM DPS from the List, most recently, in 2011 (ID,
MT, the eastern one-third of OR and WA, and a small portion of north-
central UT) and the remainder, most recently, in 2017 (WY) (table 1).
As we explained in our 2019 proposed rule, the NRM population has
continued to expand and wolves from that population have now dispersed
and become established in parts of the West Coast States (84 FR 9656,
March 15, 2019). Genetic analysis shows that all gray wolves currently
occupying Oregon descended from NRM wolves and those wolves expanded
into California (Hendricks et al. 2018, pp. 142-143; California
Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020, entire). Wolves in Washington in
both the endangered listed entity and the NRM include individuals
descended from NRM wolves as well as wolves from Canada (Hendricks et
al. 2018, pp. 142-143). Thus, listed wolves in the West Coast States
are not genetically distinct from the NRM wolves. Nor is there marked
separation resulting from physical factors. Wolf habitat models show
that there is little separation between occupied wolf habitat in the
NRM DPS and suitable habitat in western Washington, western Oregon, and
northern California (see 78 FR 35712, June 13, 2013). Any gaps in
suitable habitat are unlikely to preclude dispersal because gray wolves
are capable of traveling long distances through a variety of habitats
(78 FR 35712, June 13, 2013; ODFW 2016, p. 10; Jimenez et al. 2017,
entire). In sum, listed wolves in the West Coast States are not
discrete from wolves in the delisted NRM DPS portion of the gray wolf
taxon.
Because the two currently listed entities are not discrete, we need
not evaluate their significance (61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996). Neither
of the listed entities is a DPS, and thus neither entity is a
``species'' as that term is defined under the Act.
As we noted in our proposed rule, the currently listed gray wolf
entities could be removed from the List because they do not meet the
statutory definition of a ``species'' (84 FR 9686, March 15, 2019).
This independent basis for delisting, which is based on the plain
language of the Act, was explained in our 2019 revisions to the Act's
implementing regulations. We distinguish between a ``listed entity''
and a ``species,'' and reiterate that an entity that is not a
``species'' as defined under the Act should be removed from the List.
See 50 CFR 424.11(e)(3) (providing that the Secretary shall remove an
entity from the List if, among other things, ``[t]he listed entity does
not meet the statutory definition of a species''). In the preamble to
the rule we explained that this is not a new interpretation, but
``merely reflects the text and intent of the Act, i.e., only `species,'
as defined in section 3 of the Act, may be listed under the Act'' (84
FR 45037, August 27, 2020).
However, before proceeding with delisting, we may consider whether
any populations of gray wolves covered by the listed entities meet the
definition of a threatened species or an endangered species. Thus,
instead of removing the listed entities solely because they do not meet
the statutory definition of a ``species,'' in this rule, we consider
the status of gray wolves in several configurations, as explained
below, to eliminate the possibility of removing protections for any
gray wolves that might meet the Act's definition of a ``species'' and
might be endangered or threatened.
Approach for This Rule
The Gray Wolf Entities Addressed in This Rule
As described above, two gray wolf entities are currently listed: C.
lupus in Minnesota, listed as threatened; and C. lupus in all or
portions of 44 U.S. States and Mexico, listed as endangered (figure 1).
We refer to these entities simply as ``Minnesota'' and the ``44-State
entity'' throughout this rule.
While our past status reviews have focused on gray wolf DPSs and
taxonomic units that align with our national wolf strategy (see table
1), we have revised our approach in this rule to take into account the
unique listing history of the gray wolf, as well as multiple court
opinions regarding our prior actions to designate and delist gray wolf
DPSs (see table 1). The two currently listed gray wolf entities are
largely vestiges of a 42-year-old action (the 1978 reclassification
(see General Background)) that occurred prior to formulation and
implementation of our DPS policy. As explained above, the gray wolf
entities that are currently on the List are not species, subspecies, or
distinct population segments (DPSs) (see The Currently Listed C. lupus
Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory Definition of a ``Species''), and as
such should be delisted. However, in recognition of the unique listing
history of the gray wolf, our many prior actions to designate and
delist DPSs (table 1), and related court opinions, we have adopted a
conservative approach to delisting in this rule. Rather than focus on
gray wolf DPSs and taxonomic units, we focus on the currently listed
entities. We do so by evaluating the conservation status of the
currently listed entities under three different configurations, as
explained below.
In our proposed rule, we focused on the status of listed gray
wolves by assessing the two listed entities in combination. In response
to peer review and public comments, we have expanded our analysis to
consider the conservation status of gray wolves in three different
configurations. Specifically, we assess: (1) Each of the two currently
listed gray wolf entities separately; (2) the two currently listed
entities combined into a single entity (the approach in our proposed
rule); and (3) a single gray wolf entity that includes all gray wolves
in the lower 48 state and Mexico except for the Mexican wolf. We
explain our reasoning for analyzing these specific configurations
below.
Why and How We Address Each Configuration of Gray Wolf Entities
We consider the status of gray wolves in each of the following
configurations to determine whether wolves should be included on the
List in their current status, be reclassified from their current status
(e.g., upgraded to endangered or downgraded to threatened), or be
removed from the List. For a summary of these configurations, see table
2.
The Two Listed Entities Assessed Separately
In this configuration, we assess the status of gray wolves
occurring within the geographic area outlined by each of the two
currently listed C. lupus entities separately, as they are listed. We
do so because they are the entities that are currently on the List.
Evaluating the entities as they are listed is consistent with section
4(c) of the Act, which authorizes the Secretary to review species
included on the List and determine on the basis of the review whether
changes to the listing status are warranted (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)). We
do not consider the delisted NRM DPS wolves as part of the 44-State
entity under analysis in this configuration because they are recovered
and no longer listed. However, we include information on the NRM DPS,
as appropriate, to provide context and to inform our analysis and
conclusions about the status of wolves comprising the 44-State entity.
The Two Listed Entities Assessed in Combination
In this configuration, we assess the status of gray wolves
occurring within the geographic area outlined by the two
[[Page 69785]]
currently listed C. lupus entities combined into a single entity. We do
so because: (1) These are the entities that are currently on the List
and it is clear that neither listed entity would qualify as a DPS under
our 1996 DPS policy due to their lack of discreteness from each other
(see The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory
Definition of a ``Species''), and (2) it makes sense, biologically, to
combine them for analysis in light of their lack of discreteness. We do
not consider the delisted NRM DPS wolves as part of the listed entity
under analysis in this configuration because they are recovered and no
longer listed. However, we include information on the NRM DPS, as
appropriate, to provide context and to inform our analysis and
conclusions about the status of wolves comprising this combined entity.
We assessed the two listed entities in combination in our proposed
rule. In that rule, we referred to the resulting entity as the ``gray
wolf entity.'' For clarity, in this final rule, we refer to the
resulting entity as the ``combined listed entity'' (table 2).
The Two Listed Entities and the NRM DPS Assessed in Combination
In this configuration, we assess the status of gray wolves
occurring within the geographic area of the lower 48 United States and
Mexico (excluding the Mexican gray wolf; see How We Address the C. l.
baileyi Listing below), a single entity that includes the two currently
listed entities and the delisted NRM DPS combined. We do so because:
(1) It includes the two entities that are currently on the List and
neither listed entity qualifies as a DPS under our 1996 DPS policy
because the two listed entities are not discrete from each other and
the 44-State entity is not discrete from the NRM DPS (see The Currently
Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory Definition of a
``Species''), and (2) it makes sense, biologically, to combine the two
currently listed entities and the NRM DPS for analysis in light of
their lack of discreteness. We refer to this entity as the ``lower 48
United States entity.'' Although we include the NRM wolves in this
configuration due to their connection to currently listed wolves, we
reiterate that wolves in the NRM DPS are recovered, and we are not
reexamining or revisiting our 2009 and 2012 delisting rules (74 FR
15123, April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012). For additional
information regarding our rationale for analyzing the lower 48 United
States entity, see Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule.
Table 2--Summary of Analyses in This Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of entity Name given to the
Configuration assessed entity in this rule Why we assess the entity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The separate listed entities.... State of Minnesota.... Minnesota............. It is a currently listed
entity.
Lower 48 States and 44-State entity....... It is a currently listed
Mexico \1\ outside of entity.
the NRM DPS and
Minnesota.
2. The combined listed entities.... Lower 48 States and combined listed entity Includes the two currently
Mexico \1\ outside of listed entities, but these
the NRM DPS. two entities are not
discrete from one another;
it makes sense,
biologically, to combine
them in light of their
lack of discreteness. We
do not include the NRM
wolves because they are
delisted.
3. The combined listed entities and Lower 48 States and lower 48 United States Includes the two currently
the NRM DPS. Mexico \1\. entity. listed entities, but these
two entities are not
discrete from one another,
and one (the 44-State
entity) is not discrete
from the delisted NRM DPS;
it makes sense,
biologically, to combine
them in light of their
lack of discreteness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ But see How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing.
How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing
As indicated above (see Previous Federal Actions), in 2015 we
revised the listing for the gray wolf by reclassifying the subspecies
C. l. baileyi as a separately listed entity with the status of
endangered, wherever found. Although the rulemaking does not include
language expressly excluding C. l. baileyi from the previously listed
C. lupus entity, we indicated in our 2015 final rule listing the
subspecies that the effect of the regulation was to revise the List by
making a separate entry for the Mexican wolf (80 FR 2511, January 16,
2015). Therefore, because we already assessed the status of, and
listed, the Mexican wolf separately, we do not assess individuals or
populations of the Mexican wolf in this rule. In other words, we do not
consider individuals or populations of Mexican wolves to be among the
wolves under analysis in this rule. Further, the Mexican wolf is the
only subspecies of C. lupus known to currently occupy the Mexican wolf
experimental population area (that covers portions of Arizona and New
Mexico) and Mexico. Therefore, based on the best available information,
the experimental population area and Mexico are unoccupied by and,
consequently, outside the range of, the gray wolves under analysis in
this rule (see Definition and Treatment of Range).
How We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties in This Rule
The taxonomy and evolutionary history of wolves in North America
are complex and controversial, particularly with respect to the
taxonomic assignment of wolves historically present in the Northeastern
United States and those that occur in portions of the Great Lakes
region (eastern wolves; see Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America).
Available information indicates ongoing scientific debate and a lack of
resolution on the taxonomy of eastern wolves. (see Taxonomy of Gray
Wolves in North America). Further, none of these viewpoints is more
supported by the scientific evidence or more widely accepted by the
scientific community than others. In other words, there is no standard
taxonomy indicating that eastern wolves are a distinct species, and no
agreement among the scientific community regarding the taxonomic
assignment of eastern wolves.
We originally listed the gray wolf subspecies C. l. lycaon, the
eastern timber wolf, in 1967. We continued to recognize this
subspecies--and the Northeastern United States as part of its
historical range--for years, as evidenced by both our original (1978)
and revised
[[Page 69786]]
(1992) Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. In 2013, we proposed
recognizing the species C. lycaon, occurring in southeastern Canada
and, historically, the Northeastern United States, in our proposed rule
to delist C. lupus and list C. l. baileyi as endangered (table 1).
However, all peer reviewers of that proposed rule considered the
scientific basis for recognizing C. lycaon as a species to be
insufficient. They noted that this is an area of active scientific
research with new studies published yearly, and stated that the
proposed recognition of these wolves as a species was premature
(National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis 2014,
unpaginated). New information published on the topic since publication
of our 2013 rule indicates the taxonomy and evolutionary history of
eastern wolves remains unresolved (USFWS 2020, pp. 1-5). The
uncertainty of the existence of a separate species is reflected in the
fact that C. lycaon is not recognized by authoritative taxonomic
organizations such as the American Society of Mammalogists or the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Therefore, based
on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, in this rule we continue to recognize wolves in the
Northeastern United States as members of the species C. lupus.
Because we recognize wolves in the Northeastern United States as
members of the species C. lupus in our assessment of the status of gray
wolf entities in this rule, we include eastern wolves and eastern wolf
range that occurs within the geographical boundaries of the gray wolf
entities we assess. This approach ensures our analysis takes into
account the possibility that gray wolves historically occurred
throughout most of the lower 48 United States. In other words, because
we also consider eastern wolf historical range, our analysis assumes a
larger historical range for the gray wolf species in the lower 48
United States and, as a result, a greater loss of such range (see
Historical Range).
Scientists also disagree on the taxonomic assignment of wolves in
the southeastern United States generally recognized as ``red wolves.''
However, a recent consensus study by the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that available evidence
supports species (C. rufus) status for the extant red wolf (National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) 2019, pp. 51-
72). We recognize the red wolf as the species C. rufus (USFWS 2018, pp.
15-17) and note that it is listed as endangered where found (32 FR
4001, March 11, 1967). We do not consider red wolves further in this
rule and the red wolf listing is not affected by this rule.
Definition and Treatment of Range
We interpret the term ``range'' as used in the Act's definitions of
``threatened species'' and ``endangered species'' to refer to the area
occupied by the species at the time we make a status determination
under section 4 of the Act (79 FR 37583, July 1, 2014). In this rule,
we consider the latest wolf distribution maps (inclusive of wolf packs,
breeding pairs, and areas of persistent activity by multiple wolves)
and other information obtained from State agencies as the best
available information on wolf occupancy and, therefore, wolf range.
Gray wolf range based on this information is shown in figure 2. Because
we do not consider Mexican wolves to be among the wolves under analysis
in this rule, we do not include the Mexican wolf experimental
population area (that covers portions of Arizona and New Mexico) or
Mexico within current gray wolf range (See How We Address the C. l.
baileyi Listing).
Wolves occur periodically in the lower 48 United States as lone
dispersers in places that otherwise lack evidence of persistent wolf
presence or suitable habitat for supporting a resident wolf population
(see Current Distribution and Abundance). While dispersal plays an
important role in recolonization of suitable habitat, individual
dispersers that do not settle in an area, survive, and reproduce do not
substantively contribute to the wolf's viability (i.e., the ability of
a species to sustain populations in the wild over time). Therefore, we
did not include the areas in which only these lone dispersers are
occasionally found in our definition of current range.
Summary of Our Approach
In this rule, we assess the status of gray wolves in three
different configurations. We do not include in our assessment
individuals or populations of the Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi) (wolves
that occur in Mexico and the nonessential experimental population area
in the Southwestern United States). Also, for the purposes of this
rule, we consider any eastern wolves within the geographic boundaries
of the entities we evaluated to be members of the species C. lupus.
Further, we consider the range of the gray wolf to be the current
distribution of gray wolves (as shown in figure 2) within the
geographic boundaries of the entities we evaluated.
Species Information
We provide detailed background information on gray wolves in the
lower 48 United States in a separate Gray Wolf Biological Report (see
USFWS 2020, entire). This document can be found along with this rule at
https://regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097 (see
Supplemental Documents). We summarize relevant information from this
report below. For additional information, including sources of the
information presented below, see USFWS (2020, entire) and references
therein.
Biology and Ecology
Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the canid (dog) family
and have a broad circumpolar range. Adults range in weight from 18 to
80 kilograms (40 to 175 pounds), depending on sex and geographic
locale. Gray wolves are highly territorial, social animals that live
and hunt in packs. They are well adapted to traveling fast and far in
search of food, and to catching and eating large mammals. In North
America, they are primarily predators of medium to large mammals,
including deer, elk, and other species, and are efficient at shifting
their diet to take advantage of available food resources (USFWS 2020,
p. 6).
Gray wolves are a highly adaptable species. They can successfully
occupy a wide range of habitats provided adequate prey exists and
human-caused mortality is sufficiently regulated. Scientific models
generally depict high-quality suitable habitat as areas with sufficient
prey where human-caused mortality is relatively low due to limited
human access, or high amounts of escape cover, or relatively low risk
of wolf-livestock conflicts (USFWS 2020, pp. 8-9).
Established gray wolf populations are remarkably resilient as long
as their food supply is adequate and human-caused mortality is not too
high. Where human-caused mortality is low or nonexistent, gray wolf
populations are regulated by the distribution and abundance of prey on
the landscape, though considerable evidence indicates density-
dependent, intrinsic mechanisms (e.g., social strife, territoriality,
disease) may limit populations when ungulate densities are high. High
levels of reproduction and immigration in gray wolf populations can
compensate for high mortality rates in established populations (USFWS
2020, pp. 7-8). Pack social structure is very adaptable--in many
instances, breeding members can be quickly replaced from within or
outside the
[[Page 69787]]
pack, and pups can be reared by other pack members should their parents
die. Consequently, wolf populations can rapidly overcome severe
disruptions, such as pervasive human-caused mortality or disease; and
they can increase rapidly after severe declines if the source of
mortality is reduced. The species' dispersal capabilities allow wolf
populations to quickly expand and recolonize vacant habitats as long as
rates of human-caused mortality are not excessive; although, the rate
of recolonization can be affected by the extent of intervening
unoccupied habitat between the source population and newly recolonized
area (USFWS 2020, p. 7).
Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America
The gray wolf is a member of the canid family (Canidae) in a genus
(Canis) that includes domestic dogs (C. familiaris), coyotes (C.
latrans), and several other species (USFWS 2020, p. 1). Taxonomic
relationships among Canis species found in North America have been
studied extensively, though with a notable lack of consensus on various
phylogenetic issues (USFWS 2020, p. 1). Consequently, wolf taxonomy and
evolutionary history in North America are complex and controversial
(USFWS 2020, p. 5).
In North America, scientists generally recognize a ``red wolf''
phenotype (morphological form), and an ``eastern wolf'' phenotype that
is distinct from wolves further west (``western gray wolves''), but
disagree on the correct taxonomic assignment of these two entities or
on their evolutionary origin (USFWS 2020, p. 1). As indicated above
(see How We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties in this Rule), we continue
to recognize the red wolf as the species C. rufus and do not discuss
the taxonomy of the species further in this rule (for more information,
see our 2018 Red Wolf Species Status Assessment). We discuss the
eastern wolf further, below.
The eastern wolf has been the source of perhaps the most
significant disagreement on North American canid taxonomy among
scientists. The eastern wolf has been variously described as a species,
a subspecies of gray wolf, an ecotype of gray wolf, the product of
introgressive hybridization between gray wolves and coyotes, the same
species as the red wolf, or the product of introgressive hybridization
between red wolves and gray wolves (USFWS 2020, p. 1). Morphologically,
eastern wolves have long been considered distinct from gray wolves and
coyotes. Many scientists have generally found the eastern wolf to be
consistently intermediate between the gray wolf and the coyote, both
morphologically and genetically (USFWS 2020, p. 2).
Regardless of viewpoint on the correct taxonomic status of the
eastern wolf, hybridization and introgression is widely recognized to
have played, and continue to play, an important role among eastern
wolves. However, there is scientific disagreement on the role of
hybridization between eastern wolves and coyotes, eastern wolves and
gray wolves, and gray wolves and coyotes. Minnesota appears to be the
western edge of a hybrid zone between gray wolves in the west and
eastern wolves--wolves in western Minnesota appear to be western gray
wolves based on morphological and genetic analysis while wolves in
eastern Minnesota and much of the Great Lakes area appear to be eastern
wolf, introgressed with western gray wolf to varying degrees.
Scientists who support the eastern wolf as a distinct species report
that the only area in which eastern wolves are not currently
experiencing admixture with either gray wolves or coyotes is in
Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario, Canada (USFWS 2020, pp. 2-3).
Even among those who hypothesize a hybrid origin of eastern wolves,
meaning they are the result of ancient or more recent hybridization
between gray wolves and coyotes, eastern wolves are viewed as
genetically distinct (USFWS 2020, pp. 2-3).
Despite the ongoing debate about taxonomy and evolutionary history,
there is general agreement that wolves currently found in the Great
Lakes area and neighboring provinces in Canada are genetically distinct
to some degree from wolves further west in the Rocky Mountains or the
Pacific northwest (USFWS 2020, pp. 1-2). Although there is some debate
about the degree of genetic difference between the wolves that occupy
the Great Lakes area versus the Western United States, wolves in the
Great Lakes area are generally smaller, occupy habitat dominated by
mixed deciduous-coniferous forests with relatively little elevation
change, and their primary prey is white-tailed deer; whereas wolves in
the Western United States are larger and occupy montane forests that
also contain larger prey such as elk and moose (USFWS 2020, pp. 28-29).
All wolves in the Western United States are widely recognized as
gray wolves (C. lupus) (USFWS 2020, pp. 3-4). However, the science
pertaining to gray wolf subspecies designations, unique evolutionary
lineages, ecotypes, and admixture of formerly isolated populations
continues to develop (USFWS 2020, pp. 3-5)--except for the Mexican
wolf, where there is strong scientific evidence supporting its
subspecies status. For example, coastal and inland wolves in western
Canada and Alaska have been identified as genetically and
morphologically distinct, and display distinct habitat and prey
preferences, despite relatively close proximity. There have been
attempts to assess whether any wolves recolonizing western States
possess genetic markers indicative of coastal wolf ancestry. Genetic
analysis of wolves recolonizing Washington revealed the presence of
individuals primarily from the northern Rocky Mountains. However, two
individuals were an admixture of wolves with inland wolf ancestry
(wolves from the northern Rocky Mountains or inland western Canada) and
coastal wolf ancestry (wolves from coastal British Columbia and coastal
Alaska), although it is not clear whether the admixture of coastal and
inland wolves happened in Washington, or whether already admixed
individuals dispersed there. All wolves recolonizing Oregon and
California appear to be descended from inland wolves dispersing from
the northern Rocky Mountains (USFWS 2020, pp. 3-5).
Range and Population Trends Prior to 1978 Reclassification
Historical Range
We view the historical range to be the range of gray wolves within
the lower 48 United States at the time of European settlement. We
determined that this timeframe is appropriate because it precedes the
major changes in range in response to excessive human-caused mortality
(USFWS 2020, pp. 9-13).
At the time of the 1978 reclassification, the historical range of
the gray wolf was generally believed to include most of North America
and, consequently, most of the lower 48 United States. We acknowledge
that the historical range of the gray wolf is uncertain and the topic
of continued debate among scientists. However, based on our review of
the best available information, we view the historical range of the
gray wolf within the lower 48 United States to be consistent with that
presented in Nowak (1995, p. 395, fig. 20) and depicted in figure 2.
This includes all areas within the lower 48 United States except
western California, a small portion of southwestern Arizona, and the
southeastern United States (see figure 2 and USFWS 2020, pp. 9-13).
While some authorities question the absence of gray wolves in parts of
California, limited preserved
[[Page 69788]]
physical evidence of wolves in California exists (USFWS 2020, p. 11).
Therefore, we rely on early reports of wolves in the State that
describe the species as occurring in the northern and Sierra Nevada
Mountain regions of California. Further, while recognizing that the
extent of overlap of red wolf and gray wolf ranges is uncertain (USFWS
2020, pp. 9-10), we chose Nowak (1995) as the historical range boundary
in the East to encompass the largest reasonable historical distribution
in the northeast and, consequently, the lower 48 United States. Also,
although included in the 44-state listing, because the southeastern
United States are generally recognized as within the range of the red
wolf (USFWS 2020, pp. 9-10), we consider it to be generally outside the
range of the gray wolf.
Historical Abundance
Historical abundance of gray wolves within the lower 48 United
States is largely unknown. Based on the reports of European settlers,
gray wolves were common in much of the West. While historical (at the
time of European settlement) estimates are notoriously difficult to
verify, one study estimates that hundreds of thousands of wolves
occurred in the Western United States and Mexico (USFWS 2020, pp. 10-
11). In the East, in the Great Lakes area, there may have been 4,000 to
8,000 wolves in Minnesota, 3,000 to 5,000 in Wisconsin, and fewer than
6,000 in Michigan (USFWS 2020, p. 12). No estimates are available for
historical wolf abundance in the Northeast (USFWS 2020, p. 13).
Historical Trends in Range and Abundance
Gray wolf range and numbers throughout the lower 48 United States
declined significantly during the 19th and 20th centuries as a result
of humans killing wolves through poisoning, unregulated trapping and
shooting, and government-funded wolf-extermination efforts (USFWS 2020,
pp. 9-14). By the time subspecies were first listed under the Act in
1974 (table 1), the gray wolf had been eliminated from most of its
historical range within the lower 48 United States. Aside from a few
scattered individuals, wolves occurred in only two places within the
lower 48 United States. A population persisted in northeastern
Minnesota, and a small, isolated group of about 40 wolves occurred on
Isle Royale, Michigan. The Minnesota wolf population was the only major
U.S. population in existence outside Alaska at this time and numbered
about 1,000 individuals (USFWS 2020, pp. 12-14).
Distribution and Abundance at the Time of the 1978 Reclassification
By 1978, when several gray wolf subspecies were consolidated into
two listed entities, a lower 48 United States and Mexico entity and a
separate Minnesota entity, the gray wolf population in Minnesota had
increased to an estimated 1,235 wolves in 138 packs (in the winter of
1978-79) and had an estimated range of 14,038 square miles (mi\2\)
(36,500 square kilometers (km\2\)) (USFWS 2020, p. 20) (figure 2).
Although, prior to this time, wolves were occasionally reported in
Wisconsin, it was not until 1978 that wolf reproduction was documented
in the State (USFWS 2020, p. 21). In the West, occasional sightings
were documented, but there was no indication that reproducing wolf
packs occurred in the West at the time (USFWS 2020, p. 14; 59 FR 60266,
November 22, 1994; USFWS 1987, pp. 3-6).
Current Distribution and Abundance
During the years since the species was reclassified in 1978, gray
wolves within the lower 48 United States increased in number (figure 3)
and expanded in distribution (figure 2). Gray wolves within the lower
48 United States now exist primarily in two large, stable or growing
metapopulations in two geographic areas in the lower 48 United States--
the Western United States and the Great Lakes area in the Eastern
United States (USFWS 2020, p. 27). Gray wolf populations within each of
these areas are connected as evidenced by movements between States and
genetic data (USFWS 2020, p. 27). The Great Lakes metapopulation
consists of more than 4,200 individuals broadly distributed across the
northern portions of three States in the Great Lakes area (USFWS 2020,
p. 27). This metapopulation is also connected, via documented
dispersals, to the large and expansive population of about 12,000-
14,000 wolves in eastern Canada. As a result, gray wolves in the Great
Lakes area do not function as an isolated metapopulation of 4,200
individuals in three States, but rather as part of a much larger
``Great Lakes and eastern Canada'' metapopulation that spans across
those three States and two Canadian Provinces (USFWS 2020, pp. 27-28).
Gray wolves in the Western United States are distributed across the
NRM DPS and into western Oregon, western Washington, northern
California, and most recently in northwest Colorado (USFWS 2020, p.
28). The Western United States metapopulation consisted of more than
1,900 gray wolves in 2015 (at least 1,880 in the NRM DPS and at least
26 outside the NRM DPS boundary), the final year of a combined northern
Rocky Mountain wolf annual report (USFWS 2020, p. 28, Appendix 2). At
the end of 2015, the post-delisting monitoring period ended for Idaho
and Montana. After the post-delisting monitoring period ended for Idaho
and Montana, these States transitioned away from using minimum counts
to document wolf numbers and developed other techniques to estimate
population size or evaluate population trends (or both) which are not
directly comparable to minimum counts (USFWS 2020, pp. 15-16). Based on
the most current estimates, approximately 1,000 gray wolves occur in
Idaho and 819 wolves were estimated in Montana (USFWS 2020, Appendix
2). In addition, the most recent year-end minimum counts indicate at
least 311 gray wolves occur in Wyoming and 310 in the States of Oregon,
Washington, and California (256 in the delisted NRM DPS and 54 in the
endangered listed entity) (USFWS 2020, p. 16, Appendix 2). While the
current estimates for Idaho and Montana are not directly comparable to
year-end minimum counts, indications from mortality data are that the
number of individuals in these States remains similar to the number of
individuals that were in these States in 2015, when all of the States
were reporting year-end minimum counts (see table 3). In addition, in
January of 2020, Colorado Parks and Wildlife personnel confirmed the
presence of a group of at least six wolves in extreme northwest
Colorado (USFWS 2020, pp. 19, 28).
Similar to the metapopulation in the Great Lakes area, the gray
wolf metapopulation in the Western United States is connected to a
large and expansive population of about 15,000 wolves in western Canada
(USFWS 2020, p. 28). As a result, gray wolves in the Western United
States function as part of a larger ``western United States and western
Canada'' metapopulation that spans several States of the United States
and two Provinces of Canada. Further, effective dispersal has been
documented between West Coast States where gray wolves are federally
protected (California, western Oregon, and western Washington), as well
as between these areas, the NRM DPS where wolves are delisted (Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and north-central
Utah), and Canada (USFWS 2020, pp. 5, 17-18, 28). Thus, wolves outside
the NRM DPS boundary in western Washington, western Oregon, and
northern California are an extension of
[[Page 69789]]
the metapopulation of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and
western Canada. Although their specific place of origin remains unknown
at this time, the group of wolves in Colorado are assumed to be related
to NRM wolves based on proximity and the fact that dispersing wolves of
known origin documented in Colorado since the early 2000s all
originated from the NRM, including the lone individual that dispersed
from Wyoming to Colorado and has resided in North Park, Colorado, since
at least July 2019 (USFWS 2020, p. 19). Little information is currently
available regarding the movements or territory use of the group in
northwest Colorado but, to date, all confirmed reports have been in
Colorado.
Finally, a number of lone long-distance dispersing wolves have been
documented outside core populations \3\ of the Great Lakes area and
Western United States. For example, over the years, dispersing wolves
have been detected in all States within historical gray wolf range west
of the Mississippi River except Oklahoma and Texas (USFWS 2020, pp. 26,
28-29). Since the early 2000s, confirmed records of individual gray
wolves have been reported from Vermont, Massachusetts, New York,
Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. The total number
of confirmed records in each of these States, since the early 2000s,
ranges from 1 to at least 27, the latter occurring in North Dakota,
which also has an additional 45 probable but unverified reports (USFWS
2020, pp. 25-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A population that inhabits a larger, more continuous, higher
quality habitat patch within a species' distribution and,
consequently, is larger in size and more genetically diverse (due to
higher gene flow), and has greater evolutionary potential and
resilience to stochastic events than a population that inhabits
smaller, more isolated, lower quality habitat patches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, gray wolves in the lower 48 United States today exist
primarily as two large metapopulations: One spread across northern
Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the other consisting of the
recovered and delisted NRM DPS wolf population that is biologically
connected to a small number of colonizing wolves in western Washington,
western Oregon, northern California, and, most likely, Colorado (USFWS
2020, pp. 27-29) (figure 2). In addition, a number of lone dispersers
have been documented outside of core populations in several States.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO20.017
[[Page 69790]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO20.018
Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery Implementation
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered species
and threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)(1)).
Recovery plans are non-regulatory documents that identify management
actions that may be necessary to achieve conservation and survival of
the species. They also identify objective, measurable criteria
(recovery criteria) which, when met, may result in a determination that
the species should be removed from the List. Methods for monitoring
recovery progress may also be included in recovery plans.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to recover a species, and recovery may be
achieved without all recovery criteria being fully met. For example,
one or more criteria may be exceeded while other criteria may not yet
be accomplished. In that instance, we may determine that the threats
are minimized sufficiently and that the species is robust enough that
it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. In other cases, we may discover new recovery
opportunities after having finalized the recovery plan. Parties seeking
to conserve the species may use these opportunities instead of methods
identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, we may learn new information
about the species after we finalize the recovery plan. The new
information may change the extent to which existing criteria are
appropriate for identifying recovery of the species. The recovery of a
species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or
may not, follow all of the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
The Act does not describe recovery in terms of the proportion of
historical range that must be occupied by a species, nor does it imply
that restoration throughout the entire historical range is required to
achieve conservation. In fact, the Act does not contain the phrase
``historical range.'' Thus, the Act does not require us to restore the
gray wolf (or any other species) to its entire historical range, or any
specific percentage of currently suitable habitat. For some species,
expansion of their distribution or abundance may be necessary to
achieve recovery. The amount of expansion necessary is driven by the
biological needs of the species for viability (ability
[[Page 69791]]
to sustain populations in the wild over time) and sustainability. Thus,
there is no specific percentage of historical range or currently
suitable habitat that must be occupied by the species to achieve
recovery. Many other species may be recovered in portions of their
historical range or currently suitable habitat by removing or
addressing the threats to their continued existence. And some species
may be recovered by a combination of range expansion and threat
reduction.
As indicated in Previous Federal Actions, following our 1978
reclassification, we drafted recovery plans and implemented recovery
programs for gray wolves in three regions of the lower 48 United States
(table 1). Wolves in one of these regions--C. l. baileyi, in the
Southwestern United States and Mexico--are listed separately as an
endangered subspecies and are not assessed in this rule (see Approach
for this Rule). Below, we discuss recovery of wolves in the other two
regions--the Eastern United States and the northern Rocky Mountains.
Recovery Criteria for the Eastern United States
The 1978 Recovery Plan (hereafter Recovery Plan) and the 1992
Revised Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (hereafter Revised
Recovery Plan) were developed to guide recovery of the eastern timber
wolf subspecies in the Eastern United States. Those recovery plans
contain the same two recovery criteria, which are meant to indicate
when recovery of the eastern timber wolf throughout its historical
range in the Eastern United States has been achieved. These criteria
are: (1) The survival of the wolf in Minnesota is assured, and (2) at
least one viable population of eastern timber wolves outside Minnesota
and Isle Royale in the lower 48 States is reestablished.
The first recovery criterion, assuring the survival of the wolf in
Minnesota, 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 predate
identification of the conservation biology principles of representation
(conserving the adaptive diversity of a taxon), resiliency (ability to
withstand demographic and environmental variation), and redundancy
(sufficient populations to provide a margin of safety), the recovery
criteria for the gray wolf in the Eastern United States are consistent
with those principles. The Recovery Team concluded that the remnant
Minnesota wolf population must be maintained and protected to achieve
wolf recovery in the Eastern United States. Maintenance of the
Minnesota wolf population is important in terms of representation
because these wolves include both western gray wolves and wolves that
are admixtures of western gray wolves and eastern wolves (see Taxonomy
of Gray Wolves in North America) and are comparable to wolf populations
that were present in the area historically. The successful growth of
the remnant Minnesota population has maintained and maximized the
representation of that genetic diversity among wolves in the Great
Lakes area.
Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf population is also important in
terms of resiliency. Although the Revised Recovery Plan did not
establish a specific numerical criterion for the Minnesota wolf
population, it did identify, for planning purposes, a population goal
of 1,251-1,400 animals for the Minnesota population (USFWS 1992, p.
28). A population of this size not only increases the likelihood of
maintaining its genetic diversity over the long term, but also reduces
the adverse impacts of unpredictable demographic and environmental
events. Furthermore, the Revised Recovery Plan recommends 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 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 Great Lakes metapopulation.
The Revised Recovery Plan provides two options for reestablishing
this second population. If it is an isolated population, that is,
located more than 100 miles (mi) (160 kilometers (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 closely tied with the Minnesota population, and by occasional
immigration of Minnesota wolves, would retain sufficient genetic
diversity to cope with environmental fluctuations.
The original Recovery Plan did not specify where in the Eastern
United States the second population should be reestablished. 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 Upper Peninsula
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 indicate that the establishment of gray
wolves throughout all or most of what was thought to be its historical
range in the Eastern United States, or within all of the identified
potential reestablishment areas, is necessary to achieve recovery under
the Act.
Recovery Progress in the Eastern United States
Wolves in the Great Lakes area 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 within 100 mi (160 km) of Minnesota for 5
successive years. Based on the surveys conducted since 1998, the wolf
population in Minnesota has exceeded 2,000 individuals over the past 20
years, and populations in Michigan and Wisconsin, which are less than
100 mi (160 km) from the Minnesota population, have exceeded 100
individuals every year since 1994 (USFWS 2020, Appendix 1). Based on
the criteria set by the Eastern Wolf Recovery Team in 1992 and
reaffirmed in 1997 and 1998 (Peterson in litt. 1997, Peterson in litt.
1998, Peterson in litt. 1999a, Peterson in litt. 1999b), this region
contains sufficient wolf numbers and distribution to ensure the long-
term survival of gray wolves in the Eastern United States.
[[Page 69792]]
The maintenance and expansion of the Minnesota wolf population has
allowed for the preservation of the genetic diversity that remained in
the Great Lakes area when its wolves were first protected in 1974. The
Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population far exceeds the numerical recovery
criterion, even for a completely isolated second population. Therefore,
even in the unlikely event that this two-State population were 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 about 20 years, so if either
were somehow to become isolated, they would remain viable. Furthermore,
each State has committed to manage its wolf population above viable
population levels (see Post-delisting Management). The wolf's numeric
and distributional recovery criteria for the Eastern United States have
been met.
Recovery Criteria for the NRM
The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan was approved in 1980 (USFWS 1980, p. i)
and revised in 1987 (USFWS 1987, p. i). The wolf recovery goal for the
NRM was reevaluated and, when necessary, modified as new scientific
information warranted (USFWS 1987, p. 12; USFWS 1994, Appendix 8 and 9;
Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 26; Bangs 2002, p. 1; 73 FR 10514, February
27, 2008; 74 FR 15130-15135, April 2, 2009). The Service's resulting
recovery goal for the NRM gray wolf population was: 30 or more breeding
pairs comprising at least 300 wolves equitably distributed among
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming for 3 consecutive years, with genetic
exchange (either natural or, if necessary, agency managed) between
subpopulations. To provide a buffer above these minimum recovery
levels, each State was to manage for at least 15 breeding pairs and 150
wolves in mid-winter (77 FR 55538-55539, September 10, 2012; 74 FR
15132, April 2, 2009). Further, the post-delisting monitoring plan
stipulated that three scenarios could lead us to initiate a status
review and analysis of threats to determine if relisting was warranted:
(1) If the wolf population in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming fell below the
minimum NRM wolf population recovery level of 10 breeding pairs and 100
wolves at the end of any one year; (2) if the portion of the wolf
population in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming falls below 15 breeding pairs
or 150 wolves at the end of the year in any one of those States for 3
consecutive years; or (3) if a change in State law or management
objectives would significantly increase the threat to the wolf
population. For additional information on NRM wolf recovery goals and
their evolution over time, see 74 FR 15130-15135 and references
therein.
Recovery Progress in the NRM DPS
As indicated in Previous Federal Actions, wolves in the NRM DPS
have recovered and were delisted (table 1). The NRM wolf population
achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goals at the end of
2000 (USFWS et al. 2008, table 4). The temporal portion of the recovery
goal was achieved in 2002 when the numerical and distributional
recovery goals were exceeded for the 3rd successive year (USFWS et al.
2008, table 4). In 2009, we concluded that wolves in the NRM DPS far
exceeded recovery goals. We also concluded that ``The NRM wolf
population: (1) Has at least [45] reproductively successful packs and
[450] individual wolves each winter (near the low point in the annual
cycle of a wolf population); (2) is equitably distributed within the
100,000 mi\2\ (250,000 km\2\) area containing 3 areas of large core
refugia (National Parks, wilderness areas, large blocks of remote
secure public land) and at least 65,725 mi\2\ (170,228 km\2\) of
suitable wolf habitat; and (3) is genetically diverse and has
demonstrated successful genetic exchange through natural dispersal and
human-assisted migration management between all three core refugia''
(74 FR 15133, April 2, 2009). Post-delisting and subsequent monitoring,
and the expansion of the NRM population into western Washington,
western Oregon, northern California, and, likely, Colorado (USFWS 2020,
pp. 15-19, 28; see also Current Distribution and Abundance), indicate
that the wolf population in the NRM DPS remains well above minimum
recovery levels (see Current Distribution and Abundance).
Historical Context of Our Analysis
When reviewing the current status of a species, it is important to
understand and evaluate the effects of lost historical range on the
viability of the species. In fact, when we consider the status of a
species, we are considering whether the species is currently (i.e.,
without the species' occupying parts of its historical range) an
endangered species or threatened species. Range reduction may result
in: Reduced numbers of individuals and populations; changes in
available resources (such as food) and, consequently, carrying
capacity; changes in demographic characteristics (survival,
reproductive rate); changes in population distribution and structure;
and changes in genetic diversity and gene flow. These, in turn, can
increase a species' vulnerability to a wide variety of threats, such as
habitat loss, restricted gene flow, reduced genetic diversity, or
having all or most of its populations affected by a catastrophic event.
In other words, past range reduction can reduce the redundancy,
resiliency, and representation of a species in its current range, such
that a species may meet the definition of an ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species'' under the Act. Thus, loss of historical range is
not necessarily determinative of a species' status; rather, it must be
considered in the context of other factors affecting a species. In
addition to considering the effects that loss of historical range has
had on the current and future viability of the species, we must also
consider the causes of that loss of historical range. If the causes of
the loss are ongoing, then that loss is also relevant as evidence of
the effects of an ongoing threat.
As indicated above, gray wolves historically occupied a large
portion of the lower 48 United States (see figure 2). The range of the
gray wolf began receding after the arrival of Europeans as a result of
deliberate killing of wolves by humans and government-funded bounty
programs aimed at eradication (USFWS 2020, pp. 10-13). Further, many
historical habitats were converted into agricultural land (Paquet and
Carbyn 2003, p. 483), and natural food sources such as deer and elk
were reduced, eliminated, or replaced with domestic livestock, which
can become anthropogenic food sources for gray wolves (Young 1944 in
Fritts et al. 1997, p. 8). The resulting reductions in range and
population were dramatic--by the 1970s, gray wolves occupied only a
small fraction of their historical range (figure 2). Although the range
of the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States has significantly
expanded since 1978, its size and distribution remain below historical
levels. The alterations to gray wolf historical range in the lower 48
United States increased the vulnerability of gray wolves in the lower
48 United States to a wide variety of threats that would not be at
issue without such range reduction. We analyze these potential threats
to gray wolves in the lower 48 United States below (see Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species).
[[Page 69793]]
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,'' and a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors:
(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; and
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response, and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Since
publication of our proposed rule (84 FR 9648, March 15, 2019), the
Service codified its understanding of foreseeable future at 50 CFR
424.11(d) (84 FR 45020). In those regulations, we explain the term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. The Service will
describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using the best
available data and taking into account considerations such as the
species' life-history characteristics, threat-projection timeframes,
and environmental variability. The Service need not identify the
foreseeable future in terms of a specific time period. These
regulations did not significantly modify the Service's interpretation;
rather they codified a framework that sets forth how the Service will
determine what constitutes the foreseeable future based on our
longstanding practice. Accordingly, though these regulations do not
apply to the determinations for the entities assessed in this final
rule because it was proposed prior to their effective date, they do not
change the Service's assessment of foreseeable future for the entities
assessed in our proposed rule and in this determination.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
For the purposes of this rule, and consistent with our proposed
rule, 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 wolves within the lower 48 United States. The Great Lakes
States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have an established
history of cooperating with and assisting in wolf recovery and have
made a commitment, through legislative actions, to continue these
activities. Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, and Utah are also
committed to wolf conservation, as demonstrated by development of
management plans and/or codification of laws and regulations protecting
wolves (see Post-delisting Management). The best available information
indicates that the Great Lakes States, West Coast States, and central
Rocky Mountain States (Colorado and Utah) are committed to gray wolf
conservation, and, therefore, we conclude that this commitment is
likely to continue into the foreseeable future. Further, the NRM States
have, for years, demonstrated their commitment to managing their wolf
populations at or above recovery levels and the best available
information indicates that this commitment will continue into the
foreseeable future.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Wolves within the lower 48 United States are currently listed as
endangered under the Act, except wolves in Minnesota, which are listed
as threatened, and wolves in the NRM DPS, which were delisted due to
recovery (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009, and 77 FR 55530, September 10,
2012). In this analysis we evaluate threat factors currently affecting
wolves within the lower 48 United States and those that are reasonably
likely to have a negative effect on the viability of wolves within the
lower 48 United States if the protections of the Act are removed. As
explained in our significant portion of the range (SPR) final policy
(79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014), we take into account the effect lost
historical range may have on the current and future viability of a
species in the range it currently occupies and also evaluate whether
the causes of that loss are evidence of ongoing or future threats to
the species. We do this through our analysis of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A species' current condition
reflects the effects of historical range loss, and, because threat
[[Page 69794]]
factors are evaluated in the context of the species' current condition,
historical range contraction may affect the outcome of our analysis.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we have identified several factors that could be
significant threats to wolves within the lower 48 United States. We
summarize our analysis of these factors, and factors identified at the
time of listing, below. Due to recent information confirming the
presence of a group of six wolves in extreme northwest Colorado, and
their proximity to and potential use of habitats within Utah, we
included these States in our analysis.
Human-Caused Mortality
At the time of listing, human-caused mortality was identified as
the main factor responsible for the decline of gray wolves (43 FR 9611,
March 9, 1978). An active eradication program is the sole reason that
wolves were extirpated from much of their historical range in the
United States (Weaver 1978, p. i). European settlers attempted to
eliminate the wolf entirely, primarily due to the real or perceived
threats to livestock, 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
(Hampton 1997, pp. 107-108; Beyer et al. 2009, p. 66; Erb and DonCarlos
2009, p. 50; Wydeven et al. 2009b, p. 88; USFWS 2020, pp. 10-13). For
example, in Michigan, an 1838 wolf bounty became the ninth law passed
by the First Michigan Legislature.
After the gray wolf was listed under the Act, its protections,
along with State endangered-species statutes, prohibited the
intentional killing of wolves except under very limited circumstances.
Such circumstances included defense of human life, scientific or
conservation purposes, and special regulations intended to reduce wolf
depredations of livestock or other domestic animals. Aside from the
reintroduction of wolves into portions of the northern Rocky Mountains,
the regulation of human-caused wolf mortality is the primary reason
wolf numbers have significantly increased and their range has expanded
since the mid-to-late 1970s (Smith et al. 2010, entire; O'Neil et al.
2017, entire; Stenglein et al. 2018, entire).
The regulation of human-caused mortality has long been recognized
as the most significant factor affecting the long-term conservation of
wolves. Human-caused mortality includes both controllable and
uncontrollable sources of mortality. Controllable sources of mortality
are discretionary, can be limited by the managing agency, and include
permitted take, sport hunting, and direct agency control. Sources of
mortality that will be difficult to limit, or may be uncontrollable,
occur regardless of population size and include things such as natural
mortalities, illegal take, and accidental deaths (e.g., vehicle
collisions, capture-related mortalities). However, if population levels
and controllable sources of mortality are adequately regulated, the
life-history characteristics of wolf populations provide natural
resiliency to high levels of human-caused mortality.
Two Minnesota studies provide some limited insight into the extent
of human-caused wolf mortality before and after the species' listing.
Examining 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) evaluated
data from a north-central Minnesota study area and found an annual
human-caused mortality rate of 29 percent from 1980 through 1986, which
includes 2 percent mortality from legal depredation-control actions.
However, it is difficult to draw conclusions from comparisons of these
two studies because of differences in habitat quality, exposure to
humans, prey density, time periods, and study design. Nonetheless,
these figures indicate that human-caused mortality decreased
significantly once the wolf became protected under the Act.
Humans kill wolves for a number of reasons. In locations where
people, livestock, and wolves coexist, some wolves are killed to
resolve conflicts with livestock and pets (Fritts et al. 2003, p. 310;
Woodroffe et al. 2005, pp. 86-107, 345-347). Occasionally, wolves are
killed accidentally by vehicles, mistaken for coyotes and shot, caught
in traps set for other animals, or subject to accidental capture-
related mortality during conservation or research efforts (Bangs et al.
2005, p. 346). A few wolves have been killed by people who believed
their physical safety was being threatened. Many wolf killings,
however, are intentional, illegal, and never reported to authorities.
Although survival can be highly variable across populations (Fuller
et al. 2003, pp. 176-181), recent estimated annual mortality rates for
wolves greater than 1 year of age are relatively consistent among some
U.S. populations and range between 20 to 25 percent (Adams et al. 2008,
pp. 11-12; Smith et al. 2010, p. 625; Cubaynes et al. 2014, p. 5;
O'Neil et al. 2017, p. 9523; Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 104). Outside of
very remote areas and large protected areas such as Yellowstone and
Isle Royale National Parks, anthropogenic causes are the greatest
source of mortality for most wolves in the lower 48 United States. Such
causes are estimated to account for 60-70 percent of all mortalities in
the NRM wolf population (Murray et al. 2010, p. 2518), Michigan (O'Neil
2017, p. 214) and Wisconsin (Treves et al. 2017a, p. 27; Stenglein et
al. 2018, p. 108) and nearly 80 percent in Minnesota (Fuller 1989, p.
24). The risk of human-caused mortality is not uniform, however, and
tends to be highest for dispersing animals (Smith et al. 2010, pp. 630-
631) and for wolves that occupy less suitable habitats generally found
on the peripheries of occupied wolf range (Smith et al. 2010, pp. 630-
631; O'Neil et al. 2017, pp. 9524-9528; Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 109).
In the absence of high levels of human-caused mortality, for
example in Yellowstone and Isle Royale National Parks, wolf populations
tend to be regulated by density-dependent, intrinsic mechanisms (Fuller
et al. 2003, pp. 187-188; Cubaynes et al. 2014, pp. 9-11). Outside of
such areas, where anthropogenic influences are greater, the influence
of human-caused mortality on wolf populations may be considered either
additive (mortality in excess of the number of deaths that would have
occurred naturally) or compensatory (mortality that replaces deaths
that would have occurred naturally). Some studies have concluded that
anthropogenic mortality may be super-additive (increased additive
mortality beyond the effect of direct killing itself) due to the
effects increased take may have on the reproductive dynamics of wolves
and packs (Creel and Rotella 2010, p. 3). Another study implied super-
additive mortality occurred through increased legal take, which
prompted a concurrent increase in illegal take that reduced
reproductive output and population growth rates (Chapron and Treves
2016, p. 5); however, the claims of that study have been questioned
(Olson et al. 2017, entire; Pepin et al. 2017, entire; Stein 2017,
entire). Another study documented that harvest mortality was largely
additive to natural mortality and that evidence for super-additive
mortality was weak in Idaho (Horne et al. 2019a, pp. 40-41). Murray et
al. (2010, pp. 2522-2523) noted anthropogenic mortality was partially
compensatory in the NRM wolf population; however, as population density
increased, human-caused
[[Page 69795]]
mortality became increasingly additive (Murray et al. 2010, pp. 2522-
2523), a trend that was also observed in Michigan (O'Neil 2017, pp.
201-229). In Wisconsin, Stenglein et al. (2018, pp. 106-108) noted a
different trend in which mortality was largely additive prior to 2004,
whereas it became partially compensatory after 2004 as wolves began to
occupy most of the available suitable habitat in the State. Borg et al.
(2014, pp. 7-9) documented that strong compensatory mechanisms buffered
against long-term population-level impacts of breeder loss and pack
dissolution in Denali National Park. Fuller et al. (2003, p. 186)
concluded that human-caused mortality can replace up to 70 percent of
natural mortality in wolf populations. Increased levels of human-caused
mortality in wolf populations can be compensated for by a reduction in
natural mortality (O'Neil 2017, pp. 201-229), dispersal to fill social
openings (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186; Adams et al. 2008, pp. 20-21;
Smith et al. 2010, pp. 630-633; Bassing et al. 2019, pp. 585-586), or
reproduction (Gude et al. 2012, pp. 113-114; Schmidt et al. 2017, p.
25). Similarities in survival rates among wolf populations subject to
different levels of human-caused and other forms of mortality (see
above for discussion about survival/mortality rates) indicates a
moderate level of compensation in mortality occurs in wolf populations.
It further indicates that moderate increases in human-caused mortality
may not have a large effect on annual wolf survival (O'Neil 2017, p.
220).
Increased human-caused mortality may either increase or decrease
wolf dispersal rates depending on various factors. For example, if wolf
harvest is significant, it can reduce wolf densities leading to an
overall decline in dispersal events due to a reduction in the number of
individuals available to disperse, reduced competition for resources
within the pack, or through direct removal of dispersing animals
(Packard and Mech 1980, p. 144; Gese and Mech 1991, p. 2949; Adams et
al. 2008, pp. 16-18). Trapping, in particular, may remove the age
classes most likely to disperse because younger, less experienced
wolves are often more vulnerable to this form of harvest. In a heavily
harvested population with a significant portion of the harvest from
trapping, long open seasons, and no bag limits, dispersal rates were
observed to be up to 50 percent less than in unexploited populations
(Webb et al. 2011, pp. 748-749). However, there appears to be
considerable variability in dispersal rates from harvested populations
that likely depends on a number of factors, including prey
availability, pack size, harvest rates, and whether or not harvest was
biased toward certain age-classes (Hayes and Harestad 2000, pp. 43-44;
Webb et al. 2011, pp. 748-749). Jimenez et al. (2017, p. 588) found
that increased human-caused mortality (illegal take and agency lethal
control) removed individual wolves and entire packs, and thereby
provided a constant source of social openings or vacant habitat for
wolves to recolonize. However, long-distance dispersals still occurred
at low wolf density even when vacant habitat was nearby. Using data
from 197 GPS-collared wolves from 65 wolf packs in Idaho to construct
an integrated population model, Horne et al. (2019a, p. 40) found that
variation in harvest rates did not translate to changes in the
propensity for wolves to disperse. The authors speculated that harvest
rates in their study were not high enough to cause widespread breeding
vacancies and increased dispersal behavior.
In wolf populations that are not hunted, lethal control of
depredating wolves (see below for discussion) and illegal take are the
two primary anthropogenic causes of mortality. In the NRM, Smith et al.
(2010, p. 625) estimated that illegal take accounted for 24 percent of
all mortalities (or approximately 6 percent of the population);
however, 12 percent of the documented mortalities were attributed to
unknown causes, so it is highly plausible that the number of wolves
illegally taken may have been higher (Liberg et al. 2012, p. 914;
O'Neil 2017, pp. 220-221; Treves et al. 2017b, p. 7). Ausband et al.
(2017a, p. 7) used radio-collared wolves to estimate that 8.2 percent
of the Idaho wolf population was illegally killed annually while the
annual rate of illegal take in Michigan was estimated at approximately
9 percent (O'Neil 2017, p. 214). In Wisconsin, it was estimated that 9
percent of wolves were killed illegally (Stenglein et al. 2018; p. 104)
while Stenglein et al. (2015b, p. 1183) concluded that as many as 400
wolves were illegally killed but were not detected between 2003 and
2012. Another study conducted outside of the lower 48 United States
estimated the percentage of unknown illegal take that occurred and
estimated that approximately 69 percent of all poaching incidents were
undocumented (Liberg et al. 2012, p. 912). Similarly, Treves et al.
(2017b, entire) concluded that illegal take was the primary cause of
wolf mortality and that the relative risk of poaching was grossly
underestimated in both the NRM and Wisconsin. We acknowledge the
challenges of documenting and estimating illegal take, and note that
illegal take may have slowed wolf population growth in the lower 48
United States to some extent (Liberg et al. 2012, entire; Stenglein et
al. 2018, p. 105). However, based on wolf minimum counts and population
estimates (USFWS 2020, Appendix 1 and 2), illegal take, whether
documented or not, has not prevented recovery of the species, the
maintenance of viable wolf populations, or the continued recolonization
of vacant, suitable habitat.
Vehicle collisions also contribute to wolf mortality. The total
number of wolf mortalities associated with vehicle collisions is
expected to rise with increasing wolf populations as wolves attempt to
colonize more human-dominated areas that contain a denser network of
roads and vehicular traffic. However, mortalities associated with
vehicle collisions are unlikely to increase as a percentage of the
total wolf population if increases occur concurrently. Regardless,
mortalities from vehicle collisions will likely continue to constitute
a small proportion of total wolf mortalities.
Neither scientific research nor the use of wolves for educational
purposes are significant sources of human-caused mortality. Each of the
States in the current range of gray wolves in the lower 48 United
States conduct scientific research and monitoring of wolf populations.
Even the most intensive and disruptive of these activities (ground or
aerial capture for the purpose of radio-collaring) involves a very low
rate of mortality for wolves (73 FR 10542, February 27, 2008). We
expect that capture-related mortality during wolf monitoring, nonlethal
control, and research activities will remain low, and will have an
insignificant impact on population dynamics.
The best available information does not indicate any wolves have
been removed from the wild solely for educational purposes in recent
years. Wolves that are used for such purposes are typically privately
held, captive-reared offspring of wolves that were already in captivity
for other reasons. However, States may get requests to place wolves
that would otherwise be euthanized in captivity for research or
educational purposes. Such requests have been and will continue to be
rare, would be closely regulated by the State wildlife-management
agencies through the requirement for State permits for protected
species, and would not
[[Page 69796]]
substantially increase human-caused wolf mortality rates.
Some federally listed wolves have been legally removed by private
citizens in the lower 48 United States through defense of life or
property statutes. It is a rare occurrence for non-habituated wild
wolves in North America to pose a threat to humans (McNay 2002, pp.
836-837); nonetheless, on rare occasions, humans have killed wolves due
to a real or perceived threat to their safety or the safety of others,
which is permissible even under the Act's protections. For example,
since wolves began recolonizing the West Coast States in 2008, a single
wolf has been killed by a private individual who claimed self-defense
in the federally listed portion of Washington. Under the rules that
governed Federal wolf management for nonessential experimental
populations under section 10(j) of the Act in portions of the NRM DPS
(59 FR 60252 and 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, January 6,
2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008), private individuals were lawfully
allowed to kill a wolf in defense of property provided the incident was
immediately reported to the Service and an investigation confirmed
evidence of an attack. To our knowledge, most States within occupied
wolf range already have rules and regulations related to the taking of
wildlife when life or property are threatened and the taking of wolves
under these circumstances will be regulated under the same rules post-
delisting. Although the number of wolves lawfully killed in defense of
human life and property by private individuals may be slightly higher
in areas with greater human or livestock density and may increase after
delisting as authority for this action expands, overall this type of
mortality is rare and is not expected to have a significant impact on
gray wolf populations in the lower 48 United States. For information
related to defense of life or property mortalities, refer to the Post-
delisting Management section of this rule for the Great Lakes area and
the Human-caused Mortality in the NRM DPS section for the NRM DPS.
The use of lethal depredation control to mitigate wolf-human
conflicts or to minimize risk associated with repeated livestock
depredations will likely increase in the lower 48 United States after
delisting. Although most wolf conflicts are rare or one-time incidents
that do not require management action or may be resolved using
preventative or nonlethal methods, in some instances lethal control by
wildlife management agencies or private individuals is used to resolve
imminent threats to human life or property or to minimize the risk of
recurrent conflicts. The number of wolves killed for this purpose in
the lower 48 United States is small when compared to the greater
population (see information in subsequent paragraph). With respect to
the area of the lower 48 United States currently listed as endangered
(see figure 1), lethal control of depredating wolves is not currently
authorized; however, after delisting, State and Tribal wildlife
agencies may choose to use lethal control as a mitigation response.
Human-Caused Mortality in the Currently Listed Entities
Lethal control of depredating wolves was authorized in Minnesota
while wolves were listed under the authority of 50 CFR 17.40(d)
pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act. However, such control was not
authorized in Michigan or Wisconsin, except (1) as authorized under
section 4(d) when the population was reclassified to threatened (from
April 13, 2003, to January 31, 2005), (2) by special permits (from
April 1, 2005, to September 13, 2005, and from April 24, 2006, to
August 10, 2006), and (3) when delisted (from March 12, 2007, to
September 29, 2008, May 4, 2009, to July 1, 2009, and January 27, 2012,
to December 19, 2014). The depredation control program in Minnesota
killed between 6 and 216 wolves annually from 1979 to 2006. The 5-year
annual average of statewide populations for wolves killed ranged from
26 (2 percent of the estimated population) to 152 (7 percent of the
estimated population) during that time period (Ruid et al. 2009, p.
287). During the periods when wolves were managed under the 4(d) rule
in the State, the Minnesota wolf population continued to grow or remain
stable. During the times that lethal control of depredating wolves was
authorized in Wisconsin and Michigan, there was no evidence of
resulting adverse impacts to the maintenance of a viable wolf
population in those States. In Wisconsin, during the almost 5 years
(cumulative over three different time periods) that lethal depredation
control was allowed in the State, a total of 256 wolves were killed for
this purpose, including 46 legally shot by private landowners. A total
of 64 wolves were killed in Michigan (half of these (32) were legally
killed by private landowners) in response to depredation events during
the same nearly 5-year period (cumulative over three different time
periods). Following delisting, we anticipate that wolf depredation
control would occur in Wisconsin and Michigan consistent with their
State management plans. We anticipate the level of mortality due to
depredation control would be similar to what was observed during
previous periods when wolves were delisted. See the Post-delisting
Management section for a more detailed discussion of legal control of
problem wolves (primarily for depredation control).
Regulated public harvest is another form of human-caused mortality
that has occurred in the Great Lakes area during periods when wolves
were delisted, and will likely occur in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan if wolves are delisted again. Using an adaptive-management
approach that adjusts harvest based on population estimates and trends,
the initial objectives of States may be to reduce or stabilize wolf
populations and then manage for sustainable populations, similar to how
States manage all other hunted species. See the Post-delisting
Management section for a more detailed discussion of legal harvest.
Regulation of human-caused mortality has significantly reduced the
number of wolf mortalities caused by humans and, although illegal and
accidental killing of wolves is likely to continue with or without the
protections of the Act, at current levels those mortalities have had
minimal impact on wolf abundance or distribution. We assume that legal
human-caused mortality will increase when wolves are delisted as State
managers continue or have the ability to implement lethal control to
mitigate repeated conflicts with livestock and decide whether to
incorporate regulated public harvest to assist in achieving wolf
management objectives in their respective States. However, the high
reproductive potential of wolves, and their innate behavior to disperse
and locate social openings or vacant suitable habitats, allows wolf
populations to withstand relatively high rates of human-caused
mortality (USFWS 2020, pp. 8-9).
The States of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin have committed to
continue to regulate human-caused mortality so that it does not reduce
the wolf population below recovery levels. We conclude that the States
have adequate laws and regulations to fulfill those commitments and
ensure that the wolf population in the Great Lakes area remains above
recovery levels (See Post-delisting Management). Washington, Oregon,
California, Colorado, and Utah are also committed to conserving wolves
as demonstrated by the development of management plans and/or
codification of laws and regulations that protect wolves. Furthermore,
each post-delisting management entity (State, Tribal, and Federal) has
experienced
[[Page 69797]]
and professional wildlife staff to ensure those commitments can be
accomplished.
Human-Caused Mortality in the NRM DPS
After gray wolves were afforded Federal protections under the Act
in 1974, an interagency team began recovery planning for wolves in the
West. The team identified three recovery areas in the NRM that included
northwest Montana, central Idaho, and the Greater Yellowstone Area
(GYA; USFWS 1987, pp. v, 13). These areas were selected because they
contained large contiguous blocks of Federal public lands, had abundant
ungulate populations, and relatively low numbers of livestock that were
seasonally grazed on Federal allotments. It was further recognized that
control of depredating wolves would be an important aspect of the
recovery planning process and the eventual management of gray wolves
(USFWS 1980, pp. 14-15; USFWS 1987, pp. v-vi, 9, 14-15, 33-35; USFWS
1994, entire; Bangs et al. 2009, p. 97). In 1994, the Service
designated portions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming as two nonessential
experimental population areas for the gray wolf under section 10(j) of
the Act, which facilitated the 1995 and 1996 reintroduction of gray
wolves into these areas and offered more flexibility to manage
conflicts than was otherwise allowed for an endangered species (USFWS
1994; 59 FR 60252 and 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994). Wolves in
northwest Montana retained their classification as endangered because
natural recolonization from Canada had already begun in the 1980s
(USFWS 1994; 59 FR 60252 and 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994). In 2005
and again in 2008, section 10(j) rules governing management of the
nonessential experimental wolf populations were revised to clarify
terms and allow limited increases in management flexibility to mitigate
wolf conflicts (for further information see 70 FR 1286, January 6,
2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008). The information provided below for
the delisted NRM wolf population includes wolves that inhabit the three
wolf recovery areas in the NRM States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming
and does not include wolves that have naturally recolonized portions of
Oregon and Washington within the NRM unless specifically noted.
After wolf reintroduction, a rapid increase in the number and
distribution of wolves occurred due to the availability of high-
quality, suitable wolf habitat in the NRM. Between 1995 and 2008, wolf
populations in the NRM increased an average of 24 percent annually
(USFWS et al. 2016, table 6b) while from 1999 to 2008, total wolf
mortality (includes all forms of known wolf mortality) averaged
approximately 16 percent of the minimum known wolf population each year
(USFWS et al. 2000-2009, entire). Wolf numbers and distribution
stabilized after 2008 as suitable habitat became increasingly saturated
(74 FR 15160, April 2, 2009). Between 2009 and 2015, some or all of the
NRM States (depending upon the Federal status of wolves at that time;
see table 1) began to manage wolves with the objective of reversing or
stabilizing population growth while continuing to maintain wolf
populations well above Federal recovery targets. The primary method
used to manage wolf populations and achieve management objectives is
through regulated public harvest. As a result, during those years when
legal harvest occurred, total wolf mortality in the NRM increased to an
average of 29 percent of the minimum known population (USFWS et al.
2010-2016, entire), while population growth declined to an average of
approximately 1 percent annually (USFWS et al. 2010-2016, entire).
Where high levels of wolf mortality occur, the species' reproductive
capacity and dispersal capability can compensate for mortality rates of
17 to 48 percent (USFWS 2020, pp. 8-9), this appears to be the case in
the NRM. As of 2015, the final year of a combined NRM wolf count due to
the end of federally required post-delisting monitoring in Idaho and
Montana, wolf populations in the NRM remained well above minimum
recovery levels with a minimum known population of 1,704 wolves
distributed across Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. An additional 177
wolves were documented in the NRM portions of Oregon and Washington at
the end of 2015.
Non-human related wolf mortalities may be biased low because a
relatively small percentage of wolves in the NRM had known fates.
Nonetheless, an average of 3 percent of known wolf mortalities were due
to non-human causes (e.g., natural and unknown causes) through 2008
(USFWS et al. 2000-2009, entire). Although the variability in the range
of non-human related wolf mortalities declined, the percent of non-
human related wolf mortalities dropped slightly to an average of 2
percent of the minimum known population annually between 2009 and 2015
(USFWS et al. 2010-2016, entire). Given the low level of non-human
related wolf mortalities documented in the NRM, even assuming the
estimate is biased low, we conclude that the effects of this type of
mortality on wolf populations are not significant.
Outside of very remote or large protected areas, human-caused
mortality accounts for the majority of the documented wolf mortalities
annually, and wolves in the NRM are no exception. Between 1999 and
2008, when gray wolves were federally listed (with the exception of
February to July 2008), documented human-caused wolf mortality averaged
13 percent of the minimum known NRM wolf population annually (USFWS et
al. 2000-2009, entire) with lethal control of depredating wolves (which
includes legal take by private individuals) and illegal take (discussed
previously) being the primary mortality factors. As expected, human-
caused mortality increased after 2008 as NRM States, dependent on the
Federal status of wolves, began to manage wolf populations. As a
result, human-caused mortality increased to an average of 27 percent of
the minimum known NRM wolf population annually between 2009 and 2015
(USFWS et al. 2010-2016, entire). Since 2009, regulated public harvest
and lethal control of depredating wolves have been the two primary
mortality factors removing an average of 17 percent and 9 percent of
the minimum known NRM wolf population annually, respectively (USFWS et
al. 2010-2016, entire). As part of post-delisting monitoring in the
NRM, the Service conducted annual assessments of the NRM wolf
population and noted that it remained well above Federal recovery
levels with no identifiable threats that imperiled its recovered status
under State management in 2009 (Bangs 2010, entire) and 2011 to 2015
(Jimenez 2012, 2013a, 2014, 2015, 2016, entire).
In addition to the annual post-delisting assessments, previous
rules (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009, and 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012)
have adequately described wolf population-level responses to various
mortality factors in the NRM up through 2008. Regulated harvest and
lethal control of depredating wolves account for the majority of the
known wolf mortalities in the NRM since 2009 (see above); therefore,
the following discussion focuses on these two types of mortality. The
management of wolf populations through regulated harvest had never been
attempted in the lower 48 United States until 2009 when the NRM States
of Idaho and Montana conducted the first regulated wolf hunts. To
highlight the adaptive style of management that Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming use to maintain a recovered wolf population in the NRM DPS,
even though State
[[Page 69798]]
objectives include reducing wolf population growth rates, we have
included a significant amount of detail regarding the regulatory
framework the States have used to regulate wolf harvest. This
information also demonstrates wolf population-level responses and that
harvest levels generally do not increase under gradually less
restrictive regulations in some States. Lethal take of depredating
wolves by private individuals accounts for a relatively small
percentage of total wolves removed in the NRM annually for conflict-
related issues. Thus, in addition to agency control of depredating
wolves, the total number of wolves lethally removed for depredating
livestock includes wolves killed legally by private individuals in
depredation situations unless specifically noted. Although most of the
wolves in Oregon and Washington inhabit the NRM DPS portion of each
State and account for the majority of the wolf mortalities in any given
year, mortality rates presented below for these States are based on
statewide totals unless specified otherwise. For further information
related to the regulatory framework within each State in the NRM, see
the Management in the NRM DPS and the Post-Delisting Management in the
West Coast States sections of this rule as well as previous rules (74
FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012).
Regulated Harvest in Idaho--The Idaho Department of Fish and Game
(IDFG) has expressed its commitment to maintaining a viable, self-
sustaining wolf population above minimum Federal recovery levels, while
minimizing conflicts (Idaho Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee
[ILWOC] 2002, p. 4). Additional goals of wolf management in Idaho are
to ensure connectivity with wolf populations in neighboring States and
Provinces and to manage wolves as part of the native resident wildlife
resource, similar to management of other large carnivores in the State
(ILWOC 2002, p. 18). The State has indicated that it will only allow
wolf harvest as long as wolves remain federally delisted and as long as
15 or more packs are documented in the State. Wolves were removed from
Federal protections in Idaho in 2009 (74 FR 15