[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 135 (Thursday, July 13, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43450-43496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17621]



[[Page 43449]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal To Reclassify 
and Remove the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife in Portions of the Conterminous United States; Proposal To 
Establish Three Special Regulations for Threatened Gray Wolves; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 135 / Thursday, July 13, 2000 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 43450]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF20


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal To 
Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife in Portions of the Conterminous United States; 
Proposal To Establish Three Special Regulations for Threatened Gray 
Wolves

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) proposes to 
change the classification of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Increases in gray 
wolf numbers, expansion of the species' occupied range, and progress 
toward achieving the reclassification and delisting criteria of several 
approved gray wolf recovery plans show that the species' current 
classification is no longer appropriate throughout most of its range. 
This proposal, if finalized, will establish four distinct population 
segments (DPSs) for the gray wolf in the United States and Mexico. Gray 
wolves in the Western Great Lakes DPS, the Western DPS, and the 
Northeastern DPS will be reclassified from endangered to threatened, 
except where already classified as an experimental population or as 
threatened. Gray wolves in the Southwestern (Mexican) DPS will retain 
their endangered status. All three existing gray wolf experimental 
population designations will be retained and are not affected by this 
proposal. Gray wolves will be removed from the protections of the Act 
in all other areas of the 48 conterminous states. We are proposing a 
new special regulation under section 4(d) of the Act for the threatened 
Western DPS to increase our ability to respond to wolf-human conflicts 
outside the two experimental population areas in the northern United 
States Rockies. We are proposing a second special regulation under 
section 4(d) that would apply to the Northeastern DPS to reduce wolf-
human conflicts and land-use restrictions. A third section 4(d) special 
regulation would expand the current Minnesota wolf depredation program 
into Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The 
classification, under the Act, of captive gray wolves would be 
determined by the location from which they, or their ancestors, were 
removed from the wild. We would revise our existing recovery plans, as 
appropriate to accommodate changes necessitated by this proposal, if 
finalized. This proposal does not affect the protection currently 
afforded by the Act to the red wolf (C. rufus), a separate species that 
is listed as endangered in the southeastern United States.

DATES: We must receive comments from interested parties by November 13, 
2000 so they can be considered in our final decision. Requests for 
formal public hearings must be received by August 28, 2000. We will 
hold informal public informational meetings at numerous locations 
across the country during the comment period. The locations and dates 
of the informational meetings will be widely publicized in advance in 
the press; the locations and dates can also be obtained by using the 
phone, facsimile, electronic mail, and World Wide Web contact 
information given below.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments and other materials concerning this notice 
to Content Analysis Enterprise Team, Wolf Comments, 200 East Broadway, 
PO Box 7669, Room 301, Missoula, Montana 59807. Comments only (no 
questions or requests for information) may be submitted by electronic 
mail to [email protected] or by facsimile to 406-329-3021; the 
subject line must say wolf comments. Questions or requests for 
additional information should follow the instructions in the following 
section.
    We will make the comments and materials we receive available for 
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at 
Regional Offices and the Washington Office of the U.S. Fish Wildlife 
Service following the close of the comment period. Use the contact 
information in the next paragraph to obtain the addresses of those 
locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct all questions or requests for 
additional information to the Fish and Wildlife Service using the Gray 
Wolf Phone Line--612-713-7337, facsimile--612-713-5292, the general 
gray wolf electronic mail [email protected], or write to: 
GRAY WOLF QUESTIONS, Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, 1 
Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, MN 55111-4056. Additional information is 
also available on our World Wide Web site at http://midwest.fws.gov/wolf.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Purpose and Definitions of the Act

    The purpose of the Act is to identify species that meet the Act's 
definitions of endangered and threatened species, to add those species 
to the Federal lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants 
(50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12, respectively), and to implement conservation 
measures to improve their status to the point at which they no longer 
need the protections of the Act. When protection is no longer needed, 
we take steps to remove (delist) the species from the Federal lists. If 
a species is listed as endangered, we may reclassify it to threatened 
status as an intermediate step before eventual delisting; however, 
reclassification to threatened status is not required in order to 
delist.
    Section 3 of the Act provides the following definitions that are 
relevant to this proposal:
    Endangered species--any species which is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range;
    Threatened species--any species which is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range; and
    Species--includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and 
any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or 
wildlife which interbreeds when mature. (See additional discussion in 
Distinct Population Segments under Our Vertebrate Population Policy, 
below.)

Organization and Contents of This Proposed Rule

    This proposal begins with a discussion of the biology of the gray 
wolf, followed by a description of related issues that we considered 
during the development of this proposal. These issues include gray wolf 
taxonomy, experimental population designations, our Vertebrate 
Population Policy, and wolf-dog hybrids. We describe previous Federal 
actions taken for the gray wolf, including the development of recovery 
plans, and recovery progress in various parts of the country.
    A detailed discussion is presented for the five listing factors as 
required by the Act. These factors are (1) the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued

[[Page 43451]]

existence. We analyze these factors for the proposed reclassification 
of certain populations in response to the current status of the 
species, which encompasses present and future threats and conservation 
efforts. We designate Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) and we also 
discuss wolves in captivity and their role in wolf recovery.
    We identify alternative actions that we considered but did not 
propose and explain the reasons for selecting the proposed actions. 
Separate sections will explain the three special regulations that are 
proposed and how these special regulations will promote the 
conservation of the gray wolf in different parts of the country. We 
also explain the conservation measures that would be provided to the 
species if this proposal is finalized.
    We request comments and additional information on these proposed 
changes. The text of the regulatory changes that we are proposing for 
the gray wolf are found at the end of this rule.

Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves

    Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the Canidae, or dog 
family, with adults ranging from 18 to 80 kilograms (kg) (40 to 175 
pounds (lb)) depending upon sex and subspecies (Mech 1974). The average 
weight of male wolves in Wisconsin is 35 kilograms (77 lb) and ranges 
from 26 to 46 kg (57 to 102 lb), while females average 28 kg (62 lb) 
and range from 21 to 34 kg (46 to 75 lb) (Wisconsin Department of 
Natural Resources (WI DNR) 1999a). In the northern U.S. Rocky 
Mountains, adult male gray wolves average just over 45 kg (100 lb), 
while the females weigh slightly less. The fur color is frequently 
grizzled gray, but it can vary from pure white to coal black. Wolves 
tend to resemble coyotes (Canis latrans) or domestic German shepherd or 
husky dogs (C. domesticus) but can be distinguished from them by their 
longer legs, larger feet, wider head and snout, and straight tail.
    Wolves are predators of large animals. Wild prey species in North 
America include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule 
deer (O. hemionus), moose (Alces alces), elk (Cervus canadensis), 
woodland caribou (Rangifer caribou) and barren ground caribou (R. 
arcticus), bison (Bison bison), muskox (Ovibos moschatus), bighorn 
sheep (Ovis canadensis) and Dall sheep (O. dalli), mountain goat 
(Oreamnos americanus), beaver (Castor canadensis), and snowshoe hare 
(Lepus americanus), with small mammals, birds and large invertebrates 
sometimes being taken (Mech 1974, Stebler 1944, WI DNR 1999a). Domestic 
animals verified as being taken by wolves in Minnesota during the last 
20 years include horses, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, geese, ducks, 
turkeys, chickens, dogs, and cats (Paul 1999). Since 1987, wolves in 
the northern Rocky Mountains of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have killed 
a horse, cattle, sheep, and dogs.
    Wolves are social animals, normally living in packs of 2 to 10 
members. Packs are primarily family groups consisting of a breeding 
pair, their pups from the current year, offspring from the previous 
year, and occasionally an unrelated wolf. Packs occupy, and defend from 
other packs and individual wolves, a territory of 50 to 550 square 
kilometers (sq km) (20 to 214 square miles (sq mi)). In the northern 
U.S. Rocky Mountains territories tend to be larger, typically from 520 
to 1040 sq km (200 to 400 sq mi). Normally, only the top-ranking male 
and female in each pack breed and produce pups. Litters are born from 
early April into May; they can range from 1 to 11 pups, but generally 
contain 4 to 6 pups (Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MI DNR) 
1997, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992a). Yearling wolves frequently 
disperse from their natal packs, although some remain with their pack. 
Dispersers may become nomadic and cover large areas as lone animals, or 
they may locate suitable unoccupied habitat and a member of the 
opposite sex and begin their own territorial pack. Dispersal movements 
of over 800 km (500 mi) have been documented (Fritts 1983).
    The gray wolf historically occurred across most of North America, 
Europe, and Asia. In North America, gray wolves formerly occurred from 
the northern reaches of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland to the central 
mountains and the high interior plateau of southern Mexico. The only 
areas of the contiguous United States that apparently lacked gray 
wolves since the last glacial events are much of California and the 
Gulf and Atlantic coastal plain south of Virginia. In addition, wolves 
were generally absent from the extremely arid deserts and the 
mountaintops of the western United States (Goldman 1944, Hall 1959, 
Mech 1974).
    The influx of European settlers and their cultures into North 
America brought superstitions and fears of wolves. Their attitudes, 
coupled with perceived and real conflicts between wolves and human 
activities along the frontier, led to widespread persecution of wolves. 
Poisons, trapping, and shooting--spurred by Federal, State, and local 
government bounties-- resulted in extirpation of this once widespread 
species from more than 95 percent of its range in the 48 conterminous 
States. At the time of the passage of the Act, likely only several 
hundred wolves occurred in northeastern Minnesota and on Isle Royale, 
Michigan, and possibly a few scattered wolves in the Upper Peninsula of 
Michigan, Montana, and the American Southwest.
    Researchers have learned a great deal about gray wolf biology, 
especially regarding the species' adaptability and its use of non-
wilderness habitats. Public appreciation of the role of predators in 
our ecosystems has increased, and the recovery of the species is now 
generally supported by the public. Most importantly, within the last 
decade the prospects for gray wolf recovery in several areas of their 
former historical United States range have greatly increased. In the 
western Great Lakes area, wolves have dramatically increased their 
numbers and occupied range. In addition, gray wolf reintroduction 
programs in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains have shown great success.
    The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is one of two North American wolf 
species currently protected by the Act. The other is the red wolf (C. 
rufus), a separate species that is listed as endangered throughout its 
range in the southeastern United States and extending west into central 
Texas. The red wolf is the subject of a separate recovery program. This 
proposal does not pertain to the current or future listing status or 
protection of the red wolf.

Summary of Related Issues Considered

Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in the Eastern United States

    Both the 1978 and 1992 versions of the Recovery Plan for the 
Eastern Timber Wolf were developed to recover the gray wolf subspecies 
Canis lupus lycaon, commonly known as the eastern timber wolf, that was 
believed to be the gray wolf subspecies historically occurring 
throughout the northeastern quarter of the United States east of the 
Great Plains (Goldman 1944, Hall and Kelson 1959, Mech 1974). Since the 
publication of those recovery plans, various studies have been 
conducted on the subspecific taxonomy of the gray wolf with conflicting 
results (Nowak 1995, Wayne et al. 1995).
    We recognize that gray wolf taxonomy at the subspecies level is 
subject to conflicting opinions and continuing modification. For this 
reason, we will not base our gray wolf recovery efforts on any 
particular portrayal of gray wolf

[[Page 43452]]

subspeciation. Instead, we have identified geographic areas where wolf 
recovery is occurring or is feasible, and we will focus recovery 
efforts on those geographic entities, regardless of the subspecific 
affiliation of current or historical gray wolves in those areas. We 
recognize the benefits to the species of focusing recovery efforts 
across a large expanse of the species' range in order to recover and 
retain as much of the remaining genetic variation as is feasible. This 
approach will promote the recovery of the gray wolf throughout 
representative areas of their historical range in the conterminous 48 
States.

Distinct Population Segments Under Our Vertebrate Population Policy

    The Act's definition of the term ``species'' includes ``any 
distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or 
wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' On February 7, 1996, we, in 
conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service, adopted a 
policy governing the recognition of distinct population segments (DPSs) 
for purposes of listing, reclassifying, and delisting vertebrate 
species under the Act (61 FR 4722). This policy, sometimes referred to 
as the ``Vertebrate Population Policy'' guides the Services in 
recognizing DPSs that satisfy the definition of species under the Act. 
To be recognized as a DPS, a group of vertebrate animals must satisfy 
tests of discreteness and significance, as well as qualify for the 
status (that is, threatened or endangered) assigned to it.
    To be considered discrete, a group of vertebrate animals must be 
delimited by physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral 
barriers or by an international governmental boundary that coincides 
with differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms. A population does not 
have to be completely isolated from other populations of the parent 
taxon in order to be considered discrete.
    The significance of a potential DPS is assessed in light of its 
importance to the taxon to which it belongs. Evidence of significance 
includes, but is not limited to, the use of an unusual or unique 
ecological setting; a marked difference in genetic characteristics; or 
the occupancy of an area that, if devoid of the species, would result 
in a significant gap in the range of the taxon.
    If a group of vertebrate animals is determined to be both discrete 
and significant, its status can then be judged as would that of any 
species; that is, if it satisfies the Act's definition of 
``endangered'' or ``threatened'', it can be accorded the appropriate 
protective legal status under the Act as a DPS. Although the policy 
does not allow State or other intra-national governmental boundaries to 
be used in determining the discreteness of a potential DPS, a State 
boundary may be used as a boundary of convenience when it incidentally 
separates two DPSs that are judged to be discrete on other grounds.
    Refer to Designation of Distinct Population Segments, below, for 
further discussion and analysis of how our Vertebrate Population Policy 
applies in this proposed rule.

Currently Designated Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray 
Wolves

    Section 10(j) of the Act gives the Secretary of the Interior the 
authority to designate populations of listed species that are 
reintroduced outside their current range, but within their probable 
historical range, as ``experimental populations'' for the purposes of 
promoting the recovery of those species by establishing additional wild 
populations. Such a designation increases our flexibility in managing 
reintroduced populations, because experimental populations are treated 
as threatened species under the Act. Threatened status, in comparison 
to endangered status, allows somewhat more liberal issuance of take 
permits for conservation and educational purposes, imposes fewer permit 
requirements on recovery activities by cooperating States, and allows 
the promulgation of special regulations to further promote the 
conservation of the species.
    Furthermore, the Secretary is authorized to designate experimental 
populations as ``nonessential'' if they are determined to be not 
essential to the continued existence of the species. For the purposes 
of section 7(a)(2) of the Act (Interagency Cooperation), nonessential 
experimental populations, except where they occur within areas of the 
National Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park System, are 
treated as species proposed to be listed as threatened or endangered 
species, rather than as listed species. Proposed species lack the 
protection of the Act, although we encourage the inclusion of 
protective measures when Federal agencies conference with us pursuant 
to section 7(a)(4) of the Act or consult with us pursuant to section 
7(a)(2), or private individuals apply for a 10(a)(1)(B) permit.
    The Secretary has designated three nonessential experimental 
population areas for the gray wolf, and wolves have subsequently been 
reintroduced into these areas, establishing three nonessential 
experimental populations. These nonessential experimental population 
areas are the Yellowstone Experimental Population Area, the Central 
Idaho Experimental Population Area, and the Mexican Wolf Experimental 
Population Area.
    The Yellowstone Experimental Population Area consists of that 
portion of Idaho east of Interstate Highway 15; that portion of Montana 
that is east of Interstate Highway 15 and south of the Missouri River 
from Great Falls, Montana, to the eastern Montana border; and all of 
Wyoming (59 FR 60252; November 22, 1994).
    The Central Idaho Experimental Population Area consists of that 
portion of Idaho that is south of Interstate Highway 90 and west of 
Interstate 15; and that portion of Montana south of Interstate 90, west 
of Interstate 15, and south of Highway 12 west of Missoula (59 FR 
60266; November 22, 1994).
    The special regulations for these two experimental populations 
allow flexible management of wolves, including authorization for 
private citizens to take wolves in the act of attacking livestock on 
private land. These rules also provide a permit process that similarly 
allows the taking, under certain circumstances, of wolves in the act of 
attacking livestock grazing on public land. In addition, they allow 
opportunistic noninjurious harassment of wolves by livestock raisers on 
private and public grazing lands, and designated government employees 
may perform lethal and non-lethal control efforts to remove problem 
wolves under specified circumstances.
    A December 12, 1997, ruling by the United States District Court for 
Wyoming declared these nonessential experimental population rules to be 
in violation of the Act because they reduce the protection for any 
naturally occurring (that is, non-reintroduced) wolves that may 
disperse into those areas from northwestern Montana or Canada. The 
District Court declared the nonessential experimental designation to be 
unlawful and ordered that the reintroduced wolves be removed. However, 
the Court stayed the order pending an appeal. The United States 
appealed the District Court's ruling, and on January 13, 2000, the 
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the wolf reintroduction rule. 
Consequently, wolves in central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone area 
are protected and managed as nonessential experimental populations.
    On January 12, 1998, we established a similar third nonessential 
experimental population area to reintroduce the Mexican gray wolf into

[[Page 43453]]

its historical habitat in the southwestern States. The Mexican Gray 
Wolf Nonessential Experimental Population Area consists of that portion 
of Arizona lying south of Interstate Highway 40 and north of Interstate 
Highway 10; that portion of New Mexico lying south of Interstate 
Highway 40 and north of Interstate Highway 10 in the west and north of 
the Texas-New Mexico border in the east; and that part of Texas lying 
north of U.S. Highway 62/180 (63 FR 1752).
    This proposed rule will not affect any of the existing three 
nonessential experimental populations for gray wolves in Wyoming and 
portions of Idaho, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, nor will it 
affect the existing special regulations that apply to those three 
nonessential experimental populations.

Distinct Population Segments and Experimental Populations

    The Act does not provide a definition for the term ``population.'' 
However, the Act uses the term ``population'' in two different 
concepts-- distinct population segments and experimental populations. 
These two concepts were added to the original Act at different times 
and are used in different contexts. The term ``distinct population 
segment'' is part of the statutory definition of a ``species'' and is 
significant for listing, delisting, and reclassification purposes, 
under section 4 of the Act. Our Vertebrate Population Policy (61 FR 
4722; February 7, 1996) defines a DPS as one or more groups of members 
of a species or subspecies within a portion of that species' or 
subspecies' geographic distribution that meets established criteria 
regarding discreteness, significance, and conservation status. Congress 
included the DPS concept in the Act, recognizing that a listing, 
reclassification, or delisting action may, in some circumstances, be 
more appropriately applied over something less than the entire area in 
which a species or subspecies is found in order to protect and recover 
organisms in a more timely and cost-effective manner.
    In contrast, Congress added the experimental population concept to 
give the Secretary another tool to aid in the conservation of species, 
subspecies, or DPSs that have already been listed under the Act. The 
Act authorizes the Secretary to establish an experimental population if 
he determines that a release under such a designation will further the 
conservation of a listed species. Under the Act's definition of 
``species,'' an experimental population can be introduced to aid in the 
recovery of whatever biological unit is the subject of the listing, 
that is, a species, subspecies, or DPS. The term ``population'' as used 
in the experimental population program is necessarily a flexible 
concept, depending upon the organism involved and its biological 
requirements for successfully breeding, reproducing, and establishing 
itself in the reintroduction area.
    For purposes of gray wolf reintroduction by means of experimental 
populations in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park, we needed 
to examine the biological characteristics of the species to determine 
if the reintroduced wolves would be geographically separate from other 
gray wolf populations. We defined a wolf population to be two breeding 
pairs, each successfully raising two or more young for two consecutive 
years in a recovery area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994a). This 
wolf population definition was used to evaluate all wolves in the 
northern U.S. Rocky Mountains to determine if, and where, gray wolf 
populations might exist. Gray wolves in northwestern Montana qualified 
as a wolf population under this definition; that existing wolf 
population was further examined to determine if it was geographically 
separated from the potential experimental population areas. We 
determined that the northwestern Montana wolf population was 
geographically separate, so we designated the two experimental 
population areas and began gray wolf reintroductions to establish the 
two experimental populations.
    Refer to Designation of Distinct Population Segments, below, for 
further discussion and analysis of how our Vertebrate Population Policy 
has been applied in this proposed rule.

Gray Wolf-Dog Hybrids

    The many gray wolf-dog hybrids in North America have no value to 
gray wolf recovery programs, and are not provided the protections of 
the Act. Wolf-dog hybrids, when they escape from captivity or are 
intentionally released into the wild, can interfere with gray wolf 
recovery programs in several ways. They are familiar with humans, so 
they commonly are attracted to the vicinity of farms and residences, 
leading to unwarranted fears that they are wild wolves hunting in 
pastures and yards. They generally have poor hunting skills; thus, they 
may resort to preying on domestic animals, while the blame for their 
depredations is commonly and mistakenly placed on wild wolves. These 
behaviors are reported in the media and can erode public support for 
wolf recovery efforts. In addition, feral wolf-dog hybrids may mate 
with dispersing wild wolves, resulting in the introduction of dog genes 
into wild wolf populations. For these reasons, this proposed regulation 
would not extend the protections of the Act to gray wolf-dog hybrids, 
regardless of the geographic location of the capture of their pure wolf 
ancestors.
    In other threatened or endangered species recovery programs, 
hybrids and hybridization could perhaps play an important role. Our 
decision to not extend the protections of the Act to gray wolf-dog 
hybrids should not be taken as an indication of our position on the 
potential importance of hybrids and hybridization to recovery programs 
for other species. Determining the importance and treatment under the 
Act of hybrids requires a species-by-species evaluation.

Previous Federal Action

    The eastern timber wolf (Canus lupus lycaon) was listed as 
endangered in Minnesota and Michigan, and the northern Rocky Mountain 
wolf (C. l. irremotus) was listed as endangered in Montana and Wyoming 
in the first list of species that were protected under the 1973 Act, 
published in May 1974 (USDI 1974). A third gray wolf subspecies, the 
Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi), was listed as endangered on April 28, 
1976, (41 FR 17740) with its known range given as ``Mexico, USA 
(Arizona, New Mexico, Texas).'' On June 14, 1976, (41 FR 24064) the 
subspecies C. l. monstrabilis was listed as endangered (under the 
misleading common name ``Gray wolf''), and its range was described as 
``Texas, New Mexico, Mexico.''
    To eliminate problems with listing separate subspecies of the gray 
wolf and identifying relatively narrow geographic areas in which those 
subspecies are protected, on March 9, 1978, we published a rulemaking 
(43 FR 9607) relisting the gray wolf at the species level (Canus lupus) 
as endangered throughout the conterminous 48 States and Mexico, except 
for Minnesota, where the gray wolf was reclassified to threatened 
(refer to Map 1 located at the end of the Alternative Selected for 
Proposal section). In addition, critical habitat was designated in that 
rulemaking. In 50 CFR 17.95(a), we designated Isle Royale National 
Park, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf management zones 1, 2, and 3 
(delineated in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(1)) as critical habitat. We also 
promulgated special regulations under section 4(d) of the Act for 
operating a wolf management program in Minnesota at that time. The 
depredation control

[[Page 43454]]

portion of the special regulation was later modified (50 FR 50793; 
December 12, 1985).
    On November 22, 1994, we designated areas in Idaho, Montana, and 
Wyoming as nonessential experimental populations in order to initiate 
gray wolf reintroduction projects in central Idaho and the Greater 
Yellowstone Area (59 FR 60252, 59 FR 60266). On January 12, 1998, a 
nonessential experimental population was established for the Mexican 
gray wolf in portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas (63 FR 1752). 
These experimental population designations also contain special 
regulations that govern take of wolves within these geographic areas 
(codified at 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (k)). (Refer to Currently Designated 
Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray Wolves, above, for more 
details.) We have received several petitions during the past decade 
requesting consideration to delist the gray wolf in all or part of the 
48 conterminous States. We subsequently published findings that these 
petitions did not present substantial information that delisting gray 
wolves in all or part of the conterminous 48 States may be warranted 
(54 FR 16380, April 24, 1989; 55 CFR 48656, November 30, 1990; 63 FR 
55839, October 19, 1998).

Gray Wolf Recovery Plans

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for listed species. In some cases, we appoint recovery 
teams of experts to assist in the writing of recovery plans and 
oversight of subsequent recovery efforts.
    We initiated recovery programs for the originally listed subspecies 
of gray wolves by appointing recovery teams and developing and 
implementing recovery plans. Recovery plans describe criteria that are 
used to assess a species' progress toward recovery, contain specific 
prioritized actions believed necessary to achieve the recovery criteria 
and objectives, and identify the most appropriate parties to implement 
the recovery actions.
    Recovery plans may contain two separate sets of criteria that are 
intended to trigger our consideration of the need to either reclassify 
(from endangered to threatened) or to delist a species due to 
improvements in its status. Criteria are based upon factors that can be 
measured or otherwise evaluated to document improvements in a species' 
biological status. Examples of the type of criteria typically used are 
numbers of individuals, numbers and distribution of subgroups or 
populations of the species, rates of productivity of individuals and/or 
populations, protection of habitat, and reduction or elimination of 
threats to the species and its habitat.
    The first gray wolf recovery plan was written for the eastern 
timber wolf, and it was approved on May 2, 1978 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 1978). This recovery plan was later revised and was approved on 
January 31, 1992 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992a). The 1978 
Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (Eastern Plan) and its 
revision were intended to recover the eastern timber wolf, Canus lupus 
lycaon, believed at that time to be the only gray wolf subspecies that 
historically inhabited the United States east of the Great Plains. 
Thus, the Eastern Plan covers a geographic triangle extending from 
Minnesota to Maine and into northeastern Florida. The recovery plan for 
the eastern timber wolf is based on the best available information on 
taxonomy at the time of publication. Since the publication of those 
recovery plans, various studies have produced conflicting results (See 
Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in the Eastern United States).
    The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan (Rocky Mountain 
Plan) was approved in 1980 and revised in 1987 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 1980, 1987). The Rocky Mountain Plan states in its introduction 
that it should be understood to refer to ``gray wolves in the northern 
Rocky Mountains of the contiguous 48 States, rather than to a specific 
subspecies.'' The Rocky Mountain Plan covers Idaho, most of Montana and 
Wyoming, and approximately the eastern one-third of the States of 
Washington and Oregon.
    The Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan was approved in 1982 (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1982). Based on a review of Southwestern (Mexican) 
subspecies of the gray wolf by Bogan and Mehlhop (1983), the plan 
combines the historical ranges of Canus lupus baileyi, C. l. 
monstrabilis, and the presumed extinct C. l. mogollonensis (which 
historically occurred in parts of New Mexico and Arizona) to define the 
portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico where recovery of 
the Mexican wolf would be appropriate.

Recovery Progress of the Eastern Gray Wolf

    The 1992 revised Eastern Plan has two delisting criteria. The first 
criterion requires that the survival of the wolf in Minnesota must be 
assured. We believe that this first delisting criterion identifies a 
need for reasonable assurances that future State and Tribal wolf 
management practices and protection will maintain a viable recovered 
population of gray wolves within the borders of Minnesota for the 
foreseeable future. While there is no specific numerical recovery 
criterion for the Minnesota wolf population, the Eastern Plan 
identified State subgoals for use by land managers and planners. The 
Eastern Plan's subgoal for Minnesota is 1251 to 1400 wolves.
    The second delisting criterion in the Eastern Plan requires that at 
least one viable wolf population be reestablished within the historical 
range of the eastern timber wolf outside of Minnesota and Isle Royale. 
The Eastern Plan provides two options for reestablishing this second 
viable wolf population. If it is located more than 100 miles from the 
Minnesota wolf population, it would be considered ``isolated,'' and the 
frequency of movement of individuals and genetic material from one 
population to the other would likely be very low. Such an isolated 
population, in order to be self-sustaining, would have to consist of at 
least 200 wolves for at least 5 years (based upon late winter counts) 
to be considered viable. Alternatively, if the second population is 
located within 100 miles of a self-sustaining wolf population (for 
example, the Minnesota wolf population), a reestablished population 
having a minimum of 100 wolves for at least 5 years would be considered 
viable. Such a smaller population would be considered to be viable, 
because its proximity would allow frequent immigration of Minnesota 
wolves to supplement it numerically and genetically.
    The Eastern Plan does not specify where in the eastern United 
States the second population should be reestablished. Therefore, the 
second population could be located anywhere within the triangular 
Minnesota-Maine-Florida land area covered by the Eastern plan, except 
on Isle Royale and within Minnesota.
    The 1992 Eastern Plan recommends reclassifying in Wisconsin and 
Michigan separately, recognizing that progress towards recovery may 
occur at differing rates. The Plan specifies that wolves in Wisconsin 
could be reclassified to threatened if the population within the State 
remained at or above 80 (late winter counts) for 3 consecutive years. 
The Plan does not contain a reclassification criterion for Michigan 
wolves. Instead, it states that if Wisconsin wolves reached their 
reclassification criterion, consideration should also be given to 
reclassifying Michigan wolves. However, with the subsequent increase in 
Michigan wolf numbers, it has frequently, but

[[Page 43455]]

unofficially, been assumed that the ``80 wolves for 3 years'' criterion 
would be applied to Michigan. In other words, each State could be 
considered for reclassification if either the Wisconsin or Michigan 
wolf population reached 80 individuals or more for 3 successive years. 
The Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team used these criteria in its recent 
recommendation that the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes States be 
reclassified to threatened as soon as possible (Rolf Peterson, Eastern 
Timber Wolf Recovery Team, in litt. 1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b).
    The Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team recently clarified the 
delisting criterion, which treats wolves in Wisconsin-Michigan as a 
single population. The Recovery Team clarified that the numerical 
delisting criterion for the Wisconsin-Michigan population will be 
achieved when 6 successive late winter wolf surveys document that the 
population equaled or exceeded 100 wolves for 5 consecutive years (Rolf 
Peterson, in litt. 1998). Because the Wisconsin-Michigan wolf 
population was first known to have exceeded 100 wolves in the late 
winter 1993-94 survey, the numerical delisting criterion was satisfied 
in early 1999, based upon late winter 1998-99 data (Wydeven et al. 
1999).
    The Eastern Plan has no goals or criteria for the gray wolf 
population on the 546-sq km (210-sq mi) Isle Royale, Michigan. This 
small and isolated wolf population is not expected to make a 
significant contribution to gray wolf recovery, although long-term 
research on this wolf population has added a great deal to our 
knowledge of the species.
    Over the last 2 years, the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team has 
consistently recommended that we designate a DPS in the western Great 
Lakes area and proceed with reclassification of wolves in that DPS to 
threatened as soon as possible. The Eastern Team recommended that the 
DPS include a wide buffer around the existing populations of wolves in 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Buffers generally are described as 
lands that may not be regularly occupied by wolves but which may be 
temporarily used by dispersing wolves. Thus, they suggested the DPS 
also include the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, 
Indiana, and Ohio (Peterson in litt. 1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b).

Minnesota

    During the pre-1965 period of wolf bounties and legal public 
trapping, wolves persisted in the more remote northeastern areas of 
Minnesota. Estimates of population levels of Minnesota wolves prior to 
listing under the Act in 1974 include 450 to 700 in 1950-53 (Fuller et 
al. 1992, Stenlund 1955), 350 to 700 in 1963 (Cahalane 1964), 750 in 
1970 (Leirfallom 1970), 736 to 950 in 1971-72 (Fuller et al. 1992), and 
500 to 1,000 in 1973 (Mech and Rausch 1975). While these estimates were 
based upon varying methodologies and are not directly comparable, they 
all agree in estimating the wolf population in Minnesota, the only 
significant population in the Lower 48 States during those time-
periods, at 1,000 or fewer animals preceding their listing under the 
Act.
    Various population estimates in Minnesota have indicated a steady 
increase in numbers after the eastern timber wolf was listed as 
endangered under the Act. A population of 1,000 to 1,200 was estimated 
by L. David Mech for 1976 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1978), and 
1,235 wolves in 138 packs were estimated for the winter of 1978-79 
(Berg and Kuehn 1982).
    In 1988-89 the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) 
repeated the 1978-79 survey, and also used a second method to estimate 
wolf numbers in the State. The resulting independent estimates were 
1,500 and 1,750 wolves in at least 233 packs (Fuller et al. 1992).
    During the winter of 1997-98, a statewide wolf population and 
distribution survey was repeated by MN DNR, using methods similar to 
those of the two previous surveys. That survey concluded that 
approximately 2,445 wolves existed in about 385 packs in Minnesota 
during that winter period. This figure indicates the continued growth 
of the Minnesota wolf population at 4 to 5 percent annually. The 
Minnesota wolf population has shown this annual rate of increase since 
1970 (Berg and Benson, in press, Fuller et al. 1992).
    Simultaneous with the increase in wolf numbers in Minnesota has 
been a parallel expansion of the area in which wolves are routinely 
found. During 1948-53 the major wolf range was estimated to be about 
31,080 sq km (11,954 sq mi) (Stenlund 1955). A 1970 questionnaire 
survey resulted in an estimated wolf range of 38,400 sq km (14,769 sq 
mi) (calculated by Fuller et al. 1992 from Leirfallom 1970). Fuller et 
al. (1992), using data from Berg and Kuehn (1982), estimated that 
Minnesota primary wolf range included 36,500 sq km (14,038 sq mi) 
during winter 1978-79. By 1982-83, pairs or breeding packs of wolves 
were estimated to occupy an area of 57,050 sq km (22,000 sq mi) in 
northern Minnesota (Mech et al. 1988). That study also identified an 
additional 40,500 sq km (15,577 sq mi) of peripheral range, where 
habitat appeared suitable but no wolves or only lone wolves existed. 
The 1988-89 study produced an estimate of 60,200 sq km (23,165 sq mi) 
as the contiguous wolf range at that time in Minnesota (Fuller et al. 
1992), an increase of 65 percent over the primary range calculated for 
1978-79. The 1997-98 study concluded that the contiguous wolf range had 
expanded to 88,325 sq km (33,971 sq mi), a 47 percent increase in 9 
years (Berg and Benson, in press). The wolf population in Minnesota has 
recovered to the point that its contiguous range covered approximately 
40 percent of the State during 1997-98.

Wisconsin

    Wolves were considered to have been extirpated from Wisconsin by 
1960. No formal attempts were made to monitor the State's wolf 
population from 1960 until 1979. From 1960 through 1975 individual 
wolves and an occasional wolf pair were reported. However, no evidence 
exists of any wolf reproduction occurring in Wisconsin, and the wolves 
that were reported may have been dispersing animals from Minnesota.
    Wolf population monitoring by the Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources (WI DNR) began in 1979 and estimated a statewide population 
of 25 wolves at that time. This population remained relatively stable 
for several years, then declined slightly to approximately 15 to 19 
wolves in the mid-1980s.
    In the late 1980s, the Wisconsin wolf population began an increase 
that continues today. WI DNR intensively monitors its wolf population, 
using a combination of aerial and ground radiotelemetry, snow tracking, 
and wolf sign surveys (Wydeven et al. 1995, 1999). During the winter of 
1998-99, 20 wolf packs had members carrying active radio transmitters 
much of the season. Minimum wolf population estimates (late-winter 
counts) for 1994 through 1999 are 57, 83, 99, 148, 178, and 197 
animals, comprising 14, 18, 28, 32, 47, and 54 packs respectively (WI 
DNR 1999a; Wydeven et al. 1999). Wolves in Wisconsin have surpassed the 
reclassification criteria identified in the Eastern Plan.
    In 1995 wolves were documented in Jackson County, Wisconsin, an 
area well to the south of the northern Wisconsin area occupied by other 
Wisconsin wolf packs. During the winter of 1998-99, there were believed 
to be 24-27 wolves

[[Page 43456]]

in 8 packs in the Jackson County area (Wydeven et al. 1999).
    Based on wolf monitoring activities during the winter of 1997-98, a 
minimum of 10 wolves were believed on Tribal reservations in Wisconsin. 
Nine to 11 wolves, not including pups that may have been born in 1998, 
comprised 3 packs on the Bad River Reservation. By the fall of 1998, 
one pack no longer occupied the reservation, and the wolf population 
declined to five animals. One, and possibly as many as three, wolves 
occur on the Lac du Flambeau Reservation. Wolves will likely reoccupy 
areas of the Lac Courte Oreilles and Menominee Reservations in the next 
few years (Adrian Wydeven, WI DNR, in litt. 1998).

Michigan

    Michigan wolves were extirpated as a reproducing population long 
before they were listed as endangered in 1974. Prior to 1991, and 
excluding Isle Royale, the last known breeding population of wild 
Michigan wolves occurred in the mid-1950s. As wolves began to occupy 
northern Wisconsin, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MI 
DNR) began noting single wolves at various locations in the Upper 
Peninsula of Michigan. In the late 1980s, a wolf pair was verified in 
the central Upper Peninsula and produced pups in 1991. Since that time, 
wolf packs have spread throughout the Upper Peninsula, with immigration 
occurring from both Wisconsin on the west and Ontario on the east. They 
now are found in every county of the Upper Peninsula. The MI DNR 
annually monitors the wolf population and estimates that 57, 80, 116, 
112, 140, and 174 wolves occurred in the Upper Peninsula based on late 
winter counts from 1994 through 1999, respectively (MI DNR 1997, 
1999a). The Upper Peninsula Michigan wolf population has exceeded the 
unofficial criteria for reclassification from endangered to threatened 
status.
    During the winter of 1997-98 one wolf pack composed of four animals 
lived on lands of the Keewenaw Bay Indian Community. No other wolves 
are known to be primarily using Tribal lands in Michigan (James 
Hammill, MI DNR, in litt. 1998).
    The wolf population of Isle Royale National Park, Michigan, is not 
considered to be an important factor in the recovery or long-term 
survival of wolves in the western Great Lakes States. This population 
is small, varying from 12 to 25 animals over the last 15 years, and is 
almost completely isolated from other wolf populations (Peterson et al. 
1998, pers. comm. 1999). For these reasons, the Eastern Plan does not 
include these wolves in its recovery criteria and recommends only the 
continuation of research and complete protection for these wolves (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service 1992a).

Northeastern United States

    Wolves were extirpated from the northeastern United States by 1900. 
Few credible observations of wolves were reported in the Northeast 
during most of this century. However, in 1993 a single female wolf was 
killed in western Maine, and in 1996 a second wolf or wolf-like canid 
was trapped and killed in central Maine. These records and a growing 
number of observations (and signs) of large, unidentified canids in 
Maine during recent years led to speculation that wolves may be 
dispersing into the northeastern United States from nearby occupied 
habitat in Canada. No actual specimens have been collected to document 
their presence. Many of the characteristics of the unidentified canids 
are consistent with an animal intermediate between the eastern coyote 
and the gray wolf and they may be hybrids of these two species. Private 
conservation organizations, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries 
and Wildlife, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, 
and the Service are continuing to seek evidence of the presence of wild 
wolves in northern New York and New England.
    A recent Geographic Information System analysis evaluated the 
potential for wolf dispersal from southern Quebec and Ontario into the 
northeastern United States. The study also estimated the amount of 
suitable wolf habitat present in northern New York and other New 
England States, and evaluated the likelihood of natural wolf 
colonization from existing occupied wolf range in Canada. That study 
found that sufficient suitable wolf habitat is available in the 
Adirondack Park region of New York and in Maine and northern New 
Hampshire. However, the New York habitat is relatively isolated, and 
the authors concluded that natural recolonization is unlikely to occur 
there. Furthermore, while there are relatively narrow potential 
dispersal corridors connecting wolf habitat in Maine and New Hampshire 
with existing wolf populations north of Quebec City, there are 
significant barriers to dispersal, including the St. Lawrence River, 
adjacent highways, and dense human developments that may preclude the 
movement of a sufficient number of wolves from Canada into Maine 
(Harrison and Chapin 1997).

Recovery Progress of the Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf

    In 1974, an interagency wolf recovery team was formed and completed 
the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan in 1980 (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1980). The Rocky Mountain Plan focuses wolf recovery 
efforts on the large contiguous blocks of public land from western 
Wyoming through Montana to the Canadian border.
    The Rocky Mountain Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1987) identifies a criterion of 10 breeding pairs of wolves for 3 
consecutive years in each of the 3 recovery areas--(1) northwestern 
Montana (Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and 
Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public lands), (2) 
central Idaho (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of No 
Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and adjacent, mostly Federal, 
lands), and (3) the Yellowstone National Park area (including the 
Absaroka-Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness 
Areas; and adjacent public lands). The Plan states that if one of these 
recovery areas maintains a population of 10 breeding pairs for 3 
successive years, wolves in that recovery area can be reclassified to 
threatened status. If 2 recovery areas maintain 10 breeding pairs 
(totaling about 200 adult wolves) for 3 successive years, gray wolves 
across the coverage area of the Rocky Mountain Plan can be reclassified 
to threatened status. It also states that if all 3 recovery areas 
maintain 10 breeding pairs for 3 successive years, the Northern Rocky 
Mountain wolf population can be considered as fully recovered and can 
be delisted. The wolf population would be about 300 adult wolves upon 
attainment of full recovery. The Plan also recommends that wolves be 
reintroduced into the Yellowstone National Park area as an experimental 
population. Additionally, if natural recovery has not resulted in at 
least two packs becoming established in central Idaho within 5 years, 
the Rocky Mountain Plan states that other measures, including 
reintroduction, would be considered to recover wolves in that area. The 
goals identified in the Rocky Mountain Plan are intended to ensure a 
well distributed and viable population in the Rocky Mountains, goals 
that could be met in a variety of ways while still adhering to the 
``biological intent'' of the recovery plan.
    Gray wolf populations were eliminated from Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming, as well as adjacent

[[Page 43457]]

southwestern Canada by the 1930s (Young 1944). After human-caused 
mortality of wolves in southwestern Canada was regulated in the 1960s, 
populations expanded southward (Carbyn 1983). Dispersing individuals 
occasionally reached the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States 
(Ream and Mattson 1982, Nowak 1983), but lacked legal protection until 
1974 when they were listed as endangered.
    In 1982 a wolf pack from Canada began to occupy Glacier National 
Park along the Montana-Canadian border. In 1986 the first litter of 
pups documented in over 50 years was born in the Park. In recognition 
of the ongoing natural recovery of wolves arising from these Canadian 
dispersers, the Rocky Mountain Plan was revised in 1987 (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1987). The revised Rocky Mountain Plan recommends that 
recovery be focused in areas with large blocks of public land, abundant 
native ungulates, and minimal livestock. Three recovery areas were 
identified--northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the Greater 
Yellowstone Area. Promotion of natural recovery was advocated for 
Montana and Idaho (unless no breeding pairs formed in Idaho within 5 
years), but recovery in the Yellowstone area was believed to require a 
reintroduction program.
    By 1989, we formed an interagency wolf working group, composed of 
Federal, State, and Tribal agency personnel. The group conducted four 
basic recovery tasks, in addition to the standard enforcement functions 
associated with any take of listed species. These tasks were--(1) 
monitor wolf distribution and numbers, (2) control wolves that attacked 
livestock by either moving or killing them, (3) research wolves' 
relationships to ungulate prey, livestock, and people, and (4) provide 
accurate information to the public through reports and mass media so 
that people could develop their opinions about wolves and wolf 
management from an informed perspective.
    In 1995 and 1996, we reintroduced wolves from southwestern Canada 
to remote public lands in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park 
(Bangs and Fritts 1996, Fritts et al. 1997). We designated these wolves 
as nonessential experimental populations to increase management 
flexibility and address local and State concerns (59 FR 60252 and 
60266; November 22, 1994). Wolves in northwestern Montana remain listed 
as endangered, the most protective category under the Act; they are not 
included within the nonessential experimental population areas. (Refer 
to Currently Designated Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray 
Wolves, above, for additional details.)
    The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park and 
central Idaho in 1995 and 1996 greatly expanded the numbers and 
distribution of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains of the United 
States. Because of the reintroduction, wolves soon became established 
throughout central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area. In 1995, an 
estimated 8 packs of about 105 individual wolves produced pups in the 
northern Rocky Mountains. By 1996, 161 wolves with 15 packs were 
producing pups. In 1997, 233 wolves with 23 packs were producing pups. 
In 1998, the wolf population exceeded 300 wolves, with 23 packs 
producing pups. In 1999, the third successive year that over 20 wolf 
packs successfully produced pups in the Northern U.S. Rocky Mountains, 
approximately 400 wolves in about 30 packs occurred in Montana, Idaho, 
and Wyoming. This achieves the reclassification goal within the Rocky 
Mountain Plan, which was to have a minimum of 10 breeding packs in at 
least 2 recovery areas (about 200 adult wolves) for 3 years. While the 
rate of wolf population expansion may slow, we have every reason to 
believe wolves will continue to form packs and expand both their 
distribution and numbers rapidly.
    Achieving the Rocky Mountain Plan's delisting goal of 10 breeding 
packs in each of the 3 recovery areas (about 300 adult wolves) for a 
minimum of 3 successive years is expected to be achieved by 2002 or 
2003. At that point, gray wolves within the geographic area covered by 
the Rocky Mountain Plan would be proposed to be delisted.

Northwestern Montana

    Reproduction first occurred in northwestern Montana in 1986. The 
natural ability of wolves to find and quickly recolonize empty habitat 
and the interagency recovery program combined to effectively promote an 
increase in wolf numbers. By 1993 the number of wolves had grown 
approximately 22 percent annually to about 88 wolves in 7 packs (Fritts 
et al. 1995). However, since 1993 the number of breeding groups and 
number of wolves has stabilized, varying from 6 to 8 packs and from 65 
to 90 wolves. The reasons for this are unknown, but are being 
investigated. The decline in documented wolf numbers may be due to two 
factors, the first of which produced only the appearance of a decline, 
while the second represents a real decline (1) monitoring was less 
intensive during the last several years, so some packs may have gone 
undetected during those years; and (2) a dramatic reduction of white-
tailed deer numbers throughout northwestern Montana (Caroline Sime, 
Montana Dep. Fish, Wildlife and Parks, pers. comm. 1998) due to the 
severe winter of 1996-97, which we believe was responsible for the 
record high level of livestock depredations and correspondingly high 
level of wolf control in northwestern Montana during summer 1997. Our 
1998 estimate was a minimum of 65 wolves in 6 reproducing packs. In 
1999, 7 packs appear to have produced pups, and the northwestern 
Montana population has increased to about 80 wolves.
    Wolf conflicts with livestock have increased with the increasing 
wolf population and with fluctuations in prey populations. For example, 
in 1997, following a severe winter that reduced white-tailed deer 
populations, wolf conflicts with livestock increased dramatically. That 
year accounted for nearly 50 percent of all the livestock wolf 
depredations that were confirmed and lethal wolf control actions that 
were taken in northwestern Montana from 1987 to 1999 (Bangs et al. 
1998). Wolf numbers should increase as prey numbers rebound; the need 
for wolf control measures is expected to subside at the same time.

Central Idaho

    In January 1995, 15 young adult wolves captured in Alberta, Canada, 
were released in central Idaho (Bangs and Fritts 1996, Fritts et al. 
1997). During January 1996, an additional 20 wolves from British 
Columbia were released. In 1998 the population consisted of a minimum 
of 122 wolves, including 10 packs that produced pups (Bangs et al. 
1998), and in 1999 it has grown to about 170 wolves including 12 
reproducing packs.

Yellowstone National Park

    In January 1995, 14 wolves from Alberta, representing three family 
groups, were placed in 3 pens in Yellowstone National Park (Bangs and 
Fritts 1996, Fritts et al. 1997, Phillips and Smith 1996). The groups 
were released in late March. Two of the three groups produced young in 
late April. In January 1996, this procedure was repeated with 17 wolves 
from British Columbia, representing 4 family groups, being released in 
early April. Two of those groups produced pups in late April. 
Furthermore, as the result of a September 1996 wolf control action in 
northwestern Montana, 10 5-month-old pups were transported to a pen in 
the Park. These pups and 3 adults from the

[[Page 43458]]

Greater Yellowstone Area, which were originally reintroduced from 
Canada, were released in spring 1997. By autumn of 1998 the Greater 
Yellowstone Area population consisted of 116 wolves, including 7 packs 
that produced 10 litters of pups. The 1999 population consists of about 
170 wolves comprising 11 reproducing packs.

Dispersal of Western Gray Wolves

    By winter 1998-99, significant numbers of pups (9 in 1995, 25 in 
1996, and 99 in 1997) born to reintroduced wolves were becoming 
sexually mature and were beginning to disperse from their natal packs. 
Because dispersing wolves may travel extensively and often settle in 
areas without resident packs, we expect that these wolves will initiate 
significant expansion in the number and distribution of wolf packs in 
the northern Rocky Mountains. Dispersal will increase management costs 
and controversy, because many of these wolves will not be radiocollared 
and will attempt to colonize areas of private land used for livestock 
production. Wolves that disperse southward in central Idaho and the 
Greater Yellowstone Area will increasingly encounter the full range of 
domestic livestock, including sheep, which are more susceptible to 
predation and multiple-mortality incidents than are other domestic 
livestock (Bangs et al. 1995, Fritts et al. 1992).
    We predicted that these three populations eventually would expand 
and begin to overlap, resulting in one meta-population of gray wolves 
in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains. In 1994 we believed that the most 
likely direction for wolf dispersal and population growth would be from 
northwestern Montana southward into the experimental areas. Wolves most 
commonly disperse toward other wolves even when separated by great 
distances, and we speculated that the presence of reintroduced wolves 
in the central Idaho and Yellowstone experimental areas would increase 
the likelihood for wolf dispersal into those areas from northwestern 
Montana. At that time, we believed that wolves in the northwestern 
Montana recovery area would be the first to reach 10 breeding pairs. We 
now believe that the severe winter of 1996-97 temporarily depressed the 
number of wolves in northwestern Montana and limited the number of 
dispersal-aged wolves in that area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1994a, Bangs et al. 1998).
    In contrast, the wolves reintroduced into central Idaho and 
Yellowstone have increased their numbers greatly, and nearly two-thirds 
of those wolves are young, dispersal-aged animals that may move from 
those areas over the next 2 years. We believe that wolves that are 
offspring of the reintroduced animals will increasingly disperse into 
northwestern Montana and elsewhere. In 1997 a reintroduced male wolf 
from Idaho dispersed into northwestern Montana and joined a pack there. 
To date, this is the only wolf known to leave and settle outside an 
experimental area, but we anticipate many other similar occurrences in 
the near future.
    We also anticipate additional movement of wolves from the northern 
U.S. Rockies and Canada into western Washington and Oregon and into the 
Cascade Range. For example, one radiocollared wolf from northwestern 
Montana was recently found dead from unknown causes in eastern 
Washington, and a radiocollared young female wolf from central Idaho 
dispersed into eastern Oregon in early 1999. She was recaptured and 
returned to the Central Idaho Recovery Area where she would have a 
better opportunity to find a mate. Furthermore, there are suitable 
habitat and prey conditions in areas to which wolves may be able to 
disperse from current populations. Interest in reintroducing gray 
wolves into Olympic National Park, Washington, prompted the recent 
completion of a congressionally mandated feasibility study of such a 
project; additional studies are underway. A similar feasibility study 
conducted by us concludes that Colorado contains abundant suitable wolf 
habitat (primarily on public lands administered by the USDA Forest 
Service) and that a viable wolf population is biologically feasible in 
the State. While habitat that could support wolves certainly exists in 
these areas, at this time we have no plans to initiate wolf recovery 
efforts for any areas in the western United States outside of those 
identified in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

Recovery Progress of the Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolf

    The objectives of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1982) are to maintain a captive breeding program and 
to reestablish a population of at least 100 Mexican wolves within its 
historical range. The plan contains no numerical criteria for revising 
the endangered status of the Mexican wolf. We consider the current 
recovery plan objective for the wild population to be an essential 
first step toward the eventual recovery of the Mexican wolf. A revised 
recovery plan for the Mexican wolf will contain numerical criteria for 
reclassifying to a threatened status and for delisting. Because 
recovery of the Mexican wolf is in its very early stages, we are 
proposing no changes to the legal status of the Mexican gray wolf at 
this time.
    Through managed breeding, the captive population of Southwestern 
(Mexican) gray wolves had increased to 182 animals prior to the 1999 
breeding season. Forty zoos and wildlife sanctuaries throughout the 
United States and Mexico cooperate in the maintenance and breeding of 
the captive wolves. An 18,000-sq km (7000-sq mi) area (the Blue Range 
Wolf Recovery Area) has been designated for the re-establishment of a 
wild population of at least 100 wolves. This area includes all of the 
Apache and Gila National Forests in eastern Arizona and western New 
Mexico.
    Re-establishment of a wild population began with the release of 13 
captive-reared Mexican gray wolves in eastern Arizona in 1998, and an 
additional 21 wolves in 1999. Nineteen Mexican wolves were free-ranging 
in the wild as of January, 2000. Additional releases are planned over 
the next 2 to 3 years to reach the goal of a wild population of 100 
wolves. This reintroduced population of wolves, like those in central 
Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area, has been designated 
nonessential experimental (63 FR 1752-1772, January 12, 1998) and can 
be legally killed by ranchers if the wolves are attacking livestock on 
private land. Other provisions of the special regulation designating 
the population as nonessential experimental give agency managers 
flexibility to address wolf-human conflicts. Defenders of Wildlife, a 
private conservation organization, compensates ranchers whose livestock 
are killed by these wolves.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act and regulations (50 CFR 
Part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act, 
set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, and delisting 
species. Species may be listed as threatened or endangered if one or 
more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act 
threatens the continued existence of the species. A species may be 
delisted, according to 50 CFR 424.11(d), if the best scientific and 
commercial data available substantiate that the species is neither 
endangered nor threatened because (1) of extinction, (2) of recovery, 
or (3) the original data for classification of the species were in 
error. This analysis must be based upon the same five categories of 
threats specified in section 4(a)(1).

[[Page 43459]]

    In a subsequent section of this proposal we identify four DPSs that 
we believe deserve separate treatment under the Act (refer to 
Designation of Distinct Population Segments). These DPSs are the 
Western Gray Wolf DPS, the Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPS, the 
Northeastern Gray Wolf DPS, and the Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolf 
DPS. Therefore, for consistency and clarity in discussing each threat, 
the following analysis of the five categories of threats contains 
separate discussions for wolves within those geographic areas that we 
believe should be designated as DPSs.
    For species that are already listed as threatened or endangered, 
this analysis of threats is primarily an evaluation of the threats that 
could potentially affect the species in the future if the delisting or 
downlisting proposal is finalized and the Act's protections are removed 
or reduced. Our evaluation of the future threats to the gray wolf in 
the Western Great Lakes DPS--especially those threats that would occur 
after removal from the protections of the Act--is partially based upon 
the wolf management plans and assurances of the States and Tribes in 
that area. If the gray wolf were to be federally delisted, State and 
tribal management plans will be the major determinants of wolf habitat 
and prey availability, will set and enforce limits on human utilization 
and other forms of taking, and will determine the overall regulatory 
framework for conservation or exploitation of gray wolves.
    If the gray wolf is reclassified to threatened status, many aspects 
of State and Tribal management plans cannot yet be implemented because 
of the over-riding prohibitions of the Act. However, State and Tribal 
plans, to the extent that they have been developed, can serve as 
significant indicators of public attitudes and agency goals which, in 
turn, are evidence of the probability of continued progress toward full 
recovery under the Act. Such indicators of attitudes and goals are 
especially important in assessing the future of a species that was 
officially persecuted by government agencies as recently as 35 years 
ago and still is reviled by some members of the public to this day. 
Therefore, below we provide some details on the components of the wolf 
management plans that currently exist and analyze their impact on the 
future of the gray wolf.
    After a thorough review of all available information and an 
evaluation of the following five factors specified in section 4(a)(1) 
of the Act, we have determined that the Act's protections for the gray 
wolf should be reduced or eliminated across the conterminous States 
except for portions of several southwestern States and Mexico. 
Significant gray wolf recovery has occurred, and continues, across a 
significant portion of the species' historical range as a result of the 
reduction of threats as described below.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of its Habitat or Range

    General. Gray wolves have become symbols of wilderness in the minds 
of many people. Wolves are popularly thought to inhabit only remote 
portions of pristine forests or mountainous areas, where human 
developments and other activities have produced negligible change to 
the natural landscape. Their extirpation outside of areas such as the 
heavily forested portions of northeastern Minnesota, Alaska, and Canada 
reinforced this popular belief. However, wolves survived in those areas 
not because those were the only places with the necessary habitat, but 
because only in those remote areas were they sufficiently free of the 
human persecution that elsewhere killed wolves faster than the species 
could reproduce.
    Wolf research, as well as the expansion of the wolf range over the 
last 2 decades, has shown that wolves can successfully occupy a wide 
range of habitats, and are not dependent on wilderness areas for their 
survival. In the past, gray wolf populations occupied nearly every type 
of habitat north of mid-Mexico that contained large ungulate prey 
species, including bison, elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, and 
caribou. An inadequate prey density and a high level of human 
persecution apparently are the only factors which limit wolf 
distribution (Mech 1995).
    Western Great Lakes Gray Wolves. In the western Great Lakes States, 
wolves in the densely forested northeastern corner of Minnesota have 
expanded into the more agricultural portions of central and 
northwestern Minnesota, northern and central Wisconsin, and most of the 
Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Habitat currently being used by wolves 
spans the range from the mixed hardwood-coniferous forest wilderness 
area of northern Minnesota; through sparsely settled, but similar 
habitats in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and northern Wisconsin; into 
more intensively cultivated and livestock-producing portions of central 
and northwestern Minnesota and central Wisconsin; and even approaching 
the northern fringes of the St. Paul suburbs. (In April 1993 a 
radiotracked wolf from Wisconsin spent several weeks near the 
Washington County, Minnesota town of Hugo, without generating any 
reported sightings. Hugo is less than 20 miles from the center of 
downtown St. Paul.) Wolves are also dispersing from Minnesota into the 
agricultural landscape of eastern North and South Dakota in increasing 
numbers (Licht and Fritts 1994).
    Based upon computer modeling, Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of 
Michigan contain large tracts of potential wolf habitat, estimated at 
15,052 sq km (5812 sq mi) and 29,348 sq km (11,331 sq mi), respectively 
(Mladenoff et al. 1995; WI DNR 1999). In Wisconsin most of this 
suitable habitat is on public lands, with most of these public lands 
being National, State, and county forest lands.
    Wisconsin DNR biologists conducted a population viability analysis 
(PVA) for their wolf population using the computer simulation model 
VORTEX. The purpose of a PVA is to estimate extinction probabilities by 
modeling long-term species' population changes that result from 
multiple interacting factors. The resulting extinction probabilities 
provide insight into the effects that management alternatives, 
environmental fluctuation, and biological factors will likely have on 
rare species' populations over many years.
    Under most of the scenarios that were modeled by WI DNR the results 
of the PVA indicated that a wolf population of 300 to 500 animals would 
have a low probability of extinction over a 100-year timeframe. 
However, the modeling indicated that the population might decline to a 
level that State-relisting might be necessary (fewer than 80 wolves for 
3 years). ``State-relisting probabilities'' ranged from 10 to 40 
percent for those scenarios which looked at a combination of moderate 
environmental variability and a 5 percent probability of catastrophic 
events. Extinction probabilities were only one percent for those same 
scenarios (WI DNR 1999a).
    The Wisconsin wolf population has increased at an average annual 
rate of over 30 percent over the last 6 years and was at least 197 
wolves in early 1999 (Wydeven et al. 1999). The Michigan wolf 
population (excluding Isle Royale) has increased at an average annual 
rate of about 34 percent over the last 6 years and was at least 174 
wolves in early 1999 (MI DNR 1999a). Wolf survey methods in both States 
focus on wolf packs and may miss some lone individuals.
    Final and State wolf management plans for Michigan and Wisconsin, 
respectively, have identified habitat protection as one of their top 
priorities

[[Page 43460]]

for maintaining a viable wolf population. Both of these State wolf 
management plans emphasize the need to manage human access to wolf 
areas by avoiding increasing road densities, protecting habitat 
corridors between larger tracts of wolf habitat, avoiding disturbance 
and habitat degradation in the immediate vicinity of den and rendezvous 
sites, and maintaining adequate prey species for wolves by suitable 
habitat and prey harvest regulations.
    Both the final Michigan Plan and the Wisconsin Plan establish wolf 
population goals that exceed the viable population threshold identified 
in the Federal Recovery plan for isolated wolf populations, that is, a 
population of 200 or more wolves for 5 consecutive years (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1992a). Each State adopted this approach to ensure the 
continued existence of a viable wolf population within its borders 
regardless of the condition or existence of wolf populations in 
adjacent States or Canada. The Michigan Plan contains a long-term 
minimum goal of 200 wolves (excluding Isle Royale wolves) and 
identifies 800 wolves as the estimated carrying capacity of suitable 
areas on the Upper Peninsula (MI DNR 1997).
    The final Wisconsin wolf plan identifies a management goal of 350 
wolves, well above the 200 wolves specified in the Federal Recovery 
Plan for a viable isolated wolf population. After the Wisconsin wolf 
population is at 250 for 3 consecutive years (excluding wolves on 
Indian Reservations) the species will be removed from the State's 
threatened and endangered species list (WI DNR 1999a).
    Three comparable surveys of wolf numbers and range in Minnesota 
have been carried out in recent decades. The first survey estimated a 
State wolf population of 1235 in 1979 (Berg and Kuehn 1982). In 1989, 
1500 to 1750 wolves were estimated in the State (Fuller et al. 1992). 
This represents an average annual increase of about three percent. The 
1998 survey (Berg and Benson, in press) estimated that the State's wolf 
population was 2445 animals, indicating an average annual growth rate 
of 4 to 5 percent during the intervening 9 years. While estimates of 
the wolf population that are made at about 10-year intervals do not 
provide any insight into annual fluctuations in wolf numbers that might 
be due to winter conditions, prey availability and vulnerability, legal 
depredation control, and illegal killing, these three population 
estimates clearly indicate that the Minnesota wolf population has 
continued to increase. (Refer to Recovery Progress of Gray Wolves in 
the Eastern United States, above, for additional details on the 
increase in numbers and range of Minnesota wolves.)
    The Minnesota DNR prepared its Wolf Management Plan (MN Plan)(MN 
DNR 1999) and an accompanying legislative bill in early 1999 and 
submitted them to the Minnesota Legislature. The Legislature must 
approve the plan and bill to provide implementation of the regulatory 
authority. However, the Legislature failed to approve the MN Plan in 
the 1999 session. In early 2000 the MN DNR released a second bill that 
would result in somewhat different wolf management and protection than 
would the 1999 bill. As of mid-February the Minnesota Legislature had 
not yet considered the 2000 Minnesota wolf management bill.
    The complete text of the Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf 
management plans and bills can be found on our Web site. Our summaries 
of those plans are also available there. See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, 
above, for the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of our World Wide Web 
site.
    We expect wolf populations to continue to be conserved on most, and 
probably all, Indian Reservations in the western Great Lakes area, and 
those practices will augment wolf population goals listed above for the 
State DNRs. While we are unable to perform a comprehensive analysis of 
the likely future management and protection afforded to wolves on 
Native American reservations, we believe their traditional respect for 
the wolf, and its importance in Native American culture, will secure 
the species' future existence on most land under Native American 
control.
    The wolf retains great cultural significance and traditional value 
to many Tribes and their members (Eli Hunt, Leech Lake Tribal Council, 
in litt. 1998, Mike Schrage, Fond du Lac Resource Management Division, 
in litt. 1998a). Some Native Americans view wolves as competitors for 
deer and moose, while others are interested in the harvest of the wolf 
as a furbearer (Schrage, in litt. 1998a). Many Tribes intend to manage 
their natural resources, wolves among them, in a sustainable manner in 
order that they be available to their descendants. However, traditional 
natural resource harvest practices often include only a minimum amount 
of regulation by the Tribal government (Hunt in litt. 1998).
    In the creation story of the Ojibwa, Ma''ingan, the wolf, is a 
brother to the Original Man. The two traveled together throughout the 
world naming everything they encountered. Afterward, the Creator had 
them take separate paths, but told them that they would share the same 
fates, and that both would be feared, respected, and misunderstood by 
others who arrived later. Thus, the Ojibwa people link their survival 
to that of Ma''ingan, and will fully support the protection of the wolf 
to ensure its health and abundance in the future (Schlender, Great 
Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commision, in litt. 1998).
    In order to retain and strengthen these cultural connections some 
Tribes are choosing to reject the unnecessary killing of wolves on 
reservations and on ceded lands, even if wolves were to be delisted. 
For example, the Tribal Council of the Leech Lake Band of Minnesota 
Chippewa recently has adopted a resolution that describes the sport and 
recreational harvest of gray wolves as an inappropriate use of the 
animal. The resolution supports the limited harvest of wolves to be 
used for traditional or spiritual purposes by enrolled Tribal members. 
This limited harvest would only be allowed by the Tribe if it does not 
negatively affect the wolf population. We will assist the Council with 
obtaining wolf pelts and parts that become available from other 
sources, such as depredation control activities, based on their 
request. The Leech Lake Reservation is home to an estimated 75 to 100 
gray wolves, the largest population of wolves on an Indian reservation 
in the 48 conterminous States (Hunt in litt. 1998).
    The Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians (Minnesota) has indicated 
that it is likely to develop a wolf management plan that will probably 
be very similar in scope and content to the plan developed by the MN 
DNR. The Band's position on wolf management is ``wolf preservation 
through effective management,'' and the Band is confident that wolves 
will continue to thrive on their lands (Lawrence Bedeau, Red Lake Band 
of Chippewa Indians, in litt. 1998).
    The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (Michigan) has at least one wolf 
pack of four animals on its lands. They will continue to list the gray 
wolf as a protected animal under the Tribal Code even if federally 
delisted, with hunting and trapping prohibited (Mike Donofrio, 
Biological Services, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, pers. comm. 1998). 
Other Tribes, such as the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, 
have requested a slower pace to any wolf delisting process to allow 
more time for the preparation of Tribal wolf management plans. The Fond 
du Lac Band has passed a resolution opposing Federal

[[Page 43461]]

delisting and to any other measure that would permit trapping, hunting, 
or poisoning of the gray wolf (Schrage in litt. 1998b).
    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 Upper Midwest, and will not develop a 
separate wolf management plan. The Commission intends to work with us 
to ensure that State plans will adequately protect the wolf (Schlender, 
in litt. 1998).
    The lands of national forests, and the prey species found in their 
various habitats, are important to wolf conservation and recovery in 
the western Great Lakes States. There are six national forests in that 
area that have resident wolves. Their wolf populations range from 3 on 
the Nicolet National Forest in northeastern Wisconsin to an estimated 
300-400 on the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota. The 
land base of the Chequamegon National Forest currently is used by 
nearly half of the wolves in Wisconsin. All of these national forests 
are operated in conformance with standards and guidelines in their 
management plans that follow the recommendations of the 1992 Recovery 
Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1992a). Reclassification to threatened status is not expected to change 
these standards and guidelines; in fact, the gray wolf is expected to 
remain classified as a sensitive species by the Regional Forester for 
U.S. Forest Service Region 9 at least for 5 years even if federally 
delisted (Steve Mighton, U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1998). This 
continuation of current national forest management practices will be a 
major factor in ensuring the long-term viability of gray wolf 
populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
    Gray wolves regularly use four units of the National Park System in 
the western Great Lakes States and may occasionally use three or four 
other units. Although the National Park Service (NPS) has participated 
in the development of some of the wolf management plans in this area, 
NPS is not bound by those plans. Instead, the NPS Organic Act and the 
NPS Management Policy on Wildlife give the agency a separate 
responsibility to conserve natural and cultural resources and the 
wildlife present within the Parks. National Park Service management 
policies require that native species be protected against harvest, 
removal, destruction, harassment, or harm through human action, so 
management emphasis will continue to minimize the human impacts on wolf 
populations. Thus, because of their responsibility to preserve all 
wildlife, units of the National Park System can be more protective of 
wildlife than are State plans and regulations. In the case of the gray 
wolf, the NPS Organic Act and NPS policies will continue to provide 
protection to the wolf even after Federal delisting has occurred.
    Voyageurs National Park, along Minnesota's northern border, has a 
land base of nearly 350,000 sq km (134,000 sq mi). Preliminary data 
from the first 6 months of a 3-year wolf study indicate that 40 to 55 
wolves in 7 to 11 packs currently have at least a portion of their 
territory within the Park. Management and protection of wolves within 
the Park is not expected to change significantly if they are 
reclassified to threatened or even if delisted. Voyageurs National Park 
has identified winter Wildlife Protection Areas; some of these areas 
are lake embayments which are closed to winter visitation to minimize 
human disturbance to wildlife, including wolves and bald eagles. 
Temporary closures around wolf denning and rendezvous sites will be 
enacted to reduce human disturbance. Sport harvest of wolves within the 
Park will be prohibited, regardless of what may be allowed beyond Park 
boundaries in future years. If there is a need to control depredating 
wolves (unlikely due to the current absence of agricultural activities 
adjacent to the Park) the Park will work with the State to conduct 
control activities outside the Park to resolve the problem (Barbara 
West, Voyageurs National Park, in litt. 1999).
    The wolf population in Isle Royale National Park is described above 
(see Recovery Progress of Gray Wolves in the Eastern United States). 
The NPS has indicated that it will continue to closely monitor and 
study these wolves, but at this time it does not plan to take any 
special measures to ensure their continued existence, regardless of 
their status under the Act. This wolf population is very small and 
isolated from the remainder of the western Great Lakes population; it 
is not considered to be significant to the recovery or long-term 
viability of the gray wolf (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992a).
    Two other units of the National Park System--Pictured Rocks 
National Lakeshore and St. Croix National Scenic Riverway--are 
regularly used by wolf packs. Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is a 
narrow strip of land along Michigan's Lake Superior Shoreline; it 
contains wolves during the non-winter months when deer populations are 
high. The Lakeshore intends to protect denning and rendezvous sites at 
least as strictly as the MI DNR Plan recommends (Brian Kenner, Pictured 
Rocks National Lakeshore, in litt. 1998). The St. Croix National Scenic 
Riverway, in Wisconsin and Minnesota, is also a linear ownership, and 
it makes up portions of the territories of 3 to 5 packs of 10 to 40 
wolves. 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 when 
they are finalized (Robin Maercklein, St. Croix National Scenic 
Riverway, in litt. 1998).
    In the western Great Lakes area we currently manage six units 
within the National Wildlife Refuge System with wolf populations. 
Primary among these are Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and 
Tamarac NWR in Minnesota, as well as Seney NWR in the Upper Peninsula 
of Michigan. Agassiz NWR has had as many as 20 wolves in 2 or 3 packs 
in recent years, but mange and illegal shootings have reduced them to 5 
wolves in a single pack and a separate single wolf in 1999. Tamarac NWR 
has 2 resident packs in 1999, and both of them produced pups. Possibly 
10 to 15 adult wolves use that refuge. Seney NWR currently has 3 packs, 
with a total of 10 wolves. Rice Lake NWR, in Minnesota, had 1 or 2 
packs using the refuge in 1999. Late in the winter of 1998-99 a pair of 
gray wolves were located on Necedah NWR. Sherburne NWR, also in 
Minnesota, has 2 to 4 individual wolves, but lacks established wolf 
packs.
    Gray wolves occurring on national wildlife refuges in the western 
Great Lakes States will be monitored, and refuge habitat management 
actions will maintain the current prey base for them while they are 
listed as threatened, and for a minimum of 5 years following any future 
delisting. Trapping or hunting by government trappers in response to 
depredation complaints will not be authorized on these refuges.
    The extra protection afforded to resident and transient wolves, 
their den and rendezvous sites, and their prey by 6 national forests, 2 
national parks, and numerous national wildlife refuges in the western 
Great Lakes area will further ensure the continuing recovery of wolves 
in the three States.
    In summary, we believe that, if reclassified to threatened, the 
gray wolf will not become endangered in the western Great Lakes area in 
the foreseeable future due to habitat or range destruction or 
degradation, or related factors that may affect gray wolf numbers. 
Recovery efforts over the past

[[Page 43462]]

decade, the final or draft State and Tribal wolf management plans and 
practices, as well as those of Federal land management agencies in the 
western Great Lakes area, will provide adequate protection for wolf 
populations, maintain their prey base, preserve denning sites and 
dispersal corridors, and are likely to keep wolf populations well above 
the numerical recovery criteria established in the Federal recovery 
plan.
    Northeastern Gray Wolves. Researchers have recently evaluated the 
potential for wolf restoration in the Northeastern U.S., and found that 
both habitat quality and prey densities are favorable for gray wolf 
recovery (Harrison and Chapman 1997). The moose population in Maine is 
particularly robust, and within the past few decades moose have 
expanded their range throughout New Hampshire and into Vermont. 
Additionally, a small number of moose now occur in northern New York. 
White-tailed deer and beaver populations are generally considered 
healthy throughout the region. Therefore, we believe that habitat and 
prey base conditions are favorable for wolf restoration in the 
Northeastern U.S.
    Western Gray Wolves. The Recovery Plan recommended that wolf 
recovery efforts in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains be focused on 
areas that contained large blocks of public land, abundant wild 
ungulates, and minimal livestock to reduce potential conflicts between 
people and wolves. Three primary recovery areas were identified: 
northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the Greater Yellowstone Area 
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). Northwestern Montana (more than 
50,000 sq km (19,200 sq mi); the area North of Interstate 90 and West 
of Interstate 15) is a mixture of public land, primarily administrated 
by the USDA Forest Service, and private land. The economy and local 
culture is diverse and not as agriculturally based as other parts of 
Montana (Bangs et al. 1995). The Greater Yellowstone Area and central 
Idaho areas, 64,000 sq km (24,600 sq mi) and 53,900 sq km (20,700 sq 
mi) respectively, are primarily composed of public lands (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1994a). These areas of potential wolf habitat are 
secure and there are no foreseeable habitat-related threats that would 
prevent them from supporting a wolf population that exceeds recovery 
levels.
    Wild ungulate populations in these three areas are composed mainly 
of elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, and (only in the Greater 
Yellowstone Area) bison. The States of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have 
managed resident ungulate populations for decades and maintain them at 
densities that would support a recovered wolf population. There is no 
foreseeable condition that would cause a decline in ungulate 
populations significant enough to affect a recovered wolf population. 
While 100,000 to 250,000 wild ungulates are estimated in each State, 
domestic ungulates, primarily cattle and sheep, are typically at least 
twice as numerous even on public lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1994a). The only areas large enough to support wolf packs, but lacking 
livestock grazing, are Yellowstone National Park and some adjacent USDA 
Forest Service Wilderness and parts of wilderness areas in central 
Idaho and northwestern Montana. Consequently, many wolf pack 
territories have included areas used by livestock, primarily cattle. 
While there is no livestock grazing in Glacier National Park, every 
wolf pack in northwestern Montana has interacted with some livestock, 
primarily cattle. To date, conflict between wolves and livestock has 
resulted in the annual removal of less than six percent of the wolf 
population (Bangs et al. 1995). This level of removal by itself is not 
generally believed to cause declines in wolf populations.
    In summary, we do not believe that habitat loss or deterioration, 
or a decline in the abundance of wild prey, will occur at levels that 
will affect wolf recovery and long-term population viability in the 
Western DPS.
    Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolves. Sufficient suitable habitat 
exists in the Southwestern United States to support current recovery 
plan objectives for the Southwestern (Mexican) gray wolf. These 
habitats occur primarily on national forests and Native American 
reservations. Current and reasonably foreseeable management practices 
on these areas are expected to support ungulate populations at levels 
that will sustain wolf populations which meet or exceed recovery plan 
objectives. Habitat destruction or modification is not currently 
considered a threat or deterrent for restoration of Southwestern 
(Mexican) gray wolves.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes.

    General. Since their listing under the Act, there have been no gray 
wolves legally killed or removed from the wild for either commercial or 
recreational purposes. We acknowledge that there may have been wolves 
illegally killed for commercial use of the pelts and other parts, but 
illegal commercial trafficking in wolf pelts or wolf parts is believed 
to be rare. Illegal capture of wolves for commercial breeding purposes 
is also possible, but is also believed to be rare. The large fines and 
prison sentences provided for by the Act for criminal violations are 
believed to substantially discourage and minimize the illegal killing 
of wolves for commercial or recreational purposes.
    The intentional or incidental killing, or capture and permanent 
confinement of endangered or threatened gray wolves for scientific 
purposes can only legally occur under permits issued by us (under 
section 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act; under an incidental 
take statement issued by us as part of a biological opinion evaluating 
the effects of an action by a Federal agency; under an incidental take 
statement issued by us pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B), or by a State 
agency operating under a cooperative agreement with us pursuant to 
section 6 of the Act (50 CFR 17.21(c)(5) and 17.31(b)). Although exact 
figures are not available, such removals of wolves from the wild have 
been very limited and probably comprised an average of fewer than two 
animals per year since the species was first listed as endangered. 
These animals were either taken from the Minnesota wolf population 
during long-term research activities (about 15 gray wolves), were 
accidental takings as a result of research activities in Wisconsin (4 
mortalities and 1 long-term confinement), were removed from the 
endangered population in Mexico (5 wolves) to be used as breeding stock 
for reintroduction programs in the United States, or they were 
previously released Canis lupus baileyi that were recaptured for 
probable permanent confinement after being judged unsuitable for the 
reintroduction program (2 or 3 wolves) (William Berg, MN DNR, in litt. 
1998; Mech, in litt. 1998; David Parsons, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service in litt. 1998; Wydeven 1998).
    We believe that there have been no wolves legally removed from the 
wild for educational purposes in recent years. Wolves that are used for 
such purposes are the captive-reared offspring of wolves that were 
already in captivity for other reasons.
    Refer to Depredation Control Programs in the Western Great Lakes 
States and Depredation Control Programs in the Western DPS under E. 
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence, 
below, for discussions of additional wolf mortalities associated with 
wolf depredation control programs.
    Western Great Lakes Gray Wolves. If reclassified to threatened 
status, the taking of gray wolves for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational

[[Page 43463]]

purposes would still be generally prohibited under the Act, but could 
be authorized by Federal permit. In addition, the taking of wolves for 
conservation purposes could be done without an authorizing permit, if 
that taking is done by an employee or agent of a State conservation 
agency having an approved conservation agreement under the provisions 
of section 6(c) of the Act. The wildlife management agencies of the 
States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, and South 
Dakota each have such an approved conservation agreement, and 
therefore, would be able to take gray wolves for conservation purposes 
if they are reclassified to threatened status. The amount of such take 
must be reported to us annually.
    A reclassification to threatened status for the Western Great Lakes 
DPS would not result in any decrease in protection for gray wolves in 
Minnesota, because they already are classified as threatened there. 
Therefore, we do not expect any increase in the taking of Minnesota 
wolves for these purposes. The extremely small current level of such 
take has not affected the recovery of Minnesota wolves, and is not 
expected to do so in the future.
    Gray wolves in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, and South Dakota 
will be subject to a possible increase in take by employees or agents 
of these States. However, this take must be for conservation purposes, 
and is thus likely to be for research purposes. Therefore, we believe 
such take will be minimal and will not significantly slow wolf recovery 
in Wisconsin and Michigan. (Refer to Depredation Control Programs in 
the Western Great Lakes States under E. Other Natural or Manmade 
Factors Affecting its Continued Existence, below, for a discussion of 
the increased take expected in these four States for depredation 
control under the proposed section 4(d) special regulation.)
    The taking of wolves by Tribes, Federal agencies, organizations, or 
private citizens for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes may increase slightly, because the Act allows us 
to issue take permits for zoological exhibition, educational purposes, 
and ``special purposes consistent with the Act'' for threatened but not 
for endangered wildlife. Again, the requirement that such take must 
promote the conservation of the threatened species means that the 
magnitude of the take will be small and cannot inhibit continued gray 
wolf recovery.
    Western Gray Wolves. Since being listed as endangered and 
experimental, there has been no legal commercial, recreational, or 
educational utilization or take of western gray wolves. In the States 
where wolves are proposed for reclassification to threatened status and 
will be covered by the proposed 4(d) special regulation, there still 
would not be any legal take for these purposes under the threatened 
classification or under the proposed special regulation.
    We believe some wolf mortalities associated with the ongoing 
scientific studies of wolves will occur. Some of these studies involve 
capturing and radiocollaring of wolves. Wolf capture by trapping, 
helicopter netgunning, and darting has the potential to seriously 
injure or kill wolves. These unintentional mortalities are rare and 
generally average less than 2 percent of the wolves handled (U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service 1994a). During the reintroduction of wolves from 
Canada nearly 100 wolves were handled and 2 died. Since then there has 
been only 1 wolf mortality out of about 130 wolves captured as part of 
routine trapping and radiocollaring for monitoring purposes in Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming.
    Northeastern and Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolves. In these DPSs, 
gray wolves would continue to be protected by section 9 of the Act 
under their threatened, endangered, or nonessential experimental 
population classifications. These classifications would prohibit any 
commercial or recreational take of gray wolves. Neither the current 
special regulations for the nonessential experimental population in the 
Southwestern (Mexican) DPS, nor the proposed special regulation for the 
Northeastern DPS, would allow these forms of take. Enforcement by us 
will continue to keep such take to minimal levels.
    Take for scientific or recovery purposes, including educational 
purposes, will be available for both DPSs. For the Southwestern 
(Mexican) DPS such take can be authorized only by a permit from us. 
Under the proposed special regulation for the Northeastern DPS take of 
wolves for scientific, educational, and conservation purposes can be 
carried out by States under existing cooperative agreements with us 
under section 6 of the Act. This take authority would be extended to 
Tribes after they have developed a wolf conservation plan and it has 
been approved by us.
    Thus, in all cases, gray wolf take for scientific, educational, and 
conservation purposes must benefit the gray wolf DPS and must promote 
its recovery. Therefore, any take of this nature will not negatively 
impact these DPSs.

C. Disease or Predation

Disease
    Many diseases and parasites have been reported for the gray wolf, 
and several of them have had significant impacts during the recovery of 
the species in the conterminous States. These diseases and parasites, 
and perhaps others, must be considered to be significant potential 
threats to gray wolf populations in the future. Thus, in order to avoid 
a disease/parasite-related decline in the gray wolf population, their 
presence and impacts require diligent monitoring and appropriate 
follow-up for the foreseeable future.
    Western Great Lakes Gray Wolves. Canine parvovirus (CPV) is a 
relatively new disease that infects wolves, domestic dogs, foxes, 
coyotes, skunks, and raccoons. Recognized in the United States in 1977 
in domestic dogs, it appeared in Minnesota wolves (based upon 
retrospective serologic evidence) live-trapped as early as 1977 (Mech 
et al. 1986). However, Minnesota wolves may have been exposed to the 
virus as early as 1973 (Mech and Goyal 1995). Serologic evidence of 
gray wolf exposure to CPV peaked at 95 percent of a group of Minnesota 
wolves live-trapped in 1989 (Mech and Goyal 1993). In a captive colony 
of Minnesota wolves, pup and yearling mortality from CPV was 92 percent 
of the animals that showed indications of active CPV infections in 1983 
(Mech and Fritts 1987), demonstrating the substantial impacts this 
disease can have on young wolves. It is believed that the population 
impacts of CPV occur via diarrhea-induced dehydration leading to 
abnormally high pup mortality (WI DNR 1999).
    There is no evidence that CPV has caused a population decline or 
has had a significant impact on the recovery of the Minnesota gray wolf 
population. However, Mech and Goyal (1995) found that high CPV 
prevalence in the wolves of the Superior National Forest in Minnesota 
occurred during the same years in which wolf pup numbers were low. 
Because the wolf population did not decline during the study period, 
they concluded that CPV-caused pup mortality was compensatory, that is, 
it replaced deaths that would have occurred from other causes, 
especially starvation of pups. They theorized that CPV prevalence 
affects the amount of population increase, and that a wolf population 
will decline when 76 percent of the adult wolves consistently test 
positive for CPV exposure. Their data indicate CPV prevalence in adult 
wolves in their study area increased by an annual average of 4 percent 
during 1979-93, and was at least 80 percent during the last 5 years of 
their study (Mech and Goyal 1995). Additional

[[Page 43464]]

unpublished data gathered since 1995 indicate that CPV reduced wolf 
population growth in that area from 1979 to 1989, but not since that 
period (Mech in litt. 1999). These data provide strong justification 
for continuing population and disease monitoring.
    The disease probably stalled wolf population growth in Wisconsin 
during the early and mid-1980s. During those years the Wisconsin wolf 
population declined or was static, and 75 percent of 32 wolves tested 
by the same method were positive for CPV. During the following years 
(1988-96) of population increase only 35 percent of the 63 wolves 
tested positive for CPV (WI DNR 1999). CPV exposure rates were at 50 
percent in live-captured Wisconsin wolves in 1995-96 (WI DNR 1999), but 
there is no necropsy evidence of CPV mortalities from Wisconsin wolves 
(Nancy Thomas, National Wildlife Health Laboratory, in litt. 1998). 
However, the difficulty of discovering CPV-killed pups must be 
considered.
    Canine parvovirus is considered to have been a major cause of the 
decline of the isolated Isle Royale, Michigan, population in the mid 
and late 1980s. The Isle Royale gray wolf population decreased from 23 
and 24 wolves in 1983 and 1984, respectively, to 12 and 11 wolves in 
1988 and 1989, respectively. The wolf population remained in the low to 
mid-teens through 1995. However, factors other than disease may be 
causing a low level of reproductive success, including a low level of 
genetic diversity and a prey population composed of young healthy moose 
that may make it difficult to secure sufficient prey for pups. There 
are no data showing any CPV-caused population impacts to the larger 
gray wolf population on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (Peterson et 
al. 1998).
    Sarcoptic mange is caused by a mite infection of the skin. The 
irritation caused by the feeding and burrowing mites results in 
scratching and then severe fur loss, which in turn can lead to 
mortality from exposure during severe winter weather. From 1991-96 27 
percent of live-trapped Wisconsin wolves exhibited symptoms of mange. 
During the winter of 1992-93 58 percent showed symptoms, and a 
concurrent decline in the Wisconsin wolf population was attributed to 
mange-induced mortality (WI DNR 1999). Seven Wisconsin wolves died of 
mange during the years 1993 through October 15, 1998, and severe fur 
loss affected five other wolves that died from other causes. During 
that period mange was the third largest cause of death in Wisconsin 
wolves, behind trauma (usually vehicle collisions) and shooting (Nancy 
Thomas in litt. 1998).
    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). At 
least seven wild Michigan wolves died from mange during 1993-97, making 
it the most common disease of Michigan wolves. The Michigan Wolf 
Management Plan acknowledges that mange may be slowing wolf population 
growth and specifies that captured wolves be treated with Ivermectin to 
combat the mites (MI DNR 1997). MI DNR currently treats all captured 
wolves with Ivermectin, vaccinates them against CPV and canine 
distemper virus (CDV), and administers antibiotics to combat potential 
leptospirosis infections.
    Wisconsin wolves similarly had been treated with Ivermectin and 
vaccinated for CPV and CDV when captured, but the practice was stopped 
in 1995 to allow the wolf population to experience more natural biotic 
conditions. Since that time, Ivermectin has been administered only to 
captured wolves with severe cases of mange. In the future, Ivermectin 
and vaccines will be used sparingly on Wisconsin wolves, but will be 
used to counter significant disease outbreaks (Adrian Wydeven in litt. 
1998).
    Mange has not been documented to be a significant disease problem 
in Minnesota. Several packs in the Ely and Park Rapids areas are known 
to suffer from mange, and a pack at Agassiz NWR in northwestern 
Minnesota was reduced from at least five wolves (the pack may have 
numbered six to eight in the early 1990s) to a single animal over the 
last few years, primarily due to mange.
    Lyme disease, caused by a spirochete, is another relatively 
recently recognized disease, first documented in New England in 1975; 
it may have occurred in Wisconsin as early as 1969. It is spread by 
ticks, who pass along the infection to their various host species 
during tick feeding episodes. Host species include humans, horses, 
dogs, white-tailed deer, white-footed mice, eastern chipmunks, coyotes, 
and wolves. The prevalence of Lyme disease in Wisconsin wolves averaged 
70 percent of live-trapped animals in 1988-91, but dropped to 37 
percent during 1992-97. While there are no data showing wolf 
mortalities from Lyme disease, it may be suppressing population growth 
through decreased wolf pup survival. Lyme disease has not been reported 
from wolves beyond the Great Lakes regions (WI DNR 1999a).
    Other diseases and parasites, including rabies, canine distemper, 
canine heartworm, blastomycosis, brucellosis, leptospirosis, bovine 
tuberculosis, hookworm, coccidiosis, and canine hepatitis have been 
documented in wild gray wolves, but their impacts on future wild wolf 
populations are not likely to be significant (Brand et al. 1995, 
Johnson 1995, Mech and Kurtz 1999, Thomas in litt. 1998, WI DNR 1999a).
    In aggregate, diseases and parasites were the cause of 25 percent 
of the diagnosed wolf deaths from 1960-97 in Michigan (MI DNR 1997) and 
19 percent of the diagnosed mortalities of radiocollared wolves in 
Wisconsin from 1979-98 (Wydeven 1998).
    Since several of the diseases and parasites are known to be spread 
by wolf to wolf contact, their incidence may increase as wolf densities 
increase in newly colonized areas. However, because wolf densities 
generally are relatively stable following the first few years of 
colonization, wolf to wolf contacts will not likely lead to a 
continuing increase in disease prevalence (L. David Mech in litt. 
1998).
    Disease and parasite impacts may increase because several wolf 
diseases are carried and spread by dogs. This transfer of diseases and 
parasites from domestic dogs to wild wolves may increase as gray wolves 
continue to colonize non-wilderness areas (Mech in litt. 1998). 
Heartworm, CPV, and rabies are the main concerns (Thomas in litt. 
1998).
    Disease and parasite impacts are a recognized concern of the State 
departments of natural resources. The Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and 
Management Plan states that necropsies will be conducted on all dead 
wolves and that all live wolves that are handled will be examined and 
blood, skin, and fecal samples will be taken to provide disease 
information. All wolves that are handled will be vaccinated for CDV and 
CPV and treated for parasites before release (MI DNR 1997). These steps 
will continue even if the gray wolf is federally reclassified to 
threatened.
    Similarly, the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan has a section on wolf 
health monitoring. It states that as long as the wolf is State-listed 
as a threatened or endangered species the WI DNR will conduct 
necropsies of dead wolves and a sample of live-captured wolves will be 
tested for diseases and parasites. The goal will be to capture and 
screen 10 percent of the State wolf population for diseases annually. 
Following State delisting (after the State wolf population grows to 250 
animals) disease monitoring will be scaled back because

[[Page 43465]]

the percentage of the wolf population that is live-trapped each year 
will decline, but periodic necropsy and scat analyses will continue to 
test for disease and parasite loads. The plan also recommends that all 
wolves live-trapped for other studies should have their health 
monitored and reported to the WI DNR wildlife health specialists (WI 
DNR 1999a).
    In summary, several diseases have had significant impacts on wolf 
population growth in the Great Lakes region in the past. These impacts 
have been both direct, resulting in mortality of individual wolves, and 
indirect, by reducing longevity and fecundity of individuals or entire 
packs or populations. Canine parvovirus stalled wolf population growth 
in Wisconsin in the early and mid-1980s, and it has been implicated as 
a contributing factor in declines in the isolated Isle Royale 
population. Sarcoptic mange has impacted wolf recovery in both 
Michigan's Upper Peninsula and in Wisconsin in this decade, and is 
recognized as a continuing problem. However, despite these and other 
diseases and parasites, the overall trend for wolf populations in the 
western Great Lakes States is upward. The wolf management plans of 
Michigan and Wisconsin include monitoring components that are expected 
to identify future disease and parasite problems in time to allow 
corrective action to be taken to avoid a significant decline in overall 
population viability. We do not believe disease impacts will have 
significant adverse effects on wolf recovery in the western Great Lakes 
States.
    Western Gray Wolves. Wolves in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains 
are exposed to a wide variety of canid diseases, which are common 
throughout North America. Some of these diseases and parasites have 
been documented to significantly affect wolf populations, usually 
temporarily, in other areas of North America. However, in the studies 
of wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming to date, disease and parasites 
have not appeared to be a significant factor affecting wolf population 
dynamics. Just like wolves in all other parts of North America, wolves 
in the Northern Rocky Mountains will occasionally die from a wide 
variety of canid diseases. However, it is doubtful that wolf 
populations in the northern Rocky Mountains could be significantly 
impacted, because wolf exposure to these diseases has been occurring 
for decades. The environmental impact statement (EIS) on gray wolf 
reintroduction identified disease impact as an issue but did not 
evaluate it further, because it appeared not to be significant (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service 1994a). Likewise, in the ``Wolves for 
Yellowstone?'' reports to Congress in 1992, Johnson (1995b and 1995c) 
reviewed the relationship between wolves and rabies, brucellosis, and 
tuberculosis and found canids were not likely to be a reservoir for 
those diseases.
    Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolves. There is no evidence suggesting 
that disease was a significant factor in the decline of the Mexican 
wolf. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that disease will be a 
significant impediment to recovery of the Mexican wolf in the wild. 
Because the potential for disease and parasite transmission is much 
greater in captivity, especially in zoos, all captive Mexican wolves 
are vaccinated or treated for potential canine diseases and parasites 
that may exist in the captive environment.
    As a result of captive disease and parasite prevention and 
treatment protocols, released wolves are in good health and physical 
condition when they enter the wild. Re-established Southwestern 
(Mexican) wolves will be monitored for disease or parasite-related 
problems.
Predation
    There are no wild animals that habitually prey on gray wolves. 
Occasionally wolves will be killed by large prey such as deer or moose 
(Mech and Nelson 1989) or possibly by a competing predator such as a 
mountain lion, but this has only been documented on rare occasions and 
is not believed to be a significant mortality factor. However, humans 
are highly effective predators of gray wolves.
    Western Great Lakes Gray Wolves. Wolves are killed by other wolves, 
most commonly when a dispersing wolf encounters another pack and is 
attacked as an intruder, or when two packs encounter each other along 
their common territorial boundary. This form of mortality is likely to 
increase as more of the available wolf habitat becomes saturated with 
wolf pack territories, as is already the case in northeastern 
Minnesota. Over the period from October 1979 through June 1998 7 (13 
percent) wolves of the diagnosed mortalities of radiocollared Wisconsin 
wolves were a result of wolves being killed by other wolves (Wydeven 
1998). However, this behavior is a normal part of the species' 
behavioral repertoire and should not be a cause for concern in healthy 
wolf populations as it normally indicates that the wolf population is 
at, or approaching, the carrying capacity of the area.
    Humans have functioned as highly effective predators of the gray 
wolf as we attempted to eliminate them from the landscape in earlier 
times. The United States Congress passed a wolf bounty that covered the 
Northwest Territories in 1817. Bounties on wolves subsequently became 
the norm for States across the species' range. In Michigan an 1838 wolf 
bounty became the ninth law passed by the First Michigan Legislature; a 
bounty remained in place until 1960. A Wisconsin bounty was instituted 
in 1865 and then repealed about the time wolves were extirpated from 
the State in 1957. Minnesota maintained a wolf bounty until 1965.
    Subsequent to its listing as a federally endangered species, 
protection of the gray wolf under the Act and under State endangered 
species statutes prohibited the killing of wolves except under 
extenuating circumstances, such as in defense of human life, for 
scientific or conservation purposes, or under several special 
regulations intended to reduce wolf depredations on livestock. This 
reduction in human-caused mortality is the main cause of the wolf's 
comeback in parts of its historical range. However, it is clear that 
illegal killing of wolves still continues.
    Illegal killing of wolves occurs for a number of reasons. Some of 
these killings are accidental (e.g., vehicle collisions, mistaken for 
coyotes and shot, caught in traps set for other animals), and some of 
these incidents are reported to State, Tribal, and Federal authorities. 
However, it is likely that most illegal wolf killings are intentional 
and are never reported to authorities. Such killings may be done out of 
frustration over wolf depredations on livestock or pets, fear for the 
safety of pets or children, hatred of the species, opposition to wolf 
recovery, as a form of protest against the government, or for other 
reasons. The number of illegal killings is difficult to determine, 
because they generally occur in isolated areas and the evidence is 
quickly concealed.
    There are two Minnesota studies that provide insight into the 
extent of human-caused wolf mortality before and after the species' 
listing. Based upon bounty data from a period that predated wolf 
protection under the Act by 20 years, Stenlund (1955) found an annual 
human-caused mortality rate of 0.41 wolves (that is, 41 out of 100 wolf 
mortalities were human-caused). Fuller (1989) provided 1980-86 data 
from a north-central Minnesota study area and found an annual human-
caused mortality rate of 0.27. (Fuller's mortality rate excludes wolves 
killed as part of the wolf depredation control program.) However, 
drawing conclusions from

[[Page 43466]]

these two data sets is difficult due to the confounding effects of 
habitat quality, exposure to humans, prey density, differing time 
periods, and vast differences in study design. While these figures 
provide support for the contention that human-caused mortality 
decreased subsequent to the wolf's protection under the Act, it is not 
possible at this time to determine if human-caused mortality (apart 
from mortalities from depredation control) has significantly changed 
during the 25-year period that the gray wolf has been listed as 
threatened or endangered.
    Interestingly, when compared to his 1985 survey, Kellert's 1999 
public attitudes survey showed an increase in the number of northern 
Minnesota residents who reported having killed, or knowing someone who 
had killed, a wolf. However, members of groups that are likely to 
encounter wolves-- farmers, hunters, and trappers-- reported a decrease 
in the number of such incidents (Kellert 1999). Due to these apparently 
conflicting results, and differences in the methodology of the two 
surveys, it is difficult to draw any clear conclusions on this issue.
    It is important to note that despite the difficulty in measuring 
the extent of illegal killing of wolves, their population and range in 
the western Great Lakes States has continued to increase. During recent 
decades all sources of wolf mortality, including legal (takings for 
research and depredation control activities) and illegal human-caused 
mortality, have not stopped the continuing growth of the wolf 
population, estimated at a 4 to 5 percent average annual increase in 
Minnesota, and about a 30 to 35 percent average annual increase in 
Wisconsin and Michigan. This indicates that total gray wolf mortality 
continues to be exceeded by recruitment (that is, reproduction and 
immigration) into these areas.
    As the wolf population in Wisconsin and Michigan achieves habitat 
saturation or as the cultural carrying capacity is approached, the 
rapid growth rates are expected to slow and likely will eventually 
stop. We should then expect to see negative growth rates (that is, wolf 
population declines) in some years, due to short-term fluctuations in 
birth and mortality rates. However, adequate wolf monitoring programs, 
as identified in the Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota (submitted by 
MN DNR in 1999 but not approved by the Legislature) wolf management 
plans, should be able to identify excessively high mortality rates and 
low birth and/or survival rates and to trigger timely corrective action 
when necessary. Michigan and Wisconsin DNRs are currently monitoring 
their wolf populations in this manner, and we fully expect this level 
of monitoring will continue if those wolves are reclassified to 
threatened status. The goals of all three State wolf management plans 
are to maintain a within-state wolf population that is well above the 
size identified in the Federal Eastern Recovery Plan for viable 
isolated wolf populations.
    In Wisconsin, human-caused mortalities accounted for 58 percent of 
the diagnosed mortalities on radiocollared wolves from October 1979 
through June 1998. One-third of all the diagnosed mortalities, and 55 
percent of the human-caused mortalities, were from shooting. Another 12 
percent of all the diagnosed mortalities resulted from vehicle 
collisions. Vehicle collisions have increased as a percentage of 
radiocollared wolf mortalities. During the October 1979 through June 
1995 period only one of 27 known mortalities was from that cause, but 
from July 1995 through June 1998 5 of the 26 known mortalities resulted 
from vehicle collisions (WI DNR 1999a, Wydeven 1998).
    In the Upper Peninsula of Michigan human-caused mortalities 
accounted for 75 percent of the diagnosed mortalities, based upon 34 
wolves recovered from 1960 to 1997. Twenty-eight percent of all the 
diagnosed mortalities and 38 percent of the human-caused mortalities 
were from shooting. In the Michigan Upper Peninsula during that period 
about one-third of all the known mortalities were from vehicle 
collisions (MI DNR 1997). During the 1998 Michigan deer hunting season 
three radiocollared wolves were shot and killed, resulting in one 
arrest and conviction; the other two cases remain under investigation 
(Hammill in litt. 1999, Michigan DNR 1999b).
    A continuing increase in wolf mortalities from vehicle collisions 
is expected as wolves continue their colonization of areas with more 
human developments and a denser network of roads.
    A significant portion of the intentional illegal mortalities may 
arise as a protest against the Federal government or from frustration 
due to a perception of inadequate Federal depredation control programs 
or inadequate State compensation for depredated livestock and dogs. The 
proposed action in the Western Great Lakes DPS--reclassifying Wisconsin 
and Michigan wolves to threatened and implementing a special regulation 
for lethal depredation control, with no change in the protection 
provided to threatened Minnesota wolves--is expected to have both 
positive and negative impacts on illegal wolf mortality.
    In Wisconsin and Michigan, the rapidly expanding wolf population is 
beginning to cause more depredation problems. For example, from 1991 
through 1996 only one Wisconsin wolf was captured for depredation 
control. In 1997 two wolves were trapped and moved to eliminate 
depredation problems. In 1998 four wolves had to be captured as a 
result of depredation problems. For Wisconsin and Michigan, special 
management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act would provide 
increased flexibility and efficiency in dealing with these problem 
wolves (See Special Regulations Under Section 4(d) for Threatened 
Species). This may result in greater public satisfaction with the 
States' abilities to promptly and effectively deal with depredation 
incidents, and may reduce the perception that wolves are out of control 
and vigilante action is needed to reduce their numbers.
    Wolves were extirpated in the Dakotas in the 1920s and 1930s and 
were rarely reported from the mid-1940s through the late 1970s. From 
1981 to 1992 10 wolves were killed in the Dakotas, with 5 of them 
killed from 1991 to 1992. Two more were killed in North Dakota after 
1992. There have been other recent reported sightings of gray wolves, 
including a confirmed sighting by U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (APHIS-
Wildlife Services) personnel in 1996 near Gary, South Dakota, and a 
1994 confirmation of a den with pups in extreme north central North 
Dakota. Several other unconfirmed sightings have been reported from 
extreme northeastern and southeastern South Dakota. Wolves killed in 
North and South Dakota are most often shot by hunters who have mistaken 
them for coyotes or are killed by vehicles.
    Additional discussion of past and future wolf mortalities in the 
Western Great Lakes DPS arising from depredation control actions is 
found under factor D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
    Despite human-caused mortalities of wolves in the western Great 
Lakes States, it is clear that these populations have continued to 
increase in both numbers and range. As long as other mortality factors 
do not increase significantly, and the wolf populations receive 
adequate and timely monitoring to document (and counteract, if 
necessary) the effects of excessive human-caused mortality, we believe 
the

[[Page 43467]]

Minnesota and Wisconsin-Michigan wolf populations will not decline to 
non-viable levels, nor will recovery slow, in the foreseeable future 
due to human-caused killing or other forms of predation.
    Western Gray Wolves. Since wolves have been monitored in Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming only one wolf has been confirmed to have been killed 
by another predator. That lone reintroduced wolf was killed by a 
mountain lion in 1995. Wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains inhabit 
the same areas as mountain lions, grizzly bears, and black bears, but 
conflicts rarely result in the death of either species. Wolves are 
occasionally killed by prey that they are attacking but those instances 
are rare. Since 1987, wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains have 
apparently died from wounds they received while attacking prey on about 
four occasions. This level of mortality will not significantly affect 
wolf recovery. Other wolves are the largest cause of natural predation 
among wolves. Wherever wolves occur, including Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming, some low level of mortality due to territorial conflict 
between wolves is common. Those incidents occur but are so infrequent 
that they do not cause a level of mortality that would significantly 
affect a wolf population that is at or above recovery levels.
    Humans are the largest cause of wolf mortality and the only cause 
that can significantly affect wolf populations at recovery levels. The 
annual survival rate of immature wolves in northwestern Montana and 
adjacent Canada from 1984 to 1995 was 80 percent (Pletscher et al. 
1997); 84 percent for resident wolves and 66 percent for dispersers. 
That study found 84 percent of immature wolf mortality to be human-
caused. Fifty-eight wolves from northwestern Montana with functioning 
radiocollars have died since 1987, and humans caused the death of 49 
(84 percent). Wolves are more likely to be radiocollared if they come 
into conflict with people, so the proportion of mortality caused by 
agency depredation control actions could be over-estimated by this 
study. People who illegally kill wolves may destroy the radiocollar so 
the proportion of illegal mortality could be under-estimated.
    As was typically the case elsewhere in North America, humans were 
the largest cause of wolf mortality in northwestern Montana. Wolf 
control was the leading cause of death for wolves in northwestern 
Montana. Of 28 wolves from northwestern Montana that were relocated and 
released because of conflicts with livestock, humans caused the death 
of 96 percent. Only two females lived long enough after relocation to 
reproduce, and both of them were killed by people within months of 
whelping. Injuries during capture or confinement ultimately caused the 
death of 7 of those 28 relocated wolves.
    In central Idaho, 25 of 35 original reintroduced wolves have 
functioning radiocollars and continue to be monitored. In addition, new 
radiocollars have been placed on an additional 24 wolves. One 
radiocollared wolf from northwestern Montana has dispersed into central 
Idaho. Eleven radiocollared wolves have died. Sixty-four percent of the 
wolf mortalities were human-caused. Fewer wolves have died in Idaho 
than in either the Greater Yellowstone Area or northwestern Montana. 
Causes of natural mortality in Idaho were starvation and mountain lion 
predation.
    Over three times as many radiocollared wolves have died in the 
Greater Yellowstone Area than in central Idaho. Humans caused 68 
percent of mortalities in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Sources of 
natural mortalities included other wolves (4), prey (2), avalanches 
(1), old age (1), and unknown causes (2).
    The EIS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994a) predicted that 10 
percent of the reintroduced wolves would be removed annually for 
depredation control with an additional 10 percent dying annually from 
other causes. Out of 66 original reintroduced and 69 other wolves 
radiocollared for monitoring purposes over the past 4 years in central 
Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area, 45 (33 percent) have died. Most 
(68 percent) wolf mortality was human-caused. Annual mortality has been 
below the 20 percent annual level that was predicted in the EIS. 
Reintroduced wolves had a lower proportion of human-caused mortality 
compared to naturally colonizing wolves because they were released in 
remote areas where contact and conflicts with people were less likely. 
Relocated depredating wolves in northwestern Montana had a higher 
proportion of human-caused mortality (96 percent) than either 
reintroduced (61 percent) or naturally colonizing wolves in 
northwestern Montana (71 percent excluding legal harvest in Canada). In 
northwestern Montana relocated depredating wolves traveled widely and 
often resettled in places similar to the areas that they had been 
removed from, typically private ranch land. Consequently they continued 
to come into conflict with people and livestock.
    The levels of documented human-caused mortality among wolves in the 
northern Rocky Mountains have not, at this time, been significant 
enough to cause declines in wolf populations. The protection of wolves 
under the Act appears sufficient to promote wolf population growth. 
Under the provisions of the experimental population rules for the 
central Idaho and Yellowstone areas, wolf population growth has been 
high. Although special management regulations under section 4(d) of the 
Act would allow some expanded take of problem wolves outside the 
experimental population areas, such regulations would still 
sufficiently protect wolves from human persecution. Continued rapid 
growth towards recovery levels is therefore expected (See Special 
Regulations Under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species).
    Enforcement of the Act's prohibitions on taking wolves listed as 
``experimental'' and ``endangered'' has been successful to date. Twelve 
wolves have been illegally killed in the experimental areas, and six 
cases have been resolved. In northwestern Montana nine wolves were 
known to have been illegally killed, and four cases have been resolved. 
Fines have ranged from $500 to $10,000, with jail sentences being 
imposed for some violators. The legal or illegal killing documented to 
date has not been at a level that could affect wolf population growth 
to recovery levels.
    Two yearling experimental wolves were legally killed (one each in 
Montana and Idaho) under the provisions of the experimental population 
special regulation by livestock producers who saw the wolves attacking 
livestock. They reported shooting the wolves to authorities within 24 
hours as required. Both investigations confirmed compliance with the 
experimental rules, and no further action was taken. So far, wolves 
have been unintentionally killed by vehicles, coyote cyanide (M-44) 
devices, and traps, and during control and management actions, but 
investigations of these incidents concluded that prosecution was not 
warranted. These types of mortalities are relatively rare and will not 
affect wolf population growth to recovery levels.
    Special management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act would 
allow for the legal take of wolves under more circumstances than the 
existing special regulation. The existing special management 
regulations under section 10(j) of the Act will continue to apply to 
the two nonessential experimental populations in the Northern U.S. 
Rocky

[[Page 43468]]

Mountains (See Special Regulations Under Section 4(d) for Threatened 
Species). Therefore, we do not expect wolf mortality rates to change 
significantly as a result.
    Northeastern Gray Wolves. The proposed special management 
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act would give State and Tribal 
conservation agencies that actively undertake wolf recovery actions, 
such as a reintroduction effort, new regulatory flexibility to address 
problems caused by these wolves or their progeny (See Special 
Regulations Under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species). We are not 
proposing to authorize the incidental or intentional take of gray 
wolves that naturally occur in the Northeast. Special management 
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act will have no immediate effect 
on the protection afforded any naturally occurring or recolonizing gray 
wolves in the States of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. 
However, if future wolf reintroductions occur in the Northeast, and 
conditions allowing incidental or intentional take pursuant to special 
management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act are met, it will 
not be possible in every instance to distinguish naturally occurring 
wolves from the unmarked progeny of reintroduced wolves. Therefore, in 
the event that one or more States or Tribes actively reintroduce wolves 
into the Northeast, some incidental or intentional take of naturally 
occurring wolves may occur in the future.
    Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolves. As of mid-February, 2000, 
illegal killing has been confirmed as the cause of death of 4 of the 34 
Mexican wolves that have been released to the wild. However, we do not 
believe that predation or illegal killing will preclude recovery of the 
Mexican wolf. Killing or capture and permanent confinement of gray 
wolves for scientific and educational purposes is discussed under 
Factor B, above.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms.

    Upon being listed under the Act the gray wolf immediately 
benefitted from a Federal regulatory framework that includes-- 
prohibition of take, which is defined broadly under the Act to include 
killing, injuring, or attempting to kill or injure; prohibition of 
habitat destruction or degradation if such activities harm individuals 
of the species; the requirement that Federal agencies ensure their 
actions will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species, coupled with the requirement that Federal agencies implement 
measures to reduce the incidental adverse effects of their actions; and 
the requirement that we develop and implement a recovery program for 
the species. In addition, the 1978 designation of critical habitat in 
Minnesota and Michigan (43 FR 9607) further requires Federal agencies 
to ensure that their actions do not result in the destruction or 
adverse modification of those designated areas. These protective 
regulations and conservation measures have substantially improved the 
status of the gray wolf.
    Western Great Lakes Gray Wolves. A June 29, 1998, announcement by 
Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt and Service Director Jamie 
Rappaport Clark described, in part, our intention to propose a 
delisting of gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes. That intention was 
based, in large part, upon our belief that State wolf management plans 
for Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan would either be completed, or 
would be sufficiently close to completion, so that our delisting and 
reclassification proposal could be based, in part, upon an analysis of 
the protective mechanisms and management strategies and actions to be 
described in those plans.
    In late 1997 the Michigan wolf management plan was completed and 
received the necessary State approvals. By mid-1998 the Wisconsin wolf 
management plan was available as a public draft; it has since been 
revised, released as a second draft for public review and comment, and 
has undergone further revision. The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board 
approved the plan in October of 1999. Our biologists have participated 
on the teams that developed these two State plans, so we are familiar 
with their evolution and likely future direction. We believe that these 
plans provide sufficient information for us to analyze the future 
threats to the gray wolf population in Wisconsin and Michigan after 
Federal delisting.
    The Minnesota Legislature failed to approve a State Wolf Management 
Plan and regulatory bill during the 1999 legislative session that would 
allow us to conclude that the future of the Minnesota wolf population 
would be assured, as is recommended by the recovery criteria for the 
Eastern Timber Wolf (See Other Alternatives Considered). Furthermore, 
as of mid-February, 2000, the Minnesota Legislature had not considered 
the wolf management bill produced by the Minnesota DNR in early 2000. 
Therefore, we are not proposing to delist wolves in the Western Great 
Lakes. Rather we are proposing to reclassify wolves in Wisconsin, 
Michigan, North Dakota, and South Dakota to threatened. Upon adoption 
of an adequate State wolf management plan and regulatory bill for 
Minnesota, we will consider delisting wolves in the Western Great 
Lakes.
    If this proposed regulation is finalized, wolves will continue to 
be protected by the provisions of the Act throughout this DPS. The 
regulatory changes that will take place are twofold--wolves in 
Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, and South Dakota will be protected 
as a threatened species, rather than as an endangered species; and for 
the first time wolves in those four States will be subject to limited, 
but routine, lethal depredation control measures under the terms of the 
special regulation that we are proposing under section 4(d) of the Act.
    The only direct change in protection that would result from a 
reclassification from endangered to threatened was discussed above, 
under B. Overutilization for Commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes. The change stems from the broader authority of 
Service or State employees, or their designated agents, to take a 
threatened species without a Federal permit. Furthermore, we can issue 
permits to take threatened species for a somewhat wider variety of 
purposes than for endangered species. The impact of this increased take 
authority on wolf recovery is believed to be insignificant; additional 
discussion is found in that earlier section.
    The second impact of this reclassification is indirect, and it 
stems from our ability to implement special regulations under section 
4(d) of the Act for threatened, but not endangered, species. We are 
using that authority to propose a special regulation for the lethal 
control of depredating wolves in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, and 
South Dakota, in a form that is very similar to that authorized by the 
special regulation that has been in effect for Minnesota wolves since 
December 12, 1985 (50 FR 50792). The proposed special regulation will 
allow the killing of depredating wolves by certain government employees 
or agents, subject to several restrictions.
    Depredation Control Programs in the Western Great Lakes States. 
Wolves that are injuring and/or killing domestic animals in the western 
Great Lakes States are currently controlled in different ways, 
depending upon their listing under the Act and their importance to our 
gray wolf recovery programs. In Minnesota depredating wolves have been 
lethally controlled under a special regulation, because they are listed 
as threatened. Section 4(d) of

[[Page 43469]]

the Act allows lethal take of threatened animals under a special 
regulation. (Details on the Minnesota depredation control program are 
provided later in this subsection.)
    Depredating wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan, listed as endangered 
and therefore not eligible for a section 4(d) special regulation, 
currently are being trapped and released in suitable and unoccupied 
habitat at some distance from the depredation location. The goal of 
this approach is to eliminate future depredations by the individual 
wolf by moving it to suitable, but vacant, habitat at a location with 
abundant wild prey, and with minimal or no exposure to domestic 
animals. However, the results of this approach vary widely. In some 
cases the wolf will become resident at the new site and will not resume 
its previous habit of preying on domestic animals. In other cases the 
wolf attempts to return to its previous territory, continues its 
depredations on domestic animals at the new site, or is killed by 
nearby resident wolves. This approach has a greater chance of 
succeeding if there are several areas of suitable unoccupied habitat 
from which to choose for release of the wolf, so that a release 
location can be selected that is very remote from the wolf's previous 
territory.
    However, the rapidly growing wolf populations in both Wisconsin and 
Michigan make it increasingly difficult to find suitable, but 
unoccupied, habitat into which a depredating wolf can be successfully 
released. In the most recent incident of the capture and translocation 
of a depredating wolf in Wisconsin, the animal left the release site 
and had traveled half of the distance back to its capture site before 
being mistaken for a coyote and shot (Wydeven in litt. 1999).
    Due to the decreasing effectiveness of translocating depredating 
wolves, and the high cost of making such attempts, the States of 
Wisconsin and Michigan have requested the authority to carry out lethal 
depredation control measures, similar to what has been done by APHIS-
Wildlife Services in Minnesota. As the wolf population grows in number 
and expands in range in those two States, those wolves will 
increasingly use more agricultural areas and will be exposed to 
additional domestic animals as potential prey. We believe that special 
management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act would provide 
increased flexibility and efficiency in managing wolves (See Special 
Regulations under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species.)
    Based upon depredation control statistics from Minnesota, we expect 
the lethal take of Wisconsin and Michigan wolves to be very small 
during the next few years. Data from Minnesota clearly show that an 
expanding wolf population's increasing exposure to domestic animals 
will likely lead to increased depredation incidents, and the need for 
additional lethal control of those wolves. From 1980 to 1984, with a 
late winter wolf population of about 1350 animals, an annual average of 
2.2 percent of the Minnesota wolf population was killed by APHIS-
Wildlife Services to reduce depredation problems. From 1985 to 1989, 
with a late winter wolf population of about 1600 wolves, the annual 
average of wolves killed for depredation control increased to 3.0 
percent. Additional increases have occurred in the 1990s.
    With the current Wisconsin and Michigan (Upper Peninsula) late 
winter wolf populations at 200 or less in each State, we estimate that 
about 2 percent of those wolves will be taken through lethal 
depredation control annually, or about 4 or 5 wolves in each State. 
Given the average annual population increases of 30 to 34 percent over 
the last 6 years in each of these States, the effect of such levels of 
lethal depredation control will not prevent the continued growth of the 
wolf population in either State, and will probably be so small that it 
does not noticeably slow that growth over the next few years. Wolf 
recovery will not be affected in either State. Reporting and monitoring 
requirements will ensure that the level of lethal depredation control 
is evaluated annually and can be curtailed if necessary. Therefore, we 
do not believe that lethal depredation control will be a significant 
threat to the future of wolves in either Michigan or Wisconsin, or that 
it will result in a need to reclassify those wolves as endangered in 
the foreseeable future.
    Only one wolf has been killed for depredation control purposes in 
Wisconsin and Michigan. An adult wolf was killed by the WI DNR in 1999, 
under the provisions of a permit that we issued. This was done to end a 
chronic depredation problem at a private deer farm after the failure of 
extensive efforts to live-trap and remove the wolf (WI DNR 1999b).
    For both North Dakota and South Dakota we have anticipated 
potential wolf depredation problems associated with mostly single, 
dispersing wolves from the Minnesota and Manitoba populations. To cope 
with these anticipated depredations we have had a ``Contingency Plan 
for Responding to Gray Wolf Depredations of Livestock'' in place for 
each State for several years (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992b, 
1994b). In partnership with APHIS-Wildlife Services and State animal 
damage control agencies, the contingency plans provide for the capture 
and permanent transfer to American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA)-
approved holding facilities, such as zoos, captive breeding centers, or 
research facilities, of all depredating or injured/sick wolves in North 
Dakota and South Dakota. The lethal control of depredating and injured/
sick wolves is authorized by the plans only if no AZA-approved holding 
facilities could be identified. Verified wolf depredations occur 
approximately once every other year in North Dakota, with the most 
recent occurring in June of 1999; there have been no verified wolf 
depredations in South Dakota in recent decades. To date, neither state 
has found it necessary to implement either the non-lethal or lethal 
control measures authorized under the contingency plans, although 
confirmed wolf sightings and some incidents of wolf depredation 
continue to occur.
    North Dakota and South Dakota are recognized as lacking significant 
recovery potential for the gray wolf. Therefore, lethal control of 
depredating wolves in these two States will not adversely affect the 
Western Great Lakes DPS recovery program. We believe that special 
management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act to allow lethal 
control of depredating wolves would help to promote greater public 
acceptance of the gray wolf recovery programs being carried out in 
areas where wolf recovery is feasible (See Special Regulations under 
Section 4(d) for Threatened Species). Furthermore, such regulations 
would allow Federal, State, and Tribal agencies in the Dakotas to be 
even more responsive to depredation incidents, thus, minimizing 
conflicts between wolves and livestock production. In addition, such 
regulations would eliminate the costs, time, and facilities needed to 
capture, transport, and house live gray wolves.
    We expect a much higher proportion of North Dakota and South Dakota 
wolves to become involved in depredation than the approximately 2 or 3 
percent we expected in Wisconsin and Michigan. Thus, if the Minnesota 
wolf population continues to expand and provide additional dispersing 
wolves, lethal depredation control activities in North Dakota and South 
Dakota may also kill on the order of four or five wolves annually in 
each of these two States. These mortalities will neither slow the 
recovery of the Minnesota and Michigan-Wisconsin wolf populations nor 
delay the eventual delisting of the Western Great Lakes DPS, because 
the

[[Page 43470]]

Eastern Plan does not rely on wolves in North Dakota or South Dakota to 
achieve any of its recovery criteria.
    This proposal will not affect the current section 4(d) special 
regulation for wolf depredation control in Minnesota, and we expect 
that program will continue unchanged. During the period from 1980 
through 1998 the Federal Minnesota wolf depredation control program has 
annually euthanized from 20 (in 1982) to 216 (1997) gray wolves. The 
annual average was 30 wolves killed from 1980 to 1984, 49 from 1985 to 
1989, 115 from 1990 to 1994, and 152 from 1995 to 1998. Based upon 
estimates of the Minnesota wolf population during these periods, these 
numbers represent an average annual removal of approximately 2.2 
percent, 3.0 percent, 6.0 percent, and 6.7 percent of the total 
population during those four multi-year periods, respectively. The 
lowest annual percentage of Minnesota wolves destroyed by APHIS-
Wildlife Services was 1.5 percent in 1982; the highest percentage was 
9.4 in 1997.
    There is no evidence that this level of wolf removal for 
depredation control purposes has halted the increase in wolf numbers or 
range in Minnesota, although it is quite possible that the depredation 
control program may have slowed wolf population growth, especially 
since the late-1980s. Because the Minnesota wolf population has 
continued to grow at an average annual rate of 4 to 5 percent since 
1989, we believe that it is highly likely that a viable wolf population 
will continue to exist in Minnesota if a lethal depredation control 
program of this magnitude is continued. However, monitoring of the wolf 
population will become increasingly important if the percentage of 
wolves killed for depredation control continues to increase, or if 
other mortality factors increase in magnitude. Annual monitoring may 
become necessary to enable timely corrective action, including 
reduction of lethal depredation control activities, if the Minnesota 
wolf population begins to decrease or to contract in geographic range. 
At this time, however, it appears that continuing the current magnitude 
of lethal depredation control under the existing special regulation 
will not significantly suppress the Minnesota wolf population.
    State and Tribal Management and Protection of Wolves. The Wisconsin 
Wolf Management Plan recommends immediate reclassification from State-
endangered to State-threatened status because the State's wolf 
population has already exceeded the State reclassification criterion of 
80 wolves for 3 years. The Plan further recommends the State manage for 
a gray wolf population of 350 wolves outside of Native American 
reservations, and states the species should be delisted by the State 
once the population reaches 250 animals outside of reservations. Upon 
State delisting, the species would be classified as a ``protected 
nongame species,'' a designation that would continue State prohibitions 
on sport hunting and trapping of the species. The Wisconsin Plan 
includes criteria that would trigger State relisting as threatened (a 
decline to fewer than 250 wolves for 3 years) or endangered (a decline 
to fewer than 80 wolves for 1 year). State reclassification to 
threatened, and possibly State delisting, will occur while the wolf is 
still federally listed as threatened or endangered. If the wolf is both 
federally and State-delisted proactive wolf control by government 
trappers in problem areas could occur. In addition, the taking of 
wolves by the public in Wisconsin would be considered to keep the wolf 
population within the range of social tolerance if other control 
measures have failed to do so; however, the social tolerance level has 
not yet been determined. Public taking of wolves will not occur while 
the wolf remains federally listed as threatened or endangered. The 
Wisconsin plan will be reviewed annually by the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory 
Committee and will be reviewed by the public every 5 years.
    Both the Wisconsin and Michigan Wolf Management Plans recommend 
managing wolf populations within each State as isolated populations 
that are not dependent upon frequent immigration of wolves from an 
adjacent State or Canada. Thus, each State will be managing for a wolf 
population at, or in excess of, the 200 wolves identified in the 
Federal Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf as necessary for an 
isolated wolf population to be viable. We support this approach and 
believe it provides further assurance that the gray wolf will remain a 
viable component of the western Great Lakes ecosystem in the 
foreseeable future.
    The Wisconsin and Michigan wolf management plans recommend similar 
high levels of protection for wolf den and rendezvous sites, whether on 
public or private land. Both State plans recommend that most land uses 
be prohibited at all times within 100 meters (330 feet) of active 
sites. Seasonal restrictions (March through July) should be enforced 
within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of these sites, to prevent high-disturbance 
activities such as logging from disrupting pup-rearing activities. 
These restrictions should remain in effect even after State delisting 
occurs.
    While the Tribes do not yet have management plans specific to the 
gray wolf, several Tribes have informed us that they have no plans or 
intentions to allow commercial or recreational hunting or trapping of 
the species on their lands even if gray wolves were to be federally 
delisted. As previously discussed in the section Overutilization for 
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes, Tribes 
are expected to continue to provide sufficient protection to gray 
wolves on reservation lands to preserve the species' long-term 
viability in the western Great Lakes area.
    Based upon information received from other Federal land management 
agencies in the western Great Lakes area, we expect National Forests, 
units of the National Park System, and National Wildlife Refuges will 
provide additional protections to threatened gray wolves beyond the 
protections that will be provided by the Act and its regulations, State 
wolf management plans, and State protective regulations. Refer to the 
discussion under Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, 
Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range for Details.
    Northeastern Gray Wolves. Except as provided by special management 
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act (See Special Regulations 
under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species.), the current Federal 
regulatory framework will remain in effect largely unchanged for those 
wolves in the Northeast proposed to be reclassified to threatened 
status. The Act and implementing regulations under 50 CFR 17.31 provide 
nearly the same level of protection to both endangered and threatened 
species. The exceptions to this equal protection are twofold.
    First, we can issue permits to take threatened species from the 
wild for a wider variety of purposes than for endangered species. The 
additional purposes are for educational use, zoological exhibition, and 
for other special purposes consistent with the Act, that is, for 
purposes consistent with the conservation of the species.
    Second, an employee of the Service or of a State conservation 
agency which is operating under a conservation program pursuant to the 
terms of a cooperative agreement with us in accordance with section 
6(c) of the Act, who is designated by his agency for such purposes, may 
take threatened species in the course of official duties, to carry out 
conservation programs for that species.

[[Page 43471]]

    Because both of these provisions allow take of threatened species 
for purposes that are intended to promote the conservation of the 
species, the additional take that results from these provisions must be 
small and must be beneficial to the Northeastern DPS.
    In addition, special management regulations under section 4(d) of 
the Act (See Special Regulations under Section 4(d) for Threatened 
Species) will also authorize additional take, both intentional and 
incidental, of gray wolves if the take is done under conditions 
specified in a Service-approved wolf conservation plan. (Refer to 
Northeastern Gray Wolf DPS special regulations, below, for additional 
discussion.) These conservation plans, and all actions carried out 
under their authority, must have the conservation of the gray wolf as 
their purpose.
    We do not believe this additional management flexibility provided 
by a reclassification to threatened status and the proposed special 
regulation will adversely impact the recovery of gray wolves. On the 
contrary, we believe the additional flexibility will promote wolf 
recovery in those areas by making it easier for State, Tribal, and 
local agencies, as well as private organizations, to become more 
involved in the activities essential to wolf recovery--educational 
programs, wolf reintroductions, and capture and relocation of nuisance 
wolves.
    Western Gray Wolves. Currently, wolves in these States have two 
different listings under the Act--(1) Those wolves within the two 
nonessential experimental populations (all of Wyoming and most of Idaho 
and Montana) are treated as threatened wolves. However, for purposes of 
interagency cooperation (section 7 of the Act) those wolves are treated 
as species proposed for listing and receive limited consideration in 
the planning and implementation of Federal agency actions, unless those 
actions occur on units of the National Park System or the National 
Wildlife Refuge System, in which case the wolves are treated as a 
threatened species and are subject to the full protections of section 
7. These wolves also are subject to two special regulations that modify 
the normal protections of the Act for threatened species (under the 
nonessential experimental population designation 59 FR 60252 and 60266; 
November 22, 1994). (2) Those wolves outside of the nonessential 
experimental populations are listed as endangered and are subject to 
the strictest protections afforded by the Act.
    The proposed special management regulations under section 4(d) of 
the Act (See Special Regulations under Section 4(d) for Threatened 
Species) would increase management flexibility for wolves in the 
Western DPS (but only in areas outside of the experimental population 
areas) because they would allow take under additional circumstances. 
Wolves near livestock could be harassed in a noninjurious manner at any 
time on private land or on public land by the livestock permittee. 
Intentional or potentially injurious harassment could occur by permit 
on private land and public land. Wolves attacking not only livestock, 
but also any domestic animals, on private land could be taken in the 
act of attacking domestic animals without a permit; on public land a 
permit would be required for such take. Permits would be required for 
taking wolves on private land if they are a risk to domestic animals 
and there are at least 10 breeding pairs of wolves in the State where 
the permit would apply.
    The increased management flexibility for take is expected to reduce 
and more quickly resolve conflicts between livestock producers and 
wolves by providing additional methods by which individual problem 
wolves can be removed from the wild population. We do not expect the 
take under special management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act 
(See Special Regulations under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species) to 
result in a significant increase in the removal of problem wolves nor 
to appreciably slow wolf recovery, because much of that recovery is 
occurring, and will continue to occur, within the experimental 
population areas.
    During the EIS process for the reintroduction of nonessential 
experimental wolves into the West (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1994a) the States of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as many State 
residents, asked that the States be delegated the authority and funding 
to assume the lead role in wolf restoration. The special regulations 
under the experimental population designation allowed this opportunity 
(59 FR 60252-60266 and 60266-60281; November 22, 1994), and all three 
States produced draft wolf management plans that were funded by us. 
However, none of the States' plans obtained sufficient public or 
political support, and they were abandoned. After nearly 3 years of 
internal debate, on August 19, 1997, the Governors of Montana, Idaho, 
and Wyoming signed a memorandum of understanding announcing that their 
States would not be directly involved in wolf management until gray 
wolves were removed from protections of the Act. The memorandum also 
directed the States to be involved in recovery planning, assist in 
control of problem wolves, facilitate communication, and develop a tri-
state plan by the year 2000 that would assist us in the timely 
delisting of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. This process will 
improve coordination of management of wolves that are listed as 
threatened.
    In 1995, funding levels reduced our northern Rocky Mountains wolf 
recovery program staff from five people to two, and our direct 
involvement in wolf management declined. Fortunately, however, the Nez 
Perce Tribe began managing wolves in Idaho under a cooperative 
agreement with us in 1996, and personnel from Yellowstone National 
Park, APHIS-Wildlife Services, and our law enforcement agents assumed 
nearly all wolf management activities in the Greater Yellowstone Area. 
After the States formally declined direct involvement in wolf recovery, 
we redirected our wolf recovery funding to support development of the 
State wolf management plans to encourage State involvement in wolf 
recovery. In addition, due to the anticipation of the increased effort 
that more wolves will require under the special management regulations, 
we also used the redirected funding to station two Service biologists 
in Lander, Wyoming, and another two in Helena, Montana, beginning in 
January 1999. This additional effort by us will greatly assist in the 
management of gray wolves in the West and allow for full implementation 
of special management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act (See 
Special Regulations under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species).
    Depredation Control Programs in the Western DPS. In the Northern 
U.S. Rocky Mountain wolf recovery area, reports of suspected wolf-
caused damage to livestock are investigated by APHIS-Wildlife Services 
specialists using standard techniques (Roy and Dorrance 1976, Fritts et 
al. 1992, Paul and Gipson 1994). If the investigation confirms wolf 
involvement, APHIS-Wildlife Services specialists conduct wolf control 
in close coordination with us and Nez Perce Tribal personnel.
    In northwestern Montana, wolf control under a section 10(a)(1)(a) 
permit is conducted only when livestock are attacked. In the 
experimental areas, wolf control can also occur when other domestic 
animals, such as dogs, are attacked on private land more than once in a 
calendar year. Control in both of these situations consists of the 
minimum actions believed necessary to reduce further depredations. The 
spectrum of

[[Page 43472]]

control measures used includes intensive monitoring of the wolves and 
livestock (including providing a telemetry receiver to the affected 
rancher), aversive conditioning (i.e., capturing, radiocollaring, and 
releasing wolves on site or harassing wolves with noise-makers such as 
cracker shells), relocating or killing some wolves, or some combination 
of these approaches. Control measures are continued until livestock 
depredations cease, even if all wolves eventually have to be removed. 
When five or fewer breeding pairs are in a recovery area, wolves are 
relocated on their first offense. When at least six breeding pairs are 
present, wolves can be killed after their first offense. Wolves that 
repeatedly depredated on livestock were killed.
    In experimental areas, special regulations allowed landowners on 
private land and livestock producers on public land to harass wolves at 
any time. In the experimental areas, wolves attacking livestock on 
private land can be shot by landowners with a permit, and, after six 
breeding pairs are established, our permit can allow permittees to 
shoot wolves attacking livestock on public land. A private program has 
compensated ranchers full market value for confirmed and one-half 
market value for probable wolf-kills of livestock and livestock guard 
animals (Fischer 1989).
    The control of problem wolves depredating livestock resulted in the 
removal of less than six percent of the wolves in northwestern Montana 
between 1987 and 1995. This level of mortality is not expected to 
prevent wolf populations from reaching recovery levels. Wolves in the 
Greater Yellowstone and central Idaho areas have attacked livestock 
less frequently than predicted. Wolf control removed a total of 45 
wolves between 1995 and 1999. This represented less than six percent of 
the wolf population over a 5-year period. While it is expected that 
wolf control will continue to remove wolves that attack livestock from 
the population in the Western DPS, we still expect that wolf population 
recovery will be achieved by 2002. Management of wolves under the 
special management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act (See 
Special Regulations under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species) is not 
expected to significantly increase wolf mortality rates, because 
relatively few wolves attack livestock.
    The only significant difference in the management of problem wolves 
between the current management and the proposed management of wolves 
following their reclassification from endangered to threatened would be 
the taking of wolves in the act of attacking livestock or domestic 
animals on private land by private landowners. In the past 4 years in 
Idaho and Wyoming only two nonessential experimental wolves have been 
legally taken by landowners. That level of take could not significantly 
increase wolf mortality rates or decrease the rate of wolf population 
recovery.
    During depredation control actions for problem wolves in Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming, individual wolves have incurred injuries from 
capture that ultimately resulted in their death or removal from the 
wild (one in Idaho and two in Montana). Mortality from capture is rare 
and not a significant portion of total mortality in the wolf 
population.
    We have determined that effective control of problem wolves 
benefits the conservation of the species in the northern Rocky 
Mountains (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).
    Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolves. The listing status of Mexican 
Gray wolves will not change with this proposed regulation. They will 
continue to be endangered, except for the reintroduced population which 
will retain its current status of a nonessential experimental 
population.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence.

    Public Attitudes Toward the Gray Wolf. The primary determinant of 
the long-term status of gray wolf populations in the United States will 
be human attitudes toward this large predator. These attitudes are 
based upon the conflict between human activities and wolves, concern 
with the perceived danger the species may pose to humans, its symbolic 
representation of wilderness, the economic effect of livestock losses, 
the conviction that the species should never be a target of sport 
hunting or trapping, and the wolf traditions of Native American Tribes.
    We have seen a change in public attitudes toward the wolf over the 
last few decades. Public attitude surveys in Minnesota and Michigan 
(Kellert 1985, 1990, 1999), as well as the citizen input into the wolf 
management plans of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan indicate strong 
public support for wolf recovery if the adverse impacts on recreational 
activities and livestock producers can be minimized (MI DNR 1997, MN 
DNR 1998, WI DNR 1999a). This increased public acceptance of wolves 
during the last 25 years also has reduced illegal persecution and 
killing.
    Similar national support is evident for wolf recovery and 
reintroduction in the Northern U.S. Rocky Mountains and appears to be 
developing for wolf recovery in the northeastern States. With the 
continued help of private conservation organizations, States, and 
Tribes, we can continue to foster public support to maintain viable 
wolf populations in the western Great Lakes area and for recovery of 
wolves in the Northeast, West, and Southwest. We believe that special 
management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act (See Special 
Regulations under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species) will further 
foster public support for wolf recovery by providing more effective 
means for dealing with wolf-human conflicts.
    Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolves. The primary factor currently 
affecting the continued existence of the Mexican wolf in the wild is 
the small number of individuals in the wild population. No wolves are 
known to exist in the wild in Mexico, and only 7 Mexican wolves exist 
in the wild in the United States (as of February 2000), most of which 
are captive-raised animals released by us since March 1998. The 
continued existence of the Mexican wolf depends upon the success of our 
reintroduction projects in the Southwest. The reintroduction plan 
requires an assessment of the success of the project at 3 and 5 years 
following the first releases. It is too soon to know which factors, if 
any, may affect the continued existence of Mexican wolves in the wild.

Designation of Distinct Population Segments

    Currently, the gray wolf is listed as threatened in Minnesota and 
as endangered in the other 47 conterminous States, effectively 
establishing a Minnesota DPS that is delimited by State boundaries in 
the absence of any other indications of discreteness. This separate 
designation of Minnesota gray wolves as threatened was established in 
1978, before our adoption of the 1996 Vertebrate Population Policy (61 
FR 4722; February 7, 1996); this proposed rule brings the current 
listing of the gray wolf into compliance with the policy.
    Due to the extensive geographic separation in current wolf 
distribution in the conterminous States, and based on the Vertebrate 
Population Policy, this notice proposes the reclassification of the 
gray wolf by establishing the following 4 DPSs within the conterminous 
48 States and Mexico (refer to Map 2 located at the end of the 
Alternative Selected for Proposal section).
    Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment. 
Consisting of gray wolves within the States of North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and those gray wolves in 
captivity that originated

[[Page 43473]]

from, or whose ancestors originated from, this geographic area.
    Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment. 
Consisting of gray wolves in Arizona south of the Colorado River and 
the Little Colorado River between Hoover Dam and Winslow and south of 
Interstate Highway 40 between Winslow and the eastern State boundary; 
New Mexico south of Interstate Highway 40; Texas south of Interstate 
Highway 40 and west of Interstate Highway 35; and Mexico; and those 
gray wolves in captivity that originated from, or whose ancestors 
originated from, this geographic area.
    Western Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment. Consisting of gray 
wolves in the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, 
Utah, Colorado, and the parts of Arizona and New Mexico north of the 
Colorado River and the Little Colorado River between Hoover Dam and 
Winslow (Arizona) and north of Interstate Highway 40 between Winslow 
and the eastern boundary of New Mexico; and those gray wolves in 
captivity that originated from, or whose ancestors originated from, 
this geographic area.
    Northeastern Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment. Consisting of 
gray wolves within the States of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and 
Maine, and those gray wolves in captivity that originated from, or 
whose ancestors originated from, this geographic area.
    The gray wolf populations within each of these proposed DPSs are 
separated from gray wolf populations in the other DPSs by large areas 
that are not occupied by, and may not be suitable for, breeding 
populations of resident wild gray wolves. Although dispersing 
individual gray wolves have been located in some of these unoccupied 
areas (Licht and Fritts 1994), and it is possible that individual 
dispersing wolves can completely cross some of these gaps between 
occupied areas, we believe that the existing geographic isolation of 
wolf populations between these four areas fully satisfies the 
Vertebrate Population Policy's criterion for discreteness of each DPS. 
The Vertebrate Population Policy allows us to use international borders 
to delineate the boundaries of a DPS even if the current distribution 
of the species extends across that border. Therefore, we will use the 
United States-Canadian border to mark portions of the boundaries of 
three of the DPSs due to the difference in control of exploitation, 
conservation status and regulatory mechanisms between the two 
countries. In general, wolf populations are more numerous and wide-
ranging in Canada, therefore, wolves are not protected by Federal laws 
in Canada and are publicly trapped in most Canadian provinces.
    We further believe that each of these four wolf populations 
satisfies the significance criterion of the Vertebrate Population 
Policy. Without viable wolf populations in these four geographic areas 
the recognized historical range of the species within the 48 
conterminous States would have extensive and significant gaps, possibly 
broader than the dispersal distance of the species (Fritts 1983). 
Additionally, the Western Great Lakes, Western, and Southwestern 
(Mexican) Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segments are each being 
repopulated by wolves of distinct morphological characteristics which 
may represent different gray wolf subspecies.
    The existence of large areas of potentially suitable wolf habitat 
and prey resources in parts of New England, the possibility that wild 
wolves may exist in remote areas of Maine, and the presence of wolf 
populations in neighboring areas of eastern Canada form the basis for 
our consideration of a DPS for the gray wolf in the Northeast. We have 
determined that, based on the Vertebrate Population Policy, gray wolves 
that may exist in Maine are discrete from gray wolves elsewhere in the 
lower 48 States. We have also determined that a population of gray 
wolves in this portion of the lower 48 States is significant and will 
contribute to the overall restoration of the species. In addition, 
although taxonomic studies have provided conflicting conclusions 
regarding wolf taxonomy at the subspecies level, we believe it is 
likely that a separate form of the gray wolf historically occupied the 
northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. Establishing a 
Northeastern DPS maximizes the ability of the Service, States, and 
Tribes to reestablish this form, or its current-day equivalent. The 
wolves in Canada, which would serve as a source of animals for natural 
reestablishment or reintroduction, are thought to be taxonomically and 
genetically similar to the wolves that once populated the northeastern 
United States.
    Establishing a Northeastern DPS with a classification of threatened 
under the Act would recognize that suitable habitat exists, that a 
genetically appropriate source of wolves may exist in Canada for 
natural colonization or reintroduction, that wolf recovery once 
initiated proceeds quickly based on our experience in the Rockies, and 
that management flexibility is critical to successful wolf 
reestablishment. Threatened status would maintain Federal protection 
for any wolves that might disperse into historical wolf range in the 
northeastern United States from Canada. However, a threatened 
classification, rather than an endangered classification, allows us to 
develop a special regulation under section 4(d) of the Act. The 
proposed special regulation under section 4(d) of the Act is intended 
to promote the restoration and recovery of wolves to one or more States 
within the Northeastern DPS by providing interested States and Tribes 
with the authority to assume a leading role in carrying out protection, 
management, and recovery actions for the species. This flexibility will 
make it easier for States and Tribes to control and remove problem 
wolves, and will reduce opposition to wolf restoration in areas where 
they have been absent for many decades. Any wolf restoration program 
would be implemented only with the full cooperation of respective State 
and Tribal natural resource management agencies and general support of 
landowners and after full compliance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act.
    As discussed earlier (refer to Distinct Population Segments and 
Experimental Populations), our current consideration of designating a 
multi-state Western Gray Wolf DPS does not mean that we now believe the 
existing experimental wolf populations and the natural wolf population 
in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana constitute a single wolf population. For 
purposes of gray wolf reintroduction by means of experimental 
populations in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park, we examined 
the biological characteristics of the species to determine if the 
reintroduced wolves would be geographically separate from other gray 
wolf populations. We defined a wolf population to be two breeding 
pairs, each successfully raising two or more young for two consecutive 
years in a recovery area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994a). This 
wolf population definition was used to evaluate all wolves in the 
northern U.S. Rocky Mountains to determine if, and where, gray wolf 
populations might exist. Gray wolves in northwestern Montana qualified 
as a wolf population under this definition; that existing wolf 
population was further examined to determine if it was geographically 
separated from the potential experimental population areas. We 
determined that the northwestern Montana wolf population was 
geographically separate, so we designated the two experimental 
population areas and began gray wolf reintroductions to establish the 
two

[[Page 43474]]

experimental populations. The DPS designation under consideration here 
would be made for a different purpose and would have to satisfy 
different criteria than the experimental population designations.

Wolves in Areas Beyond the Scope of Current Recovery Programs

    Although the gray wolf currently is listed as either threatened or 
endangered throughout the 48 conterminous United States and Mexico, all 
or portions of half of those States are not included within the 
geographic coverage of the 3 existing recovery plans. Due to the lack 
of suitable habitat in many of the areas beyond the current scope of 
recovery programs, these States cannot offer significant potential for 
gray wolf recovery. In fact, some of the States, for example, 
California, where the gray wolf currently is listed as endangered, were 
on the very edges of the former historical range, and wolves were 
likely never very numerous there.
    Thus, we believe the purposes of the Act will be fulfilled if each 
part of the conterminous States and Mexico, is either (1) included 
within one of the four DPSs to provide protection for current 
populations including dispersing and recolonizing wolves, (2) included 
within one of the four DPSs in order to facilitate potential future 
restoration efforts in areas where restoration has been determined to 
be feasible or potentially feasible, or (3) delisted and all 
protections of the Act are ended for that area. This proposal adopts 
this approach mentioned above by designating four DPSs and delisting 
any wolves that may occur outside of the DPS boundaries. We believe 
this approach will result in the recovery of the gray wolf throughout 
significant portions of its historical range and ultimately allow us to 
delist it across the entire geographic area in which it is listed, 
consistent with the purpose and definitions of the Act.
    Increasing numbers of wolves in Minnesota and an expansion of their 
range westward and southwestward in the State has led to an increase in 
dispersing, mostly young, wolves that have been documented in North and 
South Dakota in recent years. An examination of skull morphology of 
North and South Dakota wolves indicates that of eight examined, seven 
likely had dispersed from Minnesota; the eighth probably came from 
Manitoba, Canada (Licht and Fritts 1994). The low potential for the 
establishment of a viable and self-sustaining wolf population in North 
and South Dakota, and the belief that all or most wolves in the Dakotas 
are biologically part of the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf 
population, leads us to believe that any wolves in these States should 
be included in the Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPS.
    Extensive monitoring since 1990 indicates that wolves may be re-
colonizing Washington State, probably as dispersing wolves from Canada. 
Wolves appear to have been eliminated in the State by the 1930s, 
although occasional unconfirmed individual wolves are reported in the 
North Cascades and northeastern Washington. Observation data indicate 
that the wolves mostly occur as individuals, although several wolf 
family units have been reported in the North Cascades (Almack and 
Fitkin 1998). However, because efforts to locate family units have been 
unsuccessful, it is unclear whether wolves are reproducing in the North 
Cascades. Under their current listing, these animals are protected by 
the Act as endangered wolves, and we provide protection recommendations 
for den and rendezvous sites to Federal agencies on a site-specific 
basis. Furthermore, the State of Washington's forest practices rules 
provide seasonal protection to wolf den sites. However, the North 
Cascades are outside of the geographic scope of the Northern Rockies 
Plan. In order to retain the Act's protections for such wolves, and 
provide the potential for their inclusion within the Northern Rockies 
Recovery Program, we are now proposing that all of Washington and 
Oregon be included in the Western DPS.
    A study to determine the feasibility of re-introducing wolves to 
the Olympic Peninsula was initiated in 1998 and was completed in early 
1999. In addition, studies are underway to determine if sufficient 
habitat and prey base exist within and around Olympic National Park to 
support a viable wolf population. The initial feasibility study 
indicates that the existing habitat and land uses could support 
approximately 56 wolves in 6 to 7 packs within the Park (Ratti et al. 
1999). However, until more detailed studies of the prey base are 
completed, we cannot determine the number of wolves that could be 
supported by the entire Olympic Peninsula, or assess the long-term 
viability of such a reintroduced population of gray wolves. Results of 
one prey base study completed in April, 1999 on lands within Olympic 
National Park determined appropriate survey methods for prey 
populations that will be crucial if reintroduction efforts move 
forward. Results of a study on lands outside of Olympic National Park 
are expected to be available by the middle of 2000. Here again, the 
Olympic Peninsula is beyond the geographic scope of the Northern 
Rockies Plan, so we are proposing that all of Washington be included in 
the Western DPS.
    Over the past 20 years there have been reports of wolves in several 
other western States, including Oregon, Colorado, and Utah. One 
radiocollared wolf from northwestern Montana was recently found dead 
from unknown causes in eastern Washington, and a radiocollared young 
female wolf from central Idaho dispersed into eastern Oregon in early 
1999. Any wolves that are found in these areas at the current time are 
listed as endangered and are protected under the Act. While there is 
certainly habitat that could support wolves in these areas, at this 
time we have no plans to initiate wolf recovery for any areas in the 
western United States outside of the gray wolf recovery areas already 
identified in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. 
However, our proposal to include these additional States within a 
Western DPS will maintain the protections of the Act for any wild gray 
wolves that disperse or are reintroduced into such areas while Western 
DPS gray wolves remain listed as threatened.
    While we have no plans to actively pursue wolf restoration in other 
areas of the western United States, we will not actively prevent 
natural wolf recolonization in other areas. Wolves that naturally 
disperse into other States will be managed on a case-by-case basis. If 
there are no conflicts with human activities such wolves will likely 
not be returned to the area of their origin.

Gray Wolves in Captivity

    We recognize that there are many gray wolves being held in 
captivity for a variety of reasons. Some of these are being held for 
research, propagation, or educational projects that are part of gray 
wolf recovery programs; many others are considered pets or are held for 
other reasons. We see no over-riding reason to retain the protections 
of the Act for such individuals if they or their ancestors were 
obtained from an area where wild gray wolves are now proposed for 
delisting and those wild wolves would no longer be protected by the 
Act. However, if the captive gray wolves or their ancestors originated 
from within the boundaries of a DPS that would retain the protections 
of the Act under this proposal, those captive wolves potentially can be 
a valuable part of the recovery program for that DPS. For example, they 
could serve as a potential source of wolves that could be released in 
the DPS.

[[Page 43475]]

    Therefore, we have defined the four DPSs to include wolves living 
within the boundaries of the DPSs, as well as those captive wolves 
which were removed from the wild, or whose ancestors were removed from 
the wild, from within the geographic boundaries of a DPS, regardless of 
where the captive wolves may be held.

Other Alternatives Considered

    We considered numerous alternatives to the actions proposed in this 
notice. These alternatives consisted of combinations of different 
geographic areas of coverage, changes in classification, and details 
and geographic areas of coverage of new special regulations.
    We initially considered delisting gray wolves within the Western 
Great Lakes DPS, and on June 29, 1998, we announced (through a press 
release and media event) our intention to develop such a proposal. In 
addition, we also announced our intention to create four DPSs, 
reclassify the Western and Northeastern DPSs, and delist in other 
States not covered by a DPS. That announcement was based upon our 
expectation that State wolf management plans for Minnesota, Wisconsin, 
and Michigan would provide assurances of adequate wolf protection and 
management following Federal delisting. These assurances are one of the 
recovery criteria for delisting in the 1992 Eastern Recovery Plan. At 
that point we began drafting a proposal that included delisting the 
Western Great Lakes DPS.
    At the time of our June 1998 announcement the Minnesota DNR had 
already held a series of 12 public meetings to receive input on the 
direction a State wolf management plan should take. The MN DNR 
subsequently established a Citizens Roundtable and asked that group to 
address the wolf management issues raised at the public meetings. The 
MN DNR submitted a wolf management plan, based on the Citizen 
Roundtable, to the MN Legislature in early 1999 in order to obtain the 
regulatory authority needed by the DNR to implement the plan.
    We completed our analysis of post-delisting threats after the 
release of the February 1999 MN DNR wolf management plan; that plan 
closely followed the Roundtable's recommendations. We were prepared to 
publish a proposal to delist the gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes 
DPS, based in part on the MN DNR's plan. However, the MN Legislature 
did not approve the plan during the 1999 legislative session. 
Legislative approval is necessary to provide the MN DNR with both the 
authorities and the funding to implement many of the recommended wolf 
management practices.
    Therefore, at this time we are unable to carry out an adequate 
evaluation of the future threats, as required by the Act, to wolves in 
Minnesota following a potential Federal delisting. We are unable to 
determine what protective regulations will be developed, the extent of 
State law enforcement that will be provided, what wolf population 
targets will be used, what depredation control measures will be used, 
and how the wolf population and wolf health will be monitored. For a 
large predator like the wolf, which was subject to past extensive 
government eradication efforts, including bounties at Federal, State, 
county, and local levels, we believe it is important to have an 
approved Minnesota wolf management plan that clearly describes the 
beneficial management practices that will be implemented following 
Federal delisting. Given this high degree of uncertainty regarding the 
extent and direction of future management and protection of wolves in 
Minnesota, we decided it is premature to propose a delisting of this 
DPS.
    We also considered reclassifying a larger or smaller DPS in the 
eastern United States--reclassifying the entire geographic area 
included in the Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf; 
reclassifying that area plus North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and 
Kansas; reclassifying only Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; or 
reclassifying those three States plus adjacent States into which wolves 
might disperse. Because under the Vertebrate Population Policy State 
boundaries cannot be used to bisect the continuous range of a species, 
we have included North and South Dakota within the Western Great Lakes 
DPS. Wolf recovery in New York and several northern New England States 
appears biologically feasible and has some public support. We have 
chosen to list that area as a separate DPS and retain the protections 
of the Act for wolves that may recolonize or be reintroduced there, but 
to change their classification to threatened and promulgate a section 
4(d) special regulation in order to maximize wolf management 
flexibility and, therefore, to promote a separate gray wolf recovery 
program in that area.
    We considered retaining all gray wolves in the western States under 
an endangered status, because they have not yet achieved their 
reclassification criteria in the strictest sense. Those criteria were 
based upon our expectations of where wolf packs would become 
established; the wolves have subsequently demonstrated their 
``preference'' to establish pack territories that do not all fit within 
the boundaries of the recovery areas that we established in the Rockies 
Plan. However, these wolves are showing dramatic population growth in 
the areas that they have chosen, and we believe they no longer fit the 
definition of an endangered species. Instead, they fit the definition 
of a threatened species.
    We believe that the listing status of all gray wolves in the 
conterminous States should be adjusted to accurately reflect their 
recovery progress and their risk of extinction. Furthermore, wolves in 
the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains have achieved the biological intent 
of the reclassification criteria--a total of over 200 adult wolves in 
more than 20 breeding pairs for 3 successive years.
    In addition, the nature of wolves as a predator, which sometimes 
conflicts with human activities, causes the consideration of additional 
regulatory flexibility in order to control problem wolves and address 
other conflicts that might otherwise constrain recovery as wolf 
populations increase. The flexibility provided by the section 4(d) 
special regulation has been critically important to the success of wolf 
recovery in Minnesota. Similarly, wolf recovery to date in the 
nonessential experimental population areas of Idaho, Montana, and 
Wyoming has been greatly aided by the depredation control measures 
provided by the special regulations that were established by the 
nonessential experimental designation under section 10(j) of the Act. 
Extending this type of flexibility for wolf management beyond the 
experimental population areas in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming should 
similarly expand the success of wolf recovery there. Reclassifying to 
threatened in the Western Gray Wolf DPS and the development of a 4(d) 
special regulation can provide that flexibility throughout the DPS.
    We also considered removing the two existing nonessential 
experimental population designations in the northern U.S. Rocky 
Mountains. The anticipated merging of the three existing western 
subpopulations into a single expanding and dispersing gray wolf 
population (refer to Dispersal of Western Gray Wolves, above) indicates 
that their current treatment as two separate experimental populations 
and a third natural, non-experimental endangered population without a 
special regulation (in northwestern Montana) may no longer be 
appropriate or understandable to the general public. One approach to 
simplifying this increasingly complex

[[Page 43476]]

regulatory situation would be to bring all gray wolves throughout the 
northern U.S. Rockies under a single set of regulations that accurately 
reflects current and expected future progress toward recovery in the 
West and applies only the amount of protection that is appropriate to 
achieve full recovery. This could be accomplished by removing the two 
existing experimental population designations and substituting a 
Western DPS-wide threatened classification with a section 4(d) special 
regulation.
    Under this alternative all wolves throughout Washington, Oregon, 
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and the northern portions of 
Arizona and New Mexico would become threatened wolves and would then be 
subject to the more flexible management provisions of the proposed 
section 4(d) special regulation for the Western DPS. Currently many, 
but not all, of these wolves are subject to the existing more 
restrictive protections of the special regulation for the Central Idaho 
and Greater Yellowstone Area nonessential experimental populations (See 
``Comparison of the Standard Protections of the Endangered Species Act 
* * *'' below). This alternative would result in a uniform protection 
and management situation in western States that not only would further 
reduce conflicts with human activities, but also would be more easily 
understood by livestock producers and residents. The increased 
management flexibility contained in the proposed section 4(d) special 
regulation would allow wolves to be intentionally harassed by private 
landowners without having to wait for an attack to occur, in addition 
to being able to take wolves that are in the act of attacking any 
domestic animals. Current regulations for the nonessential experimental 
populations allow landowners to take gray wolves only during attacks on 
their livestock. Other new provisions of the proposed 4(d) would allow 
us to issue permits for private citizens to take wolves posing a 
significant risk to domestic animals if there are 10 or more pairs 
present in that State, and would allow government trapping of problem 
wolves at all wolf population levels. We would not expect this to 
result in a significant increase in the removal of problem wolves nor 
to appreciably slow wolf recovery in the Western DPS. However, we 
rejected this alternative because we previously stated in our two 
November 22, 1994, Federal Register final rules establishing the 
Central Idaho and Greater Yellowstone DPSs that ``The Service does not 
foresee any likely situation which would result in changing the 
nonessential experimental status until the gray wolf is recovered and 
delisted * * *'' (59 FR pages 60266 and 60281). Due to that previous 
assurance to the public, we are not proposing the removal of the 
nonessential experimental population designations at this time despite 
the likely benefits we believe it would provide to livestock producers 
and private landowners.
    We considered including all of the 48 conterminous States within 
one of the 4 DPSs. This would result in gray wolves retaining a 
threatened or endangered classification in many more States (for 
example, California, Nevada, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Kansas, and 
Arkansas) . However, we do not believe that it is necessary to restore 
wolves to all 48 conterminous States in order to achieve the purposes 
of the Act with regard to the gray wolf. The Act contains no reference 
to the need to restore a species to all or most of its historical range 
in order to consider it recovered. We believe that recovery is achieved 
if viable populations are restored across a significant portion of the 
species' range to a point that it no longer fits the Act's definitions 
of endangered and threatened. In the case of the gray wolf, we believe 
the provisions of the Act are not needed where these 4 conditions 
jointly exists--(1) wolves currently do not occur, (2) wolves are 
unlikely to arrive on their own, (3) wolf restoration is not 
potentially feasible, and (4) wolf restoration is not needed to achieve 
recovery. Thus, we chose to propose the retention of the protections of 
the Act only in States where wolf recovery is needed to achieve the 
purposes of the Act and where wolf recovery is potentially feasible.
    Finally, we also considered not making any changes in the legal 
status of the gray wolf. However, this would mean that the species 
retains its status as an endangered species despite the best available 
scientific and commercial information shows, in several key recovery 
areas, it now fits the definitions of a threatened species. It would 
unnecessarily prevent States and Tribes from managing a species of 
resident wildlife in a manner consistent with the needs of their 
citizens, residents, and members in the absence of an overriding 
national need for different or more protective management. We are 
obligated under the Act to continue protecting gray wolves only if they 
fit the Act's definitions of endangered or threatened species.

Alternative Selected for Proposal

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
faced by the gray wolf in determining to propose this rule. Based upon 
this evaluation, the preferred action is to reclassify gray wolves from 
endangered to threatened in the Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPS, the 
Northeastern Gray Wolf DPS, and Western Gray Wolf DPS, and to retain an 
endangered classification for gray wolves in the Southwestern (Mexican) 
Gray Wolf DPS (refer to Map 3 located at the end of this section). Gray 
wolves outside of these four DPSs would be removed from the protections 
of the Act. All three existing experimental population designations 
will be retained. To further promote gray wolf recovery and management 
within the Western and Northeastern Gray Wolf DPSs, special regulations 
under section 4(d) of the Act are proposed. The new special regulation 
for the Western DPS would only apply to areas outside of the existing 
experimental population areas. A new special regulation for Michigan, 
Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota wolves would also authorize 
lethal depredation control that is similar to that which has been used 
to further wolf recovery in Minnesota since 1985. The existing special 
regulation for Minnesota gray wolves and the critical habitat 
designations in Minnesota and Michigan would remain in effect.
    With wolf populations of 197 and 174 in Wisconsin and Michigan 
(excluding Isle Royale), respectively, it is clear that those States 
have each surpassed the numerical reclassification criterion contained 
in the 1992 Eastern Plan of 80 wolves for 3 years. They have also 
surpassed the numerical delisting criterion, but the lack of a clear 
indication of future State wolf management and protection in Minnesota 
precludes proposing a delisting of these wolves at this time. Instead, 
proposing reclassification to threatened status for all endangered 
wolves within the Western Great Lakes DPS recognizes their greatly 
improved biological situation, provides us with the ability to 
implement a section 4(d) rule to allow lethal depredation control 
throughout the DPS, and yet retains Federal protection until such time 
as delisting is appropriate.
    The gray wolves that occasionally appear in North and South Dakota 
are believed to be part of the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan gray wolf 
population. These wolves are well isolated from the Montana, Idaho, and

[[Page 43477]]

Wyoming gray wolf populations. Therefore, they would be included in the 
Western Great Lakes DPS and will be reclassified to threatened status. 
In the future, if we are able to fully analyze the future threats to 
gray wolves in Minnesota, and appropriate measures are in place to 
assure their future survival, we will consider a proposal to delist 
gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes DPS.
    There have been small numbers of gray wolves documented in North 
Dakota and South Dakota in recent years (Licht and Fritts 1994), but 
there is little likelihood that a viable wolf population can develop in 
these States in the foreseeable future, largely due to the absence of 
sufficiently large expanses of unbroken public land with a suitable 
prey base. Furthermore, a viable wolf population is not needed in 
either or both of these States for us to determine that western Great 
Lakes wolves have recovered. Thus, while North Dakota and South Dakota 
wolves would continue to be provided the protections of the Act as 
threatened species if this proposal is finalized, we do not intend to 
establish separate wolf recovery programs for wolves in those States. 
In recognition of the likelihood that wolves dispersing into these two 
States frequently will encounter domestic livestock and become 
predators of them, we are including North Dakota and South Dakota in 
the proposed 4(d) special regulation that allows lethal control of 
depredating wolves throughout the Western Great Lakes DPS.
    Wolves in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains are also making steady 
progress toward recovery. In 1999, wolves achieved the biological 
intent of the reclassification criterion in the Northern Rockies Plan--
20 breeding pairs for 3 years (a total of about 200 adult wolves). 
Therefore, wolves in the Western DPS no longer meet the Act's 
definition of endangered (``any species which is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range''), and 
should be proposed for reclassification to threatened status.
    While wolves in the four northeastern States exist in very low 
numbers, if present at all, we believe a number of factors justify the 
establishment of a Northeastern Gray Wolf DPS and reclassification to 
threatened status. We have determined that, based on the Vertebrate 
Population Policy, wolves that may exist in Maine are discrete from 
wolves elsewhere in the lower 48 States. We have also determined that a 
population of wolves in this portion of the lower 48 States is 
significant and will contribute to the overall restoration of the 
species. In addition, there appears to be adequate habitat and a 
sufficient prey base for one or more viable wolf populations, and a 
source wolf population exists in nearby areas of Canada for dispersal 
or reintroduction of gray wolves into the Northeast. Public support for 
wolf recovery is evident in these States, although at this time we can 
not evaluate the scope of that support, or the degree of opposition to 
wolf recovery. Finally, the special regulation that we are proposing 
for the Northeastern DPS is intended to reduce wolf-human conflicts and 
land-use restrictions, and therefore the threat of wolf persecution by 
humans should significantly diminish. Because human-caused wolf 
mortality is the primary threat to continued viability of wolf 
populations worldwide, reducing this threat should significantly 
increase the likelihood of successful wolf recovery in the Northeast.
    Wolves in the Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolf DPS will remain 
endangered if this proposed regulation is finalized. Wolf 
reintroduction in that area is still in its initial stages, and its 
success is not yet assured. Human-caused mortalities of reintroduced 
gray wolves in 1998 show that there still is much to be done to reduce 
the threats to a level where a viable wolf population can be 
reestablished.
    This proposal would not remove the two existing nonessential 
experimental population designations for gray wolves in the northern 
U.S. Rocky Mountains. Those experimental population designations would 
remain superimposed on the geographically larger Western DPS where 
wolves would be listed as threatened. The regulations associated with 
those two experimental population designations would remain in effect; 
the new section 4(d) special regulation for the Western DPS would apply 
only to areas outside of the experimental population areas.
    Similarly, this proposal would not remove the existing nonessential 
experimental population designation for gray wolves in the Southwestern 
(Mexican) DPS. The nonessential experimental population designation 
would remain superimposed on a geographically larger area where wolves 
would remain listed as endangered.
    In addition to proposing to reclassify gray wolves in three DPSs, 
we are proposing to reduce the geographic area in which gray wolves 
would continue to be protected by the Act. We believe that several 
decades of conducting wolf recovery activities have made it clear that 
the recovery goals of the Act can readily be achieved for the gray wolf 
without maintaining protection for the species throughout the many 
States within its historical range where gray wolf recovery is no 
longer potentially feasible or is not necessary under the Act.
    When a species is first listed as threatened or endangered under 
the Act we normally apply that listing and its resultant protection 
across the entire recognized historical range of the species in order 
to retain a wide spectrum of options for its recovery. As recovery 
programs are implemented and progress, we gain important information 
concerning the areas where restoration is necessary and feasible. We 
also become aware of areas where restoration is unnecessary or unlikely 
to be successful. For species listed across a broad geographic area, it 
is especially appropriate for us to use this type of recovery 
information to reduce or eliminate the Act's restrictions and impacts 
in those areas where restoration is not necessary or potentially 
feasible. This is consistent with our Interagency Cooperative Policy on 
Recovery Plan Participation and Implementation Under the Endangered 
Species Act (59 FR 34272; July 1, 1994) which established our policy to 
minimize the social and economic impacts arising from the recovery of 
species listed as threatened or endangered under the Act.
    We anticipate successful restoration of viable gray wolf 
populations in the four DPSs. Upon achieving this recovery of the gray 
wolf, the species will no longer qualify as either a threatened or 
endangered species within the definitions of the Act. Thus, we have 
chosen to also remove the protections of the Act from any gray wolves 
that may occur now or in the future in all other geographic areas 
outside of the boundaries of the four DPSs. Gray wolves will remain 
listed as endangered, threatened, or as experimental populations only 
in Mexico, the entire States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, 
Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, New York, Vermont, New 
Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, and part of Texas.
    We recognize that there is significant private and public interest 
in initiating programs to restore gray wolves to areas outside of the 
four proposed DPSs where the gray wolf will remain listed as threatened 
or endangered. This proposal should not be interpreted that such 
interest and any resulting non-Service wolf restoration programs are 
unwise, unjustified, infeasible, or otherwise ill-advised. Rather, with 
this proposal we are stating that our mandate to recover gray wolves 
under

[[Page 43478]]

the Act does not require our initiation of such efforts. Our future 
role in gray wolf recovery would focus only on those four areas where 
wolves will remain listed as threatened, endangered, or as experimental 
populations. However, we remain willing to provide assistance, as 
budget and staff limitations allow, to other wolf restoration efforts 
that may be initiated by other partners, including private 
organizations.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 43479]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP13JY00.012

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 43480]]

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat was designated for the gray wolf in 1978 (43 FR 
9607). That rulemaking (50 CFR 17.95(a)) identifies Isle Royale 
National Park, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf management zones 1, 2, and 
3, as delineated in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(1), as critical habitat. Wolf 
management zones 1, 2, and 3 comprise approximately 3800 sq km (9800 sq 
mi) in northeastern and north central Minnesota. This proposal will not 
affect those existing critical habitat designations.

Special Regulations Under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species

General

    The Act and its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set 
forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all 
endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for 
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take 
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship 
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any endangered 
wildlife species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. 
Certain exceptions apply to our agents and agents of State conservation 
agencies.
    The implementing regulations for threatened wildlife under the Act 
incorporate the section 9 prohibitions for endangered wildlife (50 CFR 
17.31), except when a special regulation promulgated pursuant to 
section 4(d) applies (50 CFR 17.31(c)). Section 4(d) of the Act 
provides that whenever a species is listed as a threatened species, we 
shall issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for 
the conservation of the species. Conservation means the use of all 
methods and procedures necessary to bring the species to the point at 
which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary. Section 4(d) 
also states that we may, by regulation, extend to threatened species, 
prohibitions provided for endangered species under section 9.
    In this proposal we are recommending retaining the special 
regulation that has been crucial to conserving the gray wolf in 
Minnesota, and are proposing a similar special regulation to provide 
similar authority for lethal control of depredating wolves in Michigan, 
Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
    We are also proposing the establishment of two new special 
regulations for other geographic areas. One new section 4(d) special 
regulation would assist in managing the rapidly expanding gray wolf 
numbers in the Western DPS and will apply to wolves outside the 
boundaries of the currently designated nonessential experimental 
population areas. The existing 10(j) special regulations for the 
currently designated nonessential experimental populations in Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming will remain in effect. The other new section 4(d) 
special regulation is intended to encourage Northeast States and Tribes 
to become partners with us in wolf recovery in the Northeastern DPS. We 
intend to continue to work with the States and Tribes in developing 
management plans and agreements with the objective of recovery and 
eventual delisting of the gray wolf in the Western, Northeastern, and 
Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPSs. These three proposed section 4(d) 
special regulations would offer additional management flexibility to 
assist in meeting this objective.
    The existing special regulation for the gray wolf nonessential 
experimental population in portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas 
remains unaffected.

Continuation of Existing Special Regulations for Minnesota Gray Wolves

    In 1978 we developed special regulations under section 4(d) of the 
Act for gray wolves in Minnesota in order to reduce the conflicts 
between gray wolves and livestock producers. These regulations were 
modified in 1985 (50 FR 50792; December 12, 1985, 50 CFR 17.40(d)) and 
remain unchanged. The regulations divided the State into five 
management zones and established the conditions under which certain 
State or Federal employees or agents may trap and kill wolves that are 
likely to continue preying on lawfully present domestic animals. The 
intent of these regulations was to provide an effective means to reduce 
the economic impact of livestock losses due to wolves. We believe that 
by reducing these impacts, private citizens would have less incentive 
to resort to illegal and excessive killing of problem wolves, and that 
consequently the recovery of the wolf would be hastened in Minnesota.
    We operated this Minnesota Wolf Depredation Control Program from 
1976 into 1986. However, in 1986 the Animal Damage Control Program was 
transferred by Congressional action from us to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). In 
1997 the Animal Damage Control program was renamed ``Wildlife 
Services.'' APHIS-Wildlife Services continues to operate the Wolf 
Depredation Control Program in Minnesota. This proposal, if finalized, 
will not change the special regulations which authorize these wolf 
depredation control activities in Minnesota.

New Special Regulations

    Special regulations are being proposed for the gray wolf 
populations in the western, northeastern, and Western Great Lakes 
States (excluding Minnesota) that will receive a threatened designation 
if this proposed regulation is finalized. The proposed special 
regulations are intended to promote the conservation of the gray wolf 
in those areas by reducing actual and perceived conflicts with human 
activities, thus reducing the likelihood and extent of illegal killing 
of wolves.
    In the case of the Western Gray Wolf DPS, the proposed section 4(d) 
regulation will apply only to wolves outside of the nonessential 
experimental population areas. The existing 1994 special regulations 
that apply to the two nonessential experimental population areas (50 
CFR 17.84(i)) will remain in effect. The proposed special regulations 
will allow similar, but increased, management flexibility for problem 
wolves in all areas of the Western DPS that are outside of the 
boundaries of the two experimental population areas. The existing 
experimental population special regulations, while not allowing the 
same degree of management flexibility, will remain in effect within the 
two experimental population areas as long as those experimental areas 
remain designated.

Western Gray Wolf DPS Special Regulations

    The survival and recovery of the gray wolf in the northern U.S. 
Rocky Mountain region will continue to depend heavily on human 
tolerance of wolves. Human actions, legal and illegal, intentional and 
accidental, remain the primary cause of gray wolf deaths in the western 
half of the United States (Bangs et al. 1998). We are committed to 
reducing illegal killing of wolves through law enforcement and by 
minimizing the perception that such killings are ``necessary'' because 
wolves are causing too many problems.
    The proposed section 4(d) regulations for threatened gray wolves in 
the Western DPS are designed to conserve the wolf population while 
addressing local public and State government concerns about conflicts 
between humans and wolves. The existing special regulations (50 CFR 
17.84(i)) for

[[Page 43481]]

the central Idaho and Yellowstone nonessential experimental population 
areas were developed through years of extensive public involvement, 
scientific review, and agency coordination. To date those special 
regulations have been effective at both promoting rapid growth in wolf 
distribution and numbers toward recovery goals, and resolving conflicts 
with local residents who were fearful of excessive government 
regulation and ongoing wolf-caused losses of livestock and other 
domestic animals. During the years that wolf recovery has been 
occurring in the West we have learned a great deal about both actual 
and perceived conflicts between wolves and human activities, and we 
have also learned how these conflicts and perceptions can be reduced 
while allowing wolf recovery to proceed. Because of the knowledge we 
have gained during these years of wolf management and recovery, we 
believe we can provide several additional methods to reduce wolf-human 
conflicts during wolf recovery. Thus, the proposed section 4(d) rule is 
very similar to, but provides more management flexibility than, the 
existing special regulations that have been successfully implemented 
for the Yellowstone and central Idaho nonessential experimental 
populations since January 1995. We believe that the proposed section 
4(d) rule will further aid in the conservation and enhancement of the 
gray wolf in the Western DPS.
    The proposed section 4(d) rule would continue to protect wolves 
under the Act. Wolves that do not depredate on domestic animals would 
be protected from take by the public, except for non-lethal harassment 
of wolves. Agencies would have management flexibility to take wolves 
under controlled circumstances, such as on the rare occasions that wolf 
predation may significantly affect wild ungulate populations, but only 
when such take would not affect wolf recovery. The proposed section 
4(d) rules would allow increased flexibility by the public and by 
agencies to manage those few wolves that come into conflict with people 
by attacking domestic animals. We believe that, by effectively managing 
problem wolves and including the affected public in that management, 
local tolerance of non-depredating wolves will be enhanced. Tolerance 
of wolves by the local public reduces illegal killing of wolves, allows 
more opportunity for the public and us to investigate innovative ways 
to reduce wolf/livestock conflicts without killing wolves (such as 
aversive conditioning), and enhances communication between resource 
agencies and people who live near wolves leading to more accurate data 
gathering on wolf restoration efforts. All this ultimately increases 
the likelihood of successful wolf recovery in the region.
    The provisions of the current special regulations for the two 
nonessential experimental populations in the northern U.S. Rockies are 
compared with the proposed special regulation for the Western DPS in 
the following table.

   Comparison of the Normal Protections of the Endangered Species Act With the Current Experimental Population
          Special Rules and the Proposed Special Rule for the Northern U.S. Rocky Mountain Gray Wolves
                                             [Proposed Western DPS]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Current experimental
            Provision              populations special rules    Proposed section 4(d)    Normal protections for
                                     (50 CFR Sec.  17.84(i))        special rule          an endangered species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geographic area..................  This special rule applies  This special rule will    Throughout area in which
                                    only to wolves within      apply to any gray         it is listed as
                                    the areas of two           wolves that occur         endangered.
                                    Nonessential               throughout the area
                                    Experimental Populations   designated as the
                                    (NEP), which together      Western Distinct
                                    include--Wyoming, the      Population Segment
                                    southern portion of        (WDPS)--Washington,
                                    Montana, and Idaho south   Oregon, Idaho, Montana,
                                    of Interstate 90. These    Wyoming, Utah,
                                    gray wolves are treated    Colorado, and the
                                    as a threatened species    northern portions of
                                    under the Endangered       Arizona and New Mexico,
                                    Species Act. Any wolves    except where listed as
                                    that disperse beyond       an experimental
                                    this geographic area       population. These gray
                                    receive the full           wolves would be listed
                                    protection of the          as threatened.
                                    Endangered Species Act
                                    under a classification
                                    of endangered.
Interagency Coordination (Sec. 7   Federal agency             Federal agency            Federal agencies must
 consultation).                     consultation with the      consultation with the     consult with the U.S.
                                    U.S. Fish and Wildlife     Service on agency         Fish and Wildlife
                                    Service on agency          actions that may affect   Service (Service) on
                                    actions that may affect    gray wolves is            all agency actions that
                                    gray wolves is not         required, but will not    may affect the gray
                                    required within the two    result in land-use        wolf.
                                    NEPs, unless those         restrictions unless
                                    actions are on lands of    needed to avoid direct
                                    the National Park System   take at active den
                                    or the National Wildlife   sites between April 1
                                    Refuge System.             and June 30.
Opportunistic harassment.........  Landowners and grazing     Identical to the current  Harassment is included
                                    allotment holders can      experimental population   within the definition
                                    opportunistically harass   special rules.            of ``take'' and is
                                    gray wolves in a non-                                prohibited.
                                    injurious manner without
                                    a Service permit.
Intentional harassment Permits...  No specific provision for  The Service can issue a   No specific provision
                                    intentional harassment     90-day permit to          for intentional
                                    permits. However, see      private landowners (not   harassment permits.
                                    provision below for        available for public      However, see provision
                                    ``Permits for recovery     grazing allotments)       below for ``Permits for
                                    actions that include       after verified            recovery actions that
                                    take of gray wolves''.     persistent wolf           include take of gray
                                                               activity on their         wolves.''
                                                               private land; permit
                                                               would allow intentional
                                                               and potentially
                                                               injurious, but non-
                                                               lethal, harassment of
                                                               wolves.

[[Page 43482]]

 
Taking wolves ``in the act'' on    Livestock producers on     Similar to the current    No provision for such
 PRIVATE land.                      their private land may     experimental population   take.
                                    take a gray wolf in the    special rules, but this
                                    act of killing,            provision is broadened
                                    wounding, or biting        to also apply to gray
                                    livestock. Injured or      wolves attacking any
                                    dead livestock must be     domestic animals.
                                    in evidence to verify
                                    the wolf attack.
Taking persistent problem wolves   If six breeding pairs of   Same permits are          No provision for such
 ``in the act'' on PUBLIC land.     wolves are established     available, but they can   take.
                                    in a NEP area, livestock   be issued regardless of
                                    producers and permittees   the wolf population
                                    with current valid         level. Also allows
                                    livestock grazing          permits to take wolves
                                    allotments on public       attacking livestock
                                    land may receive a 45-     guarding or herding
                                    day permit from the        animals or other
                                    Service or other           domestic animals.
                                    agencies designated by
                                    the Service, to take
                                    gray wolves in the act
                                    of killing, wounding, or
                                    biting livestock. The
                                    Service must have
                                    verified previous
                                    attacks by wolves, and
                                    must have completed
                                    agency efforts to
                                    resolve the problem. The
                                    taking must be reported
                                    as soon as possible.
Permits for additional taking by   No specific provision for  If 10 or more breeding    No specific provision
 private citizens on their          such permits. However,     pairs are present in a    for such permits.
 private land.                      see provision below for    State and the Service     However, see provision
                                    ``Permits for recovery     has determined that       below for ``Permits for
                                    actions that include       wolves are routinely      recovery actions that
                                    take of gray wolves''.     present on private        include take of gray
                                                               property and present a    wolves.''
                                                               significant risk to
                                                               domestic animals, a
                                                               private landowner may
                                                               receive a permit from
                                                               the Service to take
                                                               those wolves, under
                                                               specified conditions.
Government take of problem wolves  The Service or agencies    No numerical threshold    No provision for such
                                    designated by the          applies, so all control   take.
                                    Service may take wolves    measures, including
                                    that attack livestock or   lethal control, can be
                                    that twice in a calendar   used regardless of the
                                    year attack domestic       number of breeding
                                    animals other than         pairs in a State. No
                                    livestock. When six or     upper threshold of six
                                    more breeding pairs are    breeding pairs limiting
                                    established in a NEP,      protection of females
                                    lethal control of          and their pups prior to
                                    problem wolves or          October 1 on public
                                    permanent placement in     lands, thus females and
                                    captivity may be           their pups will be
                                    authorized by the          released if captured on
                                    Service or agency          public land, regardless
                                    designated by the          of the number of
                                    Service. When five or      breeding pairs of
                                    fewer breeding pairs are   wolves. Otherwise, the
                                    established in a NEP,      proposed special rule
                                    taking may be limited to   is similar to the
                                    non-lethal measures such   current experimental
                                    as aversive                population special
                                    conditioning, nonlethal    rules.
                                    control, and/or
                                    translocating wolves. If
                                    during depredation
                                    control activities on
                                    Federal or other public
                                    lands, prior to six
                                    breeding pairs becoming
                                    established in a NEP and
                                    prior to October 1, a
                                    female wolf having pups
                                    is captured, the female
                                    and her pups will be
                                    released at or near the
                                    site of capture. All
                                    problem wolves on
                                    private land, including
                                    female wolves with pups,
                                    may be removed
                                    (including lethal
                                    control) if continued
                                    depredation occurs. All
                                    chronic problem wolves
                                    (wolves that depredate
                                    on domestic animals
                                    after being moved once
                                    for previous domestic
                                    animal depredations)
                                    will be removed from the
                                    wild (killed or placed
                                    in captivity).

[[Page 43483]]

 
Govt. translocation of wolves to   States and Tribes may      Similar to the current    No provision for such
 reduce impacts on wild ungulates.  capture and translocate    experimental population   relocation.
                                    wolves to other areas      special rules, but
                                    within the same NEP        translocated wolves
                                    area, if the gray wolf     must be released within
                                    predation is negatively    the Western Distinct
                                    impacting localized wild   Population Segment.
                                    ungulate populations at    Additionally, the
                                    an unacceptable level,     proposed special rule
                                    as defined by the States   has a new provision:
                                    and Tribes. State/Tribal   After 10 breeding pairs
                                    wolf management plans      are established in a
                                    must be approved by the    state, the Service, in
                                    Service before such        cooperation with the
                                    movement of wolves may     states and tribes, may
                                    be conducted, and the      translocate wolves that
                                    Service must determine     it determines are
                                    that such translocations   impacting localized
                                    will not inhibit wolf      wild ungulate
                                    population growth toward   populations at
                                    recovery levels.           unacceptable levels..
Protection of human life and       The Service, or agencies   Identical to the current  The Service, other
 safety.                            authorized by the          experimental population   Federal land management
                                    Service, may promptly      special rules.            agency, a state
                                    remove (that is, place                               conservation agency, or
                                    in captivity or kill)                                an agent of these, may
                                    any wolf determined by                               take a wolf that is a
                                    the Service or                                       demonstrable but non-
                                    authorized agency to be                              immediate threat to
                                    a threat to human life                               human safety. (50 CFR
                                    or safety.                                           17.21(c)(3)(iv))
Take in self defense.............  Identical to the normal    Identical to the normal   Any person may harass or
                                    protections.               protections.              take (kill or injure) a
                                                                                         wolf in self defense or
                                                                                         in defense of others.
                                                                                         (50 CFR 17.21(c))
Incidental take..................  Any person may take a      Similar in intent to the  Can be authorized by
                                    gray wolf if the take is   current experimental      permit after Service
                                    incidental to an           population special        approval of a habitat
                                    otherwise lawful           rules, with some minor    conservation plan. (50
                                    activity, and is           wording changes.          CFR 17.22).
                                    accidental, unavoidable,
                                    unintentional, not
                                    resulting from negligent
                                    conduct lacking
                                    reasonable due care, and
                                    due care was exercised
                                    to avoid taking the wolf.
Permits for recovery actions that  Available for scientific   Identical to the current  Available for scientific
 include take of gray wolves.       purposes, enhancement of   experimental population   purposes, and
                                    propagation or survival,   special rules.            enhancement of
                                    zoological exhibition,                               propagation or survival
                                    educational purposes, or                             (50 CFR 17.22).
                                    other purposes
                                    consistent with the Act
                                    (50 CFR 17.32).
Additional taking provisions for   Any employee or agent of   Identical to the current  Any employee or agent of
 agency employees.                  the Service or             experimental population   the Service, a Federal
                                    appropriate Federal,       special rules, except     land management agency,
                                    State, or Tribal agency,   it has an additional      or a State conservation
                                    who is designated in       provision that allows     agency, who is
                                    writing for such           such take of wolves       designated in writing
                                    purposes by the Service,   ``to prevent wolves       for such purposes, when
                                    when acting in the         with abnormal physical    acting in the course of
                                    course of official         or behavioral             official duties, may
                                    duties, may take a wolf    characteristics from      take a wolf from the
                                    from the wild, if such     passing on those traits   wild if such action is
                                    action is for: (A)         to other wolves''.        to: (1) Aid a sick,
                                    Scientific purposes; (B)                             injured, or orphaned
                                    to avoid conflict with                               specimen, (2) dispose
                                    human activities; (C) to                             of a dead specimen, or
                                    relocate a wolf within                               (3) salvage a dead
                                    the NEP areas to improve                             specimen which may be
                                    its survival and                                     useful for scientific
                                    recovery prospects; (D)                              study. (50 CFR
                                    to return wolves that                                17.21(c)(3)).
                                    have wandered outside of
                                    the NEP areas; (E) to
                                    aid or euthanize sick,
                                    injured, or orphaned
                                    wolves; (F) to salvage a
                                    dead specimen which may
                                    be used for scientific
                                    study; or (G) to aid in
                                    law enforcement
                                    investigations involving
                                    wolves.

[[Page 43484]]

 
Land-use restrictions on private   When five or fewer         Land-use restrictions     Various land-use
 or Federal lands.                  breeding pairs of wolves   may be employed for       restrictions may be
                                    are in an experimental     wolf recovery purposes    employed on Federal
                                    population area            on national parks and     lands if the Service
                                    temporary land-use         national wildlife         believes they are
                                    restrictions may be        refuges. Between April    necessary to recovery
                                    employed on Federal        1 and June 30 land-use    the species and to
                                    public lands to control    restrictions may be       minimize take of
                                    human disturbance around   employed to prevent       wolves. Land-use
                                    active wolf den sites.     direct take of wolves     restrictions may be
                                    These restrictions may     at active den sites on    employed on private
                                    be required between        any Federal lands.        land and other non-
                                    April 1 and June 30,                                 Federal land if
                                    within 1 mile of active                              necessary to minimize
                                    wolf den or rendezvous                               take of wolves.
                                    sites, and would only
                                    apply to Federal public
                                    lands or other such
                                    lands designated in
                                    State and Tribal wolf
                                    management plans. When
                                    six or more breeding
                                    pairs are established in
                                    an experimental
                                    population area, no land-
                                    use restrictions may be
                                    employed on Federal
                                    public lands outside of
                                    national parks or
                                    national wildlife
                                    refuges, unless that
                                    wolf population fails to
                                    maintain positive growth
                                    rates for two
                                    consecutive years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed section 4(d) rule landowners would be allowed to 
harass wolves from areas where potential conflicts are of greatest 
concern, such as private property and near grazing livestock. In 
addition to the authority for landowners and livestock producers to 
opportunistically harass gray wolves in a non-injurious manner (as 
already allowed by the current special regulations within the two 
experimental populations), the proposed rule would allow us to issue 
temporary permits for deliberate harassment of wolves in an injurious 
manner under certain situations. Harassment methods that would be 
allowed under this provision include rubber bullets and shotgun shells 
containing small shot (#8). Since all such harassment would be 
nonlethal, and most is expected to be noninjurious, to wolves, no 
effect on wolf population growth is expected to occur. Fewer wolf 
depredations on livestock and pets should result from more focused and 
more unpleasant harassment of the problem wolves. Fewer depredations 
will result in fewer control actions, and consequently fewer wolves 
will be killed by management agencies. This provision allows us to work 
closely with the public to avoid conflicts between wolves and livestock 
or pets, thereby reducing the need for wolf control. Because we will 
have to confirm persistent wolf activity, and each intentional 
harassment permit will contain the conditions under which such 
harassment could occur, there should be little potential for abuse of 
this management flexibility.
    Under the proposed special regulation for the Western DPS, 
landowners would be allowed to take (kill or injure) wolves actually 
seen attacking their livestock on private land (as currently allowed by 
the current special regulations within the two experimental 
populations). The proposed special regulation would also expand this 
provision so that it applies to wolves attacking any domestic animals 
on private land outside of the experimental areas. Furthermore, the 
proposed special regulation would allow us to issue permits to take 
wolves seen attacking livestock and livestock guard or herding animals 
on public land. (The current special regulations that will continue to 
apply to the two experimental population areas do not allow such 
permits to be issued for attacks on guard or herding animals, and do 
not allow such permits to be issued if there are fewer than six 
breeding pairs of wolves in the experimental population area.) Because 
such take has to be reported and confirmation of livestock attacks must 
be made by agency investigators, we anticipate that no additional 
significant wolf mortality will result from this provision. However, 
those few wolves that are killed will be animals with behavioral traits 
that were not conducive to the long term survival and recovery of the 
wolf in the northern Rocky Mountains. The required confirmation process 
will greatly reduce the chances that wolves that have not attacked 
domestic animals would be killed under this provision. Once a 
depredating wolf is shot, no further control on the pack would be 
implemented by the agencies unless additional livestock were attacked. 
This could result in even fewer wolves being taken in agency control 
actions, because the wolf that was killed would be the individual from 
that pack that was attacking livestock.
    The proposed special regulation will allow us or other agencies and 
the public to continue to take wolves in the rare event that they 
threaten human life or safety. While this is a highly unlikely 
situation, and one that is already addressed by the Act and the current 
special regulation, emphasizing the Act's provision to defend human 
life and safety should reduce the public's concern about human safety.
    The proposed special regulation would allow government agencies to 
remove problem wolves (wolves that attack livestock or twice in a year 
attack other domestic animals) outside the experimental areas using 
lethal methods regardless of the number of breeding pairs present in 
the area. (The current special regulations that will continue to apply 
within the two experimental

[[Page 43485]]

population areas allow lethal methods only if there are six or more 
breeding pairs present in that experimental population area.)
    Prior to October 1 of each year, the proposed special regulation 
would require the release of trapped female wolves with pups, 
regardless of the number of breeding pairs on public land. (The current 
special regulations that will continue to apply within the two 
experimental population areas require the release of such female wolves 
if there are fewer than six breeding pairs present in that experimental 
population area.)
    The proposed special regulation would allow us to issue permits for 
private landowners to take wolves on their private lands if 10 or more 
breeding pairs are present in the State and if we have determined that 
wolves are routinely present on that land and present a significant 
risk to domestic animals. (The current special regulations that will 
continue to apply within the two experimental areas have no provision 
for this type of permit to take wolves.)
    The proposed special regulation addresses public concerns about the 
presence of wolves disrupting traditional human uses of public and 
private land. Except for within national parks and national wildlife 
refuges, the only potential restrictions on Federal lands, may be 
seasonal restrictions to avoid the take of wolves at active den sites. 
These seasonal restrictions would likely run from April 1 to June 30 of 
each year and apply to land within one mile of the active den site. 
Managing wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains has shown that 
successful wolf recovery does not depend upon land-use restrictions due 
to the wolves' ability to thrive in a variety of land uses. Since 1987, 
as a result of the experience we gained in the northern Rockies, we 
believe there is little, if any, need for land-use restrictions to 
protect wolves in most situations, with the possible exception of 
temporary restrictions around active den sites on Federal lands. 
Additionally, the public is much more tolerant of wolf recolonization 
if restrictive government regulations do not result from the presence 
of wolves. While the threatened status of wolves will require Federal 
agencies to consult under section 7, the proposed special regulation 
will simplify that process by stating that no land-use restrictions 
will be imposed except to protect wolves at active den sites on Federal 
lands, as described above.
    All other provisions of the proposed section 4(d) special 
regulation for the Western DPS are identical or very similar to the 
current special regulations that will continue to apply to the two 
nonessential experimental populations in the northern United States 
Rocky Mountains.
    We reemphasize that the management flexibility provided by the 
current special regulation will continue to apply to the two 
nonessential experimental populations established in 1994 in Wyoming 
and in portions of Idaho and Montana (refer to Map 1). Currently, any 
western gray wolves that reside outside of, or disperse beyond, those 
experimental areas are protected under the Act as endangered gray 
wolves; thus, wolves in and around Glacier National Park in 
northwestern Montana are endangered wolves. Captured wolves known to be 
experimental are not endangered. In contrast, the proposed 
reclassification to threatened status and the proposed section 4(d) 
special regulation would apply a degree of greater management 
flexibility across the rest of the area defined as the Western DPS, 
which includes all of seven States and portions of two others.
    In conclusion, the proposed 4(d) rule for the Western Gray Wolf DPS 
would continue to protect wolves from human persecution outside of the 
two experimental population areas, but would improve and expand the 
management options for problem wolves. By focusing management efforts 
on the occasional problem wolf, we believe that the public will become 
more tolerant of non-depredating wolves. Based on our experience with 
wolf recovery in Minnesota, this increased public tolerance is expected 
to result in fewer illegal killings of Western DPS wolves and more 
opportunity for us to work with local agencies and the public to find 
innovative solutions to potential conflicts between wolves and humans. 
Overall, we expect that this proposed special regulation will promote 
the conservation of the gray wolf and speed the species' recovery in 
the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains.

Northeastern Gray Wolf DPS Special Regulations

    Using section 4(d) of the Act and 50 CFR 17.31(c), we propose to 
define the conditions under which intentional and incidental take of 
gray wolves resulting from activities regulated or carried out by State 
and Tribal governments will not violate section 9 of the Act or any 
regulations under 50 CFR part 17 that implement section 9, and thus 
could be performed without need for a permit under sections 10(a)(1)(A) 
or 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Under the proposed special regulation for 
the Northeastern DPS, the normal provisions of 50 CFR 17.31(b) will 
continue to apply to any employee or agent of the Service and of a 
State conservation agency. Furthermore, incidental take of wolves when 
conducting otherwise lawful activities, regardless of their 
relationship to wolf conservation, addressed in a wolf conservation 
plan prepared by individual States or Tribes and approved by us, would 
not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act.
    The intent of this special regulation is to provide those 
northeastern States and Tribes that have an active interest in 
participating in gray wolf conservation the authority to maintain the 
lead role in protection, management, and recovery of the species. 
Importantly, this special regulation will increase the options for wolf 
restoration to portions of historical gray wolf range in the 
northeastern United States by providing greater regulatory flexibility 
to State and Tribal governments. Greater regulatory flexibility will 
enable participating States and Tribes to manage wolves released as 
part of a reintroduction effort and to address problem wolves, such as 
those that depredate domestic animals.
    In addition to accommodating concerns for domestic animals, we 
realize that the effects of introduced wolves on moose and deer 
populations are significant concerns among State and Tribal wildlife 
agencies and hunters. There is concern that wolves compete with hunters 
for moose and deer. For this reason, we propose a special provision to 
allow limited lethal take of wolves by Service, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, and State and Tribal agency personnel to take effect 5 
years after reintroductions are completed in the Northeastern Gray Wolf 
DPS. Such take can occur only after the agency has informed us of the 
need for lethal control and established the extent to which individual 
packs will be reduced. No pack will be reduced by more than 30 percent, 
and no packs will be reduced more frequently than every 3 years.
    This special regulation will provide northeastern State and Tribal 
governments that have developed and implemented a wolf conservation 
plan the following authority:
    1. Lethal control of wolves depredating domestic animals. This 
authority does not extend to wolf pups less than 6 months of age.
    2. Incidental take of wolves resulting from otherwise lawful 
activities that are included in the conservation plan.

[[Page 43486]]

    3. Capture and relocation of wolves that have dispersed outside of 
areas considered suitable for wolf restoration.
    4. Five years after reintroduction is completed, the capture and 
relocation of wolves that threaten ungulate populations of management 
concern will be allowable if consistent with the terms of the 
conservation plan.
    5. Capture and lethal control of diseased wolves (e.g., carriers of 
rabies or canine parvovirus) determined to be a potential threat to 
other wolves domestic animals, or humans.
    We believe that activities that modify gray wolf habitat will not 
adversely affect or incidentally take gray wolves within northeastern 
State boundaries or on Tribal lands. Therefore, it is not anticipated 
that land use restrictions will generally be needed to achieve 
conservation for the wolf in the Northeast. Wolves can successfully 
inhabit a variety of habitats provided that adequate prey are available 
and that they are not persecuted by humans. However, we encourage 
States and Tribes to identify any such activities that may modify wolf 
habitat that result in incidental take, along with actions ongoing or 
planned to reduce the effects of those activities, and submit them to 
us as part of a wolf conservation plan.
    When wolf conservation plans are received, we will make them 
available for public comment through Federal Register notice. We will 
consider public comments and the criteria outlined in this section to 
determine whether the plan will reduce threats and promote the 
conservation of the gray wolf within State boundaries or on Tribal 
lands. We will work closely with northeastern State or Tribal officials 
to revise or strengthen sections of the plan as may be necessary to 
obtain plan approval. We will comply with the National Environmental 
Policy Act and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act in reviewing and 
approving conservation plans.
    We recommend that the conservation plans contain, but not be 
limited to, the following sections: (1) A discussion of the status of 
the wolf in the State or on Tribal lands, including population 
estimates, habitat quantity and quality, and threats to its existence; 
(2) a discussion of the lawful activities having the potential to 
incidentally take wolves; such activities may include trapping and 
hunting programs that target other species; forest management; road 
construction, maintenance, and use; and recreational activities and 
development; (3) a discussion of potential impacts to gray wolves from 
these activities and existing or planned provisions to monitor, 
minimize, and mitigate those effects; (4) provisions for identifying 
and correcting any situations that are likely to be causing incidental 
take and monitoring the effects of such corrective actions; (5) a 
discussion of existing or planned conservation measures to promote wolf 
recovery; and (6) a discussion of measures that may be needed to reduce 
conflicts with domestic animals and significant effects to wild 
ungulate populations. The plan must be consistent with the conservation 
of the gray wolf.
    The criteria we will use to evaluate the conservation plans are as 
follows:
    1. Any incidental taking of gray wolves, as described in the plan, 
occurs unintentionally while conducting an otherwise lawful activity. 
The purpose of the activity cannot be to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect wolves from the wild. The 
plan explains why alternatives that would not result in incidental take 
are not being used.
    2. The plan includes a strategy to avoid, minimize, and mitigate 
any proposed incidental take. Compliance with this standard involves a 
planning strategy that emphasizes avoidance of impacts to gray wolves 
and provides measures to minimize potential impacts by modifying 
practices.
    3. The plan is adequately funded and contains provisions to deal 
with unforeseen circumstances. A summary of the funding that will be 
available to implement provisions of the plan, including enforcement 
and monitoring, is provided. The plan outlines how it will be 
determined that a previously unforeseen problem has arisen and should 
include the specific steps that will be taken to correct that problem.
    4. Any incidental taking allowed pursuant to the plan does not 
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of wolves in 
the wild. This criterion is equivalent to the regulatory requirement to 
avoid causing ``jeopardy'' under section 7(a)(2) of the Act (i.e., to 
avoid engaging in any activity that reasonably would be expected, 
directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both 
the survival and recovery of the gray wolf). In the case of incidental 
trapping of wolves, the plan includes an assessment of the potential 
for gray wolves to be incidentally caught by trappers targeting other 
species, the likelihood of mortality to a wolf that is trapped and 
released (including the potential for it to be trapped more than once), 
and the resulting impact to the wolf population.
    5. We are assured that the plan will be implemented. The plan 
specifies how the State or Tribal governments will exercise the 
existing authorities to adhere to the commitments made in the plan. 
Terms and conditions for implementation and monitoring of the plan are 
included to ensure that the plan's requirements and the requirements of 
the Act are met. Any violations could be a basis for revocation of our 
approval of the plan.
    6. We are assured that States and Tribes have involved stakeholders 
in plan development (e.g., timber companies or associations, trappers 
associations, recreational interests).
    The take prohibitions of section 9 will be in effect throughout the 
Northeastern DPS until a conservation plan is approved by us. Once a 
plan is approved by us, the conditions contained in the approved plan 
will be the conditions, pursuant to section 4(d), under which the 
intentional and incidental take of gray wolves resulting from 
activities regulated by the State and Tribal governments included in 
the conservation plan would not be a violation of section 9.

Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota Special Regulation

    The current endangered status of wolves in Michigan and Wisconsin 
restricts depredation control activities in these States to capturing 
depredating wolves and releasing them at another location in the State. 
Wolves released in this manner commonly either return to the vicinity 
of their capture and resume their depredating habits, begin pursuing 
domestic animals at their new location, or are killed by resident wolf 
packs in the release area. Thus, in order for translocation to have a 
reasonable probability of succeeding, there must be unoccupied wolf 
habitat available within the State, but at a great distance from the 
depredation incident site.
    As the Michigan and Wisconsin wolf populations expand in number and 
range, the frequency of depredation incidents is increasing, yet there 
are fewer suitable release sites available. Releases of depredating 
wolves at marginal locations (that is, near existing wolf packs or too 
close to their capture site) are likely to fail. For example, a 
depredating wolf recently released into the Nicolet National Forest in 
Wisconsin at a location 46 miles from his initial capture had returned 
to within 23 miles of his capture location when he was mistaken for a 
coyote and shot only 13 days after his release.
    Similar problems with relocating depredating wolves have occurred 
in northwestern Montana. Of 28 relocated wolves, 25 either died a short 
time after their release or resumed attacking livestock again and had 
to be killed.

[[Page 43487]]

Only 2 of the 28 relocated wolves survived long enough to reproduce and 
contribute to wolf recovery. A review of wolf relocation as a means of 
reducing depredations on livestock in northwestern Montana concluded 
that relocation should be discontinued and that both livestock losses 
and depredation control costs could be reduced by killing, instead of 
relocating, depredating wolves (63 FR 20212, April 23, 1998; Bangs 
1998; Bangs et al. 1998).
    This proposed regulation would allow us, the Michigan and Wisconsin 
DNRs, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, the South Dakota Game, 
Fish and Parks Department, or Tribes within these States, or the 
designated agents of these agencies to carry out lethal control of 
depredating wolves. The restrictions for these actions would be similar 
to those used for the Minnesota wolf depredation control program since 
1985: (1) Wolf depredation must be verified, (2) the depredation is 
likely to be repeated, (3) the taking must occur within one mile of the 
depredation site in Michigan and Wisconsin, and within 4 miles of the 
depredation site in North Dakota and South Dakota, (4) taking, wolf 
handling, and euthanizing must be carried out in a humane manner, which 
includes the use of steel leghold traps, and (5) any young of the year 
trapped before August 1 must be released.
    Lethal depredation control has been successful in reducing 
conflicts between the recovering wolf population and domestic animals 
in Minnesota. It resolves the immediate depredation problem without the 
removal of excessive numbers of wolves, and avoids removing any wolves 
when the depredation was not verified as being caused by wolves or is 
not likely to be repeated. It is significantly less expensive than 
translocating such problem wolves, and thus is more appropriate for the 
rapidly expanding wolf populations that exist in Michigan and 
Wisconsin.
    Based upon Minnesota wolf depredation control data from the early 
1980s when the wolf population was probably less than 1,500 animals, we 
estimate that a maximum of about 2 to 3 percent of Wisconsin and 
Michigan wolves would be taken annually under the provisions of this 
special regulation. At current population levels this would be about 4 
to 6 wolves per State. This level of take should not appreciably affect 
the wolf population or its continued expansion in either of these 
States. As their wolf population already exceeds the numerical 
delisting criterion, this take will have no effect on the recovery of 
Michigan and Wisconsin wolves under the Act. The level and effects of 
this take will be closely monitored by continuing the annual monitoring 
of wolf populations in these States and the required reporting of the 
lethal take under this special regulation.
    We propose to limit depredation control activities to an area 
within one mile of the depredation site in Wisconsin and Michigan. 
Because wolf pack territories are large (in Wisconsin and Michigan they 
range from 52 to 518 sq km (20 to 200 sq mi), and the locations of 
Wisconsin and Michigan wolf packs are much more precisely known than is 
the case for Minnesota wolf packs, it will be possible for depredation 
control actions to be directed at only the depredating pack. Thus, the 
one-mile limit will enable depredation control trappers to focus their 
trapping within the activity areas of the target pack without 
significant risk of trapping wolves from nearby non-depredating packs.
    The situation in North Dakota and South Dakota is quite different 
from that in Michigan or Wisconsin. Wolves that appear in North Dakota 
and South Dakota are dispersing individuals from Minnesota and Canada, 
or rarely may be a pair or small pack along North Dakota's border with 
Canada. None of our recovery plans or recovery programs recommends 
actions to promote gray wolf recovery in either of these two States, 
and we do not believe the Act requires nor encourages such recovery 
actions. We also recognize that, due to the more open landscape of 
these States, and the high likelihood that dispersing wolves will 
encounter livestock, wolves are more likely to become involved in 
depredations on domestic animals. Therefore, we believe we should 
provide a mechanism for prompt control of depredating wolves in these 
States. Because there are very few or no established wolf packs in 
these States, and there are very few wolves dispersing into these 
States, we believe there is minimal risk of trapping or shooting wolves 
from a nearby non-depredating pack or dispersers not involved in the 
depredation under the proposed special regulation. For this reason, as 
well as recognition that the much more open landscape of North Dakota 
and South Dakota means that depredating wolves are likely to travel a 
much greater distance from the depredation site to secure cover, we 
propose to allow lethal depredation control actions to be undertaken up 
to 4 miles from the depredation site.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in 
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups, 
and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and 
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be 
carried out for all listed species. Many of these measures have already 
been successfully applied to gray wolves in the conterminous States.
    If this proposed regulation is finalized, the protections of the 
Act will continue to apply to the endangered Southwestern (Mexican) 
Gray Wolf DPS and to the threatened Western Great Lakes, Northeastern, 
and Western DPSs. The protections of the Act will be removed only from 
wild gray wolves in areas outside of these four DPSs. We do not believe 
there are any wild gray wolves in the States outside of the these four 
DPSs, nor would they be significant to gray wolf recovery, under the 
Act, if they are found there. This proposal does not modify or withdraw 
the existing special regulations or the nonessential experimental 
population designations for the reintroduced gray wolf populations in 
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico, nor does it make any 
changes to the threatened classification and existing section 4(d) 
special regulation for gray wolves in Minnesota. Similarly, the 
existing critical habitat designations for portions of Minnesota and 
Michigan will remain unchanged, and will continue to be considered 
during consultations with other Federal agencies. This proposal does 
not affect the protection or listing of the red wolf (Canis rufus).
    To the extent necessary, we will revise our existing gray wolf 
recovery plans to accommodate the potential changes in geographic 
coverage, Federal status, and gray wolf protection that would be 
brought about by new special regulations. Changes to the recovery plan 
for northern U.S. Rocky Mountain wolves will also be considered in 
light of the localities chosen by the colonizing wolves and the 
expansion and anticipated merging of the three recovery populations. We 
will also consider developing, in partnership with interested agencies 
and organizations, a Federal recovery plan for the Northeastern DPS.
    The protection required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions 
against taking and harm are discussed in Summary of Factors Affecting 
the Species, part D, above.

[[Page 43488]]

    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is listed as endangered or 
threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being 
designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation 
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) 
requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, 
fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of any species listed as endangered or threatened, or to destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency 
must enter into formal consultation with us. If a Federal action is 
likely to jeopardize a species proposed to be listed as threatened or 
endangered or destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat, 
the responsible Federal agency must confer with us.
    Federal agency actions that may require consultation or 
conferencing, as described in the preceding paragraph, include 
activities by the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, the 
U.S. Geological Survey, USDA/APHIS-Wildlife Services, the Bureau of 
Land Management, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency.
    However, under section 10(j)(2)(C) of the Act, for those three 
areas currently designated as nonessential experimental populations in 
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas for the purpose 
of interagency consultation under section 7 of the Act the gray wolf 
will continue to be considered a species proposed for listing under the 
Act, except where the species occurs on an area within the National 
Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park System. For all other 
purposes of the Act, gray wolves that are currently designated as 
experimental populations shall continue to be treated as a threatened 
species. Furthermore, the existing special regulations found in 50 CFR 
17.84(i) and 17.84(k) regarding the taking of wolves depredating on 
livestock in these experimental population areas will continue to apply 
as long as these experimental population designations remain in force.
    The Act and implementing regulations set forth a series of general 
prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered and threatened 
wildlife. The prohibitions codified at 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31 in part 
make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to take (including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import or 
export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, 
any listed species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, 
carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken 
illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State 
conservation agencies. Additionally, as discussed above, special 
regulations promulgated under sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act 
provide additional exceptions to these general prohibitions for the 
gray wolf.
    The proposed 4(d) rule for gray wolves in the northeastern DPS will 
have no immediate effect on current conservation measures in place for 
any naturally occurring or recolonizing gray wolves. It is the intent 
of the 4(d) rule to provide regulatory flexibility so that there will 
be fewer obstacles for States and Tribes to assume an active role in 
wolf restoration. As a threatened species with a 4(d) rule, States and 
Tribes can undertake wolf restoration without nullifying the authority 
to manage introduced ``problem'' wolves in a manner consistent with 
other wildlife population objectives. As stated earlier in the section 
Northeastern Gray Wolves, if future wolf reintroductions occur in the 
Northeast, and conditions allowing incidental or intentional take 
pursuant to the 4(d) rule are met, it will not be possible in every 
instance to distinguish naturally occurring wolves from the unmarked 
progeny of reintroduced wolves. Therefore, in the event that one or 
more States or Tribes actively reintroduce wolves into the Northeast, 
some incidental or intentional take of naturally occurring wolves may 
occur in the future.
    It is our policy (59 FR 34272; July 1, 1994) to identify to the 
maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed those 
activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 
of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness 
of the effect of the listing on proposed and ongoing activities within 
a species' range. Activities that we believe could potentially harm or 
kill the gray wolf in the area where it will remain listed as 
threatened or endangered and may result in take include, but are not 
limited to:
    (1) Taking of gray wolves by any means or manner not authorized 
under the provisions of the existing special regulation established for 
the designated nonessential experimental population in Arizona, New 
Mexico, and Texas as long as that designation and special regulation 
remain in effect;
    (2) Taking of gray wolves within the Western Gray Wolf DPS or in 
the Northeastern DPS in a manner not authorized under the provisions of 
the 4(d) special regulations proposed in this document, or in a manner 
not authorized under the existing experimental population regulations 
which would continue to apply to gray wolves in Wyoming and in parts of 
Idaho and Montana;
    (3) Taking of gray wolves within the Western Great Lakes DPS in a 
manner not authorized in either the existing section 4(d) special 
regulation for Minnesota or the proposed section 4(d) special 
regulation for Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota;
    (4) Taking of captive members of the Southwestern (Mexican) DPS 
unless such taking results from implementation of husbandry protocols 
approved under the Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan or are otherwise 
approved or permitted by the Service;
    (5) Intentional killing of a live-trapped canid that is 
demonstrably too large to be a coyote (that is, greater than 27 kg (60 
lb)) in the Northeastern Gray Wolf DPS; or
    (6) Killing or injuring of, or engaging in the interstate commerce 
of, captive wolves which originated from, or whose ancestors originated 
from, the areas included within the Western Great Lakes, Western, 
Northeastern, or Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolf DPSs, unless 
authorized in a Service permit.
    We believe, based on the best available information, that the 
following actions will not result in a violation of section 9:
    (1) Taking of a gray wolf in defense of human life;
    (2) Taking of gray wolves outside of the areas described as the 
Western, Western Great Lakes, Northeastern, or Southwestern (Mexican) 
Gray Wolf DPS;
    (3) Taking of gray wolves under the provisions of the existing 
special regulations established for the three designated nonessential 
experimental populations in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Wyoming, Idaho, 
and Montana as long as those designations and special regulations 
remain in effect;
    (4) Taking of gray wolves under the provisions of the special 
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act, as proposed at this time for 
threatened gray wolves in the Northeastern Gray Wolf DPS, the Western 
Gray Wolf DPS, or the Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPS States of 
Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota;
    (5) Taking of gray wolves under the provisions of the existing 
special

[[Page 43489]]

regulation at 50 CFR Sec. 17.40(d) for Minnesota wolves; or
    (6) Taking of captive members of the Southwestern (Mexican) Gray 
Wolf DPS in accordance with husbandry protocols approved under the 
Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan or other approvals or permits issued 
by the Service.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.22, 
17.23, and 17.32. For endangered species such permits are available for 
scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the 
species, for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful 
activities, and/or for economic hardship. For threatened species such 
permits are also available for zoological exhibition, educational 
purposes, and/or for special purposes consistent with the purposes of 
the Act, but not for economic hardship.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities may constitute a 
violation of section 9 should be directed to the nearest regional or 
Ecological Services field office of the Service. Requests for copies of 
the regulations regarding listed species and inquiries about 
prohibitions and permits may be addressed to any Service regional 
office or to the Washington headquarters office. The location, address, 
and phone number of the nearest regional or Ecological Services/
Endangered Species field office may be obtained by calling us at 703-
358-2171 or by using our World Wide Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/where/index.html.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This proposed rule was subject to Office of Management and Budget 
review under Executive Order 12866. An economic analysis is not 
required because this proposed regulation will result in only minor 
(positive) effects on the very small percentage of livestock producers 
within wolf range.
    Currently the vast majority of wolves that occur in the western 
Great Lakes area are found in the State of Minnesota where they are 
listed as threatened. A special regulation exists for Minnesota wolves 
that allows the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Minnesota DNR, other 
designated agencies, and their agents to manage wolves to ensure 
minimal economic impact. These special regulations allow some direct 
``take'' of wolves. A State program compensates livestock producers up 
to $750 per head if they suffer confirmed livestock losses by wolves. 
The value of the confirmed livestock losses amounted to an annual 
average of about $53,000 over the last five years. Because this 
proposal will not affect the existing special regulations for Minnesota 
wolves, there will be no economic effect on livestock producers or 
other economic activities in Minnesota.
    This proposed regulation will reclassify wolves in Michigan and 
Wisconsin from endangered to threatened and provide special regulations 
similar to those for Minnesota as described above. Thus specified 
State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and their designated agents will be 
allowed to take wolves in certain circumstances without a permit. Under 
normal protections of the Act, that is, without the benefit of special 
regulations proposed for Michigan and Wisconsin, permits would be 
required. This proposed special regulations will benefit the small 
percentage of livestock producers in wolf range in Michigan and 
Wisconsin that experience wolf attacks on their animals. Since only 
about 1.2 percent of livestock producers in nearby Minnesota, where the 
wolf population is much greater (Minnesota contains 2500 wolves, while 
Michigan and Wisconsin have 197 and 174 wolves, respectively), are 
adversely affected by wolves, the potential beneficial effect to 
livestock producers in Michigan and Wisconsin is small, but it may be 
significant to a few producers. In addition, State programs in Michigan 
and Wisconsin compensates livestock producers if they suffer confirmed 
livestock losses by wolves. In Wisconsin compensation is at full market 
value, while Michigan provides partial compensation and is planning on 
offering full compensation soon. The net effect of the proposed 
reclassification and 4(d) rule to livestock producers in Michigan and 
Wisconsin is the control of depredating wolves will become more 
efficient and effective, thus reducing the economic burden of livestock 
producers resulting from wolf recovery in those states. Similar 
positive, but geographically scattered and minor economic benefits will 
occur for livestock producers in North and South Dakota.
    The majority of wolves in the West are protected under nonessential 
experimental population designations that cover Wyoming, most of Idaho, 
and southern Montana that effectively treat wolves as threatened 
species. A smaller, but naturally-occurring population of about 80 
wolves is found in northwestern Montana. The wolves with the 
nonessential experimental population designation were reintroduced into 
these States from Canada. Special regulations exist for these 
experimental populations that allow government employees and designated 
agents, as well as livestock producers, to take problem wolves. Because 
this proposal does not change the nonessential experimental designation 
or associated special regulations, it will have no economic impact on 
livestock producers or other entities in these areas. However, the 
naturally occurring wolves in northwestern Montana (outside of the 
nonessential experimental population areas) and wolves that may occur 
in other Western States are proposed for reclassification to 
threatened. Under normal protections of the Act, that is, without the 
benefit of special regulations proposed for the Western States not 
included in the nonessential experimental designation, permits would be 
required for nearly all forms of take. For example, currently a private 
landowner on his or her own land in northwestern Montana could not take 
a wolf in the act of attacking a domestic animal. This proposed rule 
would allow such take without a permit. The proposed reduction of the 
restrictions on taking problem wolves will make their control easier 
and more effective, thus, reducing the economic losses that result from 
wolf depredation on livestock and other domestic animals. Furthermore, 
a private program compensates livestock producers if they suffer 
confirmed livestock losses by wolves. Average compensation for 
livestock losses has been slightly over $7,000 per year. The potential 
effect on livestock producers in Western States outside of the 
experimental population is small, but could be entirely beneficial to 
their operation.
    We propose delisting the gray wolf in a large number of states 
outside of the four distinct population segments identified in the 
proposed rule. We are proposing these areas for delisting because we 
believe wolf recovery in these areas is not feasible or is not 
necessary in order to carry out our responsibilities under the ESA. 
These areas currently contain no wolves and are not likely to contain 
wolves in the future given the modification of the habitat by humans. 
Current regulations that protect wolves are unnecessary and currently 
provide no protection to wolves. Livestock producers and other economic 
activities in these States have not been affected by the wolf and will 
not be affected by the actions in this

[[Page 43490]]

proposal because we are simply proposing to remove the current 
regulations which have no effect on landowners.
    a. This proposed regulation would not have an annual economic 
effect of $100 million or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. As 
explained above, this proposed regulation will result in only minor 
positive economic effects for a very small percentage of livestock 
producers.
    b. If finalized, this proposed regulation would not create 
inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. This proposed regulation 
reflects continuing success in recovering the gray wolf through long-
standing cooperative and complementary programs by a number of federal, 
state, and tribal agencies.
    c. This proposed regulation would not materially affect 
entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and 
obligations of their recipients.
    d. This proposed regulation would not raise novel legal or policy 
issues. This proposed regulation is consistent with the ESA, 
regulations, and policy.
    This proposed regulation would not have a significant economic 
effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). As stated above, 
this proposed regulation will result in only minor positive economic 
effects for a very small percentage of livestock producers. Only 1.2 
percent of the livestock producers are affected in Minnesota and fewer 
are expected to be effected in the other States.
    This proposed regulation would not be a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 
801 et seq., the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
    a. This proposed regulation would not produce an annual economic 
effect of $100 million. The majority of livestock producers within the 
range of the wolf are small family-owned dairies or ranches and the 
total number of livestock producers that may be affected by wolves is 
small. (For example, only about 1.2 percent of livestock producers in 
Minnesota are affected by wolves where the largest wolf population, by 
far, exists.) The proposed take regulations that are proposed further 
reduce the effect that wolves will have on individual livestock 
producers by reducing or eliminating permit requirements. Compensation 
programs are also in place to offset losses to individual livestock 
producers. Thus, even if livestock producers affected are small 
businesses, their combined economic effects will be minimal and the 
effects are a benefit to small business by reducing or eliminating 
paperwork requirements.
    b. This proposed regulation would not cause a major increase in 
costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, 
or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
    c. This proposed regulation would not have a significant adverse 
effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with 
foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, 
et seq.):
    a. The Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this proposed 
rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given 
year on local or State governments or private entities. As stated 
above, this proposed regulation will result in only minor positive 
economic effects for a very small percentage of livestock producers.
    b. This proposed regulation would not produce a Federal mandate of 
$100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This 
proposed regulation will not impose any additional wolf management or 
protection requirements on the States or other entities.

Takings Implications Assessment

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed regulation 
would not have significant implications concerning taking of private 
property by the Federal government. This proposed regulation will 
reduce regulatory restrictions on private lands and, as stated above, 
will result in minor positive economic effects for a small percentage 
of livestock producers.

Federalism Assessment

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this proposed regulation 
would not have significant Federalism effects. This proposed regulation 
would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the States and the Federal government, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, this proposed regulation 
does not unduly burden the judicial system.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed regulation does not contain any new collections of 
information other than those already approved under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of 
Management and Budget clearance number 1018-0094.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this proposed rulemaking in accordance with the 
criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act and 318 DM 2.2(g) and 
6.3(D). We have determined that Environmental Assessments and 
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in 
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Act. A notice outlining our reasons for this determination was 
published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Section 7 Consultation

    We do not need to complete a section 7 consultation on this 
proposed rulemaking. An intra-Service consultation is completed prior 
to the implementation of recovery or permitting actions for listed 
species; however, the acts of listing, delisting, or reclassifying 
species under the ESA are not subject to the requirements of section 7 
of the ESA.

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit 
data, comments, or suggestions from the public, other concerned 
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested party concerning the actions contained in this proposal. Our 
practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of 
respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. 
Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address 
from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable 
by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold from the rulemaking 
record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us 
to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this request 
prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not 
consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from 
organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their 
entirety (see

[[Page 43491]]

ADDRESSES section). Comments particularly are sought concerning:
    (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threat, or lack thereof, to gray wolves in the 48 conterminous 
States and Mexico;
    (2) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, 
population size, and population trends of gray wolves in the 
conterminous 48 States and Mexico;
    (3) Information concerning the adequacy of the reclassification and 
recovery criteria described in the 1992 Recovery Plan for the Eastern 
Timber Wolf, the 1987 Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan, and 
the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan;
    (4) The extent of State and Tribal protection and management that 
would be provided to the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes area as 
either a threatened or a delisted species;
    (5) Information concerning the potential for recovery of gray 
wolves in the northeastern United States, and the potential involvement 
of the Service in such recovery activities;
    (6) Information concerning approaches to controlling wolf 
depredation on domestic animals and significant impacts to wild 
ungulate populations in States where the wolf may be reclassified to a 
threatened species, including the use of section 4(d) special 
regulations to allow lethal depredation control and additional 
opportunities for harassment of wolves by livestock producers;
    (7) Comments and information regarding the merits of alternatives 
described in this proposal that were not selected, including the 
alternative of removing the two existing nonessential experimental 
population designations for the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains; and
    (8) Information concerning other alternative approaches to changing 
the listing status of the gray wolf to reflect recovery progress and 
recovery needs, including alternatives not discussed in this proposal.
    (9) Appropriateness of authorizing take in the Northeastern DPS in 
accordance with an approved State or Tribal Conservation Plan.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposal is 
available upon request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 
Office at Ft. Snelling, Minnesota (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
section).

Author

    The primary author of this notice is Ronald L. Refsnider, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota Regional Office (see 
ADDRESSES section). Substantial contributions were also made by Service 
employees Michael Amaral (Concord, New Hampshire), Ed Bangs (Helena, 
Montana), John Fay (Arlington, Virginia), Scott Johnston (Washington, 
D.C.), Paul Nickerson (Hadley, Massachusetts), and David Parsons 
(Albuquerque, New Mexico).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
record keeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulation, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by removing the first two entries 
for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) under MAMMALS in the list of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and adding in their place the following three 
entries, while retaining the current final two entries for the gray 
wolf, which designate nonessential experimental populations in Wyoming, 
Idaho, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Species                                          Vertebrate population
--------------------------------------------------   Historic range    where  endangered or     Status     When  listed      Critical      Special rules
          Common name            Scientific name                            threatened                                        habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                 *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *                   *
Mammals
 
                 *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *                   *
Wolf, gray....................  Canis lupus......  Holarctic........  U.S.A. (AZ south of    E            1, 6, 13, 15,   NA              NA.
                                                                       the Colorado and                    35, 631,____
                                                                       Little Colorado
                                                                       Rivers between
                                                                       Hoover Dam and
                                                                       Winslow and south of
                                                                       Interstate Highway
                                                                       40 between Winslow
                                                                       and the eastern
                                                                       State boundary, NM
                                                                       south of Interstate
                                                                       Highway 40, TX south
                                                                       of Interstate
                                                                       Highway 40 and west
                                                                       of Interstate
                                                                       Highway 35), Mexico,
                                                                       except where listed
                                                                       as an experimental
                                                                       population; captive
                                                                       wolves who were, or
                                                                       whose ancestors
                                                                       were, removed from
                                                                       the wild in this
                                                                       area.
Do............................  do...............  do...............  U.S.A. (MI, MN, ND,    T            1, 6, 13, 15,   17.95(a)        17.40(d),
                                                                       SD, WI); captive                    35,____                         17.40(n).
                                                                       wolves who were, or
                                                                       whose ancestors
                                                                       were, removed from
                                                                       the wild in this
                                                                       area.
Do............................  do...............  do...............  U.S.A. (ME, NH, NY,    T            1, 6, 13, 15,   NA              17.40(m).
                                                                       VT); captive wolves                 35,____
                                                                       who were, or whose
                                                                       ancestors were,
                                                                       removed from the
                                                                       wild in this area.

[[Page 43492]]

 
Do............................  do...............  do...............  U.S.A. (CO, ID, MT,    T            1, 6, 13, 15,   NA              17.40(l).
                                                                       OR, UT, WA, WY, AZ                  35, 561,
                                                                       north of the                        562,____
                                                                       Colorado and Little
                                                                       Colorado Rivers
                                                                       between Hoover Dam
                                                                       and Winslow and
                                                                       north of Interstate
                                                                       Highway 40 between
                                                                       Winslow and the
                                                                       eastern State
                                                                       boundary, and NM
                                                                       north of Interstate
                                                                       Highway 40), except
                                                                       where listed as an
                                                                       experimental
                                                                       population; captive
                                                                       wolves who were, or
                                                                       whose ancestors
                                                                       were, removed from
                                                                       the wild in this
                                                                       area.
 
                 *                  *                   *                   *                  *                   *                   *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Service amends Sec. 17.40 by adding new paragraphs (m), (n), 
and (o) to read as follows:


Sec. 17.40  Special rules--mammals

* * * * *
    (m) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Western Distinct Population Segment 
(DPS). The gray wolf Western DPS occurs in the States of Washington, 
Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and the parts of 
Arizona and New Mexico north of the Colorado River and the Little 
Colorado River between Hoover Dam and Winslow (Arizona) and north of 
Interstate Highway 40 between Winslow and the eastern boundary of New 
Mexico, except where listed as an experimental population.
    (1) Does this Special rule apply to the experimental populations 
located in the Western DPS? No. Paragraphs (m)(2) through (6) of this 
section apply to gray wolves within the Western Gray Wolf Distinct 
Population Segment, but excludes those wolves occurring in areas that 
are designated as experimental populations in Idaho, Montana, and 
Wyoming under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended.
    (2) What are the definitions of terms used in this paragraph (m)?
    (i) Active den site. A den or a specific aboveground site that is 
being used on a daily basis by wolves to raise newborn pups during the 
period April 1 to June 30.
    (ii) Breeding pair. An adult male and an adult female wolf that, 
during the previous breeding season, have produced at least two pups 
that survived until December 31 of the year of their birth.
    (iii) Domestic animals. Animals that have been tamed for use by 
humans, including use as pets.
    (iv) Livestock. Cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as otherwise 
defined in State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the 
Service.
    (v) Noninjurious. Does not cause either temporary or permanent 
physical damage or death.
    (vi) Opportunistic harassment. Harassment without the conduct of 
prior purposeful actions to attract, track, wait for, or search out the 
wolf.
    (vii) Problem wolves. Wolves that attack livestock, or wolves that 
twice in a calendar year attack domestic animals other than livestock.
    (viii) Public land. Federal land and any other public land 
designated in State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the 
Service.
    (ix) Remove. Place in captivity or kill.
    (x) Service (we). The Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department 
of the Interior.
    (xi) Take (taking). To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, 
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such 
conduct.
    (xii) Wounded. Torn flesh and bleeding or evidence of physical 
damage caused by a wolf bite.
    (3) What forms of take of gray wolves are allowed in the Western 
DPS? The following activities, in certain circumstances as described 
below, are allowed: Opportunistic harassment; intentional harassment; 
taking on private land; taking on public land; taking in response to 
impacts on wild ungulates; taking in defense of human life; taking to 
protect human safety; taking to remove problem wolves; incidental take; 
taking under permits; and taking authorizations for agency employees. 
Other than as expressly allowed in the rule, all the prohibitions of 50 
CFR 17.31(a) and (b) apply to gray wolves in this DPS, and all other 
activities are considered a violation of section 9 of the Act. Any 
wolf, or wolf part, taken legally must be turned over to the Service. 
Any taking of wolves must be reported to the Service as outlined in 
paragraph (m)(6) of this section.
    (i) Opportunistic harassment. Landowners on their own land and 
livestock producers or permittees who are legally using public land 
under valid livestock grazing allotments may conduct opportunistic 
harassment of any gray wolf in a noninjurious manner at any time. 
Opportunistic harassment must be reported to us within 7 days.
    (ii) Intentional harassment. After we or our designated agent have 
confirmed persistent wolf activity on privately owned land, we may, 
pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, issue a 90-day permit, with 
appropriate conditions, to any landowner to harass wolves in a 
potentially injurious manner (such as by projectiles designed to be 
nonlethal to larger mammals). The harassment must occur as specifically 
identified in the Service permit.
    (iii) Taking on private land. We allow landowners to take wolves on 
privately owned land in two circumstances:
    (A) Any landowner may take a gray wolf that is in the act of 
biting, wounding, or killing any domestic animal, provided that the 
domestic animal(s) freshly (less than 24 hours) wounded or killed by 
wolves are evident, and we or our designated agent are able to confirm 
that the domestic animal(s) were wounded or killed by wolves. The 
taking of any wolf without such evidence may be referred to the 
appropriate authorities for prosecution.
    (B) A private landowner who has a permit issued by the Service 
pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act may take a gray wolf on 
their private land if:
    (1) Ten or more breeding pairs of gray wolves are present in that 
State where the permit is to be used, and
    (2) We or our designated agent have determined that wolves are 
routinely present on that private property and

[[Page 43493]]

present a significant risk to the health and safety of domestic 
animals. The landowner must conduct the take in compliance with the 
permit issued by the Service.
    (iv) Take on public land. Under the authority of section 
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, we may issue permits to take gray wolves under 
certain circumstances to livestock producers or permittees who are 
legally using public land under valid livestock grazing allotments. The 
permits, which may be valid for up to 45 days, can allow the take of a 
gray wolf that is in the act of killing, wounding, or biting livestock, 
livestock guard and herding animals, or other domestic animals, 
provided that we or our designated agent have confirmed that wolves 
have previously wounded or killed livestock and agency efforts to 
resolve the problem have been completed. We or our designated agent 
will investigate and determine if the previously wounded or killed 
livestock were wounded or killed by wolves. There must be evidence of 
livestock freshly wounded or killed by wolves. The taking of any wolf 
without such evidence may be referred to the appropriate authorities 
for prosecution.
    (v) Take in response to wild ungulate impacts. If wolves are 
causing unacceptable impacts to wild ungulate populations, a State or 
Tribe may capture and translocate wolves to other areas within the 
Western DPS. In their State or Tribal wolf management plans, the States 
or Tribes will define such unacceptable impacts, describe how they will 
be measured, and identify possible mitigation measures. Before wolves 
can be captured and translocated, we must approve these plans and 
determine that such translocations will not inhibit wolf population 
growth toward recovery levels. In addition, if, after 10 or more 
breeding pairs are established in a State, we determine that wolves are 
causing unacceptable impacts to wild ungulate populations, we may, in 
cooperation with the appropriate State fish and game agencies or 
Tribes, relocate wolves to other States within the Western DPS.
    (vi) Take in defense of human life. Any person may take a gray wolf 
in defense of the individual's life or the life of another person. The 
taking of a wolf without an immediate and direct threat to human life 
may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
    (vii) Take to protect human safety. We or a Federal land management 
agency or a State or Tribal conservation agency may promptly remove any 
wolf that we or our designated agent determines to present a threat to 
human life or safety.
    (viii) Take of problem wolves. We or our designated agent may carry 
out aversive conditioning, nonlethal control, translocation, permanent 
placement in captivity, or lethal control of problem wolves. If 
nonlethal depredation control activities occurring on Federal lands or 
other public lands identified in State or Tribal wolf management plans 
result in the capture, prior to October 1, of a female wolf showing 
signs that she is still raising pups of the year (e.g., evidence of 
lactation, recent sightings with pups), whether or not she is captured 
with her pups, then she and her pups will be released at or near the 
site of capture. All problem wolves on private land, including female 
wolves with pups, may be removed if continued depredation occurs. All 
chronic problem wolves (wolves that repeatedly depredate on domestic 
animals including female wolves with pups regardless of whether on 
public or private lands) will be removed from the wild (killed or 
placed in captivity). To determine the status of problem wolves, we 
must have the following:
    (A) Evidence of wounded livestock or remains of a livestock carcass 
that clearly shows that the injury or death was caused by wolves (such 
evidence is essential because wolves feed on carrion that they find and 
did not kill);
    (B) Reason to believe that additional livestock losses would occur 
if no control action is taken;
    (C) No evidence of attractants or artificial or intentional feeding 
of wolves; and
    (D) Evidence that, on public lands, animal husbandry practices 
previously identified in existing approved allotment plans and annual 
operating plans for allotments were followed.
    (ix) Incidental take. We will allow certain incidental take of gray 
wolves in the Western DPS if the take was accidental and incidental to 
an otherwise lawful activity. Take that does not conform with the 
provisions above may be referred to the appropriate authorities for 
prosecution. Shooters have the responsibility to identify their target 
before shooting. Shooting a wolf as a result of mistaking it for 
another species is not considered accidental and may be referred to the 
appropriate authorities for prosecution.
    (x) Take under permits. Any person with a valid permit issued by 
the Service under 50 CFR 17.32 may take wolves in the wild in the 
Western DPS, pursuant to terms of the permit.
    (xi) Additional taking authorizations for agency employees. When 
acting in the course of official duties, any employee or agent of the 
Service or appropriate Federal, State, or Tribal agency, who is 
designated in writing for such purposes by the Service, may take a wolf 
if such action is for:
    (A) Scientific purposes;
    (B) To avoid conflict with human activities;
    (C) To improve wolf survival and recovery prospects;
    (D) To aid or euthanize sick, injured, or orphaned wolves;
    (E) To salvage a dead specimen that may be used for scientific 
study;
    (F) To aid in law enforcement investigations involving wolves; or
    (G) To prevent wolves with abnormal physical or behavioral 
characteristics, as determined by the Service, from passing on those 
traits to other wolves.
    Any additional taking authorizations for agency employees 
identified in this subparagraph must reported to us within 15 calendar 
days.
    (4) What types of take of gray wolves are not allowed in the 
Western DPS?
    (i) Any manner of take not described under paragraph (m) (3) of 
this section.
    (ii) No person may possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship, 
import, or export by any means whatsoever, any wolf or wolf part from 
the State of origin taken in violation of the regulations in this 
paragraph (m) or in violation of applicable State or Tribal fish and 
wildlife laws or regulations or the Act.
    (iii) In addition to the offenses defined in this paragraph (m), we 
consider any attempts to commit, solicitations of another to commit, or 
actions that cause to be committed any such offenses to be unlawful.
    (iv) Use of unlawfully taken wolves. No person, except for an 
authorized person, may possess, deliver, carry, transport, or ship a 
gray wolf taken unlawfully in the Western DPS.
    (5) How does the gray wolf Western DPS affect use of Federal lands. 
Restrictions on the use of any Federal lands within the Western DPS may 
be put in place to prevent the direct take of wolves at active den 
sites between April 1 and June 30. Otherwise, no additional land-use 
restrictions on Federal lands, except for national parks or national 
wildlife refuges, may be employed to reduce or prevent take of wolves 
solely to benefit gray wolf recovery under the Act. This prohibition 
does not preclude restricting land use when necessary to reduce 
negative impacts of wolf restoration efforts on other endangered or 
threatened species.
    (6) What are the reporting requirements when a gray wolf is taken? 
Except when otherwise indicated in this paragraph (m), or when a permit 
issued under 50 CFR 17.32 specifies otherwise, any taking must be 
reported to us within

[[Page 43494]]

24 hours. We will allow additional reasonable time if access is 
limited. Report wolf takings or opportunistic harassment to Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, 100 N. Park, 
#320, Helena, MT 59601; 406-449-5225; facsimile 406-449-5339, or a 
Service-designated representative of another Federal, State, or Tribal 
agency. Any wolf, or wolf part taken legally, must be turned over to 
the Service which will determine the disposition of any live or dead 
wolves.
    (n) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Northeastern Distinct Population 
Segment (DPS). The gray wolf Northeastern DPS occurs in New York, 
Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.
    (1) What are the definitions of terms used in paragraph (n)?
    (i) Domestic animals. Animals that have been tamed for use by 
humans, including use as pets.
    (ii) Livestock. Cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as otherwise 
defined in State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the 
Service.
    (iii) Service (we). The Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department 
of the Interior.
    (iv) Take (taking). To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, 
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such 
conduct.
    (2) What forms of take of gray wolf are allowed in the Northeastern 
DPS? The following activities, in certain circumstances as described 
below, are allowed: take in defense of human life, take to protect 
human safety, take under permits, take for conservation purposes, and 
incidental take. Other than as expressly allowed in this rule, all the 
prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31(a) apply to gray wolves in this DPS, and 
all other activities are considered a violation of section 9 of the 
Act. Any wolf, or wolf part, taken legally must be turned over to the 
Service. Any taking of wolves must be reported to the Service as 
outlined in paragraph (n)(6) of this section.
    (i) Take in defense of human life. Any person may take a gray wolf 
in defense of the individual's life or the life of another person. The 
taking of a wolf without an immediate and direct threat to human life 
may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
    (ii) Take to protect human safety. We or a Federal land management 
agency or a State or Tribal conservation agency may promptly remove any 
wolf that we or our designated agent determines to present a threat to 
human life or safety.
    (iii) Take under permits. Any person with a valid permit issued by 
the Service under 50 CFR section 17.32 may take wolves in the wild in 
the Northeastern DPS, pursuant to terms of the permit.
    (iv) Take for conservation purposes.
    (A) When acting in the course of official duties, any authorized 
Service employee or agent, as described in Sec. 17.31(b), or State 
conservation agency who is designated by his/her agency for such 
purposes under a Cooperative Agreement under section 6 of the Act, may 
take a gray wolf in his/her respective State to carry out scientific 
research or conservation programs.
    (B) Federally recognized Tribes or States that have an approved 
gray wolf conservation plan as described below in paragraph (n)(3) of 
this section may take gray wolf in accordance with that plan.
    (v) Incidental Take. Take that is incidental to an otherwise lawful 
activity included in an approved State or Tribal gray wolf conservation 
plan in accordance with (n)(3) of this section is not unlawful.
    (3) What are the elements that may comprise an approved State or 
Tribal gray wolf conservation plan? We will review these plans, make 
them available for public comment, and approve them if the plans 
promote the conservation of the gray wolf. Elements that may be 
included in the conservation plan are listed below.
    (i) A discussion of the status of the wolf in the State or on 
Tribal lands, including population estimates, habitat quantity and 
quality, and threats to its existence.
    (ii) A discussion of existing or planned conservation measures to 
promote wolf recovery.
    (iii) A discussion of the lawful activities having the potential to 
incidentally take wolves.
    (iv) A discussion of potential impacts to gray wolves from these 
activities and existing or planned provisions to monitor, minimize, and 
mitigate those effects.
    (v) Provisions for identifying and correcting any situations that 
are likely to be causing incidental take and monitoring the effects of 
such corrective actions.
    (vi) A discussion of measures that may be needed to reduce 
conflicts with domestic animals and significant effects to wild 
ungulate populations.
    (vii) Conservation plans that include provisions for lethal control 
of wolves depredating on livestock or domestic animals will not include 
provisions for euthanizing wolf pups less than 6 months of age.
    (viii) A conservation plan may contain provisions for control 
activities to include capturing, relocating, or euthanizing wolves that 
threaten ungulate populations of management concern if the control 
activities:
    (A) Do not begin until at least 5 years after wolf reintroduction 
is completed;
    (B) Occur only after the State or Tribal natural resources agency 
has informed the Service of the need for such activities and the extent 
of control that will be implemented; and
    (C) Will not reduce any wolf pack by more than 30 percent and more 
frequently than every 3 years.
    (ix) A conservation plan may contain provisions for capture and 
lethal control of diseased wolves (e.g., carriers of rabies or canine 
parvovirus) determined to be a potential threat to other wolves, 
domestic animals, or humans.
    (4) What are the criteria that will be used to evaluate the 
conservation plans?
    (i) Any incidental taking of gray wolves, as described in the plan, 
occurs unintentionally while conducting an otherwise lawful activity. 
The purpose of the activity cannot be to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect wolves from the wild. The 
plan explains why alternatives that would not result in incidental take 
are not being used.
    (ii) The plan includes a strategy to avoid, minimize, and mitigate 
any proposed incidental take. Compliance with this standard involves a 
planning strategy that emphasizes avoidance of impacts to gray wolves 
and provides measures to minimize potential impacts by modifying 
practices.
    (iii) The plan is adequately funded and contains provisions to deal 
with unforeseen circumstances. A summary of the funding that will be 
available to implement provisions of the plan, including enforcement 
and monitoring, is provided. The plan outlines how it will be 
determined that a previously unforeseen problem has arisen and should 
include the specific steps that will be taken to correct that problem.
    (iv) Any incidental taking allowed pursuant to the plan does not 
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of wolves in 
the wild. This criterion is equivalent to the regulatory requirement to 
avoid causing ``jeopardy'' under section 7(a)(2) of the Act (i.e., to 
avoid engaging in any activity that reasonably would be expected, 
directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both 
the survival and recovery of the gray wolf). In the case of incidental 
trapping of wolves, the plan includes an assessment of the potential 
for gray wolves to be incidentally caught by trappers targeting other 
species, the likelihood of mortality to a wolf that is trapped and 
released (including the potential for it to be trapped more than

[[Page 43495]]

once), and the resulting impact to the wolf population.
    (v) We are assured that the plan will be implemented. The plan 
specifies how the State or Tribal governments will exercise the 
existing authorities to adhere to the commitments made in the plan. 
Terms and conditions for implementation and monitoring of the plan are 
included to ensure that the plan's requirements and the requirements of 
the Act are met. Any violations could be a basis for revocation of our 
approval of the plan.
    (vi) We are assured that States and Tribes have involved 
stakeholders in plan development (e.g., timber companies or 
associations, trappers associations, recreational interests, 
conservation organizations).
    (5) How will the conservation plans be reviewed? We will annually 
review the conservation plans with the States and Tribes to measure 
progress, identify problems, and recommend corrective action. If we 
determine that a plan is not being effectively implemented, we will 
present our concerns to the State or Tribe for joint determination of 
an appropriate resolution. If the State or Tribe does not take the 
agreed-upon corrective action within 90 days, we may partially or 
completely revoke approval of the plan. We will publish notice of our 
decision to revoke our approval and our reasons for doing so in the 
Federal Register, providing a 30-day public comment period prior to 
revocation. If we decide to revoke our approval, the take prohibitions 
that had been removed through approval of the conservation plan will be 
reinstated.
    (6) What types of take of gray wolves are not allowed in the 
Northeastern DPS?
    (i) Any manner of take not described under paragraph (n)(2) of this 
section.
    (ii) Export and commercial transactions. Except as may be 
authorized by a permit issued under 50 CFR 17.32, no person may 
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or export by 
any means whatsoever, any wolf or wolf part from the State of origin 
taken in violation of the regulations in this paragraph (n) or in 
violation of applicable State or Tribal fish and wildlife laws or 
regulations or the Act.
    (iii) In addition to the offenses defined in this paragraph (n), we 
consider any attempts to commit, solicitations of another to commit, or 
actions that cause to be committed any such offenses to be unlawful.
    (iv) Use of unlawfully taken wolves. No person, except for an 
authorized person, may possess, deliver, carry, transport, or ship a 
gray wolf taken unlawfully in the Northeastern DPS.
    (7) What are the reporting requirements when a gray wolf is taken? 
Except when otherwise indicated in this paragraph (n), or when a permit 
issued under 50 CFR 17.32 specifies otherwise, any taking must be 
reported to us within 24 hours. We will allow additional reasonable 
time if access is limited. Report wolf takings to Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Chief, Endangered Species, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, 
MA; 413-253-8657. Any wolf or wolf part taken legally, must be turned 
over to the Service which will determine the disposition of any live or 
dead wolves.
    (o) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) in Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, 
and South Dakota.
    (1) What are the definitions of terms used in paragraph (o)?
    (i) Domestic animals. Animals that have been tamed for use by 
humans, including use as pets.
    (ii) Livestock. Cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as otherwise 
defined in State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the 
Service.
    (iii) Service (we). The Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department 
of the Interior.
    (iv) Take (taking). To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, 
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such 
conduct.
    (2) What forms of take of gray wolves are allowed in Michigan, 
Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota? The following activities, in 
certain circumstances as described below, are allowed: Take in defense 
of human life; take to protect human safety; take to aid, salvage, or 
dispose; take for depredation control; take under cooperative 
agreements; and take under permit. Other than as expressly allowed in 
this rule, all the prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31(a) apply to gray wolves 
in this DPS, and all other activities are considered a violation of 
section 9 of the Act. Any wolf, or wolf part, taken legally must be 
turned over to the Service. Any taking of wolves must be reported to 
the Service as outlined in paragraph (o)(4) of this section.
    (i) Take in defense of human life. Any person may take a gray wolf 
in defense of the individual's life or the life of another person. The 
taking of a wolf without an immediate and direct threat to human life 
may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
    (ii) Take to protect human safety. We or a Federal land management 
agency or a State or Tribal conservation agency may promptly remove any 
wolf that we or our designated agent determines to present a threat to 
human life or safety.
    (iii) Allowable take for Aiding, Salvaging, or Disposing of 
Specimens. When acting in the course of official duties, any authorized 
employee or agent of the Service; any other Federal land management 
agency; the Michigan Department of Natural Resources; the Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources; the North Dakota Game and Fish 
Department; the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department; or a 
federally recognized American Indian Tribe, who is designated by his/
her agency for such purposes, may take a gray wolf in Michigan, 
Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota without a Federal permit if 
such action is necessary to:
    (A) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned specimen;
    (B) Dispose of a dead specimen; or
    (C) Salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for scientific study 
or for traditional, cultural, or spiritual purposes by Indian Tribes. 
Any taking to aid, salvage, or dispose of a specimen must reported to a 
Law Enforcement Office of the Service within 15 calendar days. The 
specimen may be retained, disposed of, or salvaged only in accordance 
with directions from the Service.
    (iv) Allowable take for Depredation Control. When acting in the 
course of official duties, any authorized employee or agent of the 
Service; the Michigan Department of Natural Resources; the Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources; the North Dakota Game and Fish 
Department; the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department; or a 
federally recognized American Indian Tribe, who is designated by his/
her agency for such purposes, may take a gray wolf or wolves within the 
person's State or Reservation boundaries, in response to depredation by 
a gray wolf on lawfully present livestock or domestic animals. However, 
such taking must be preceded by a determination by one of the agencies 
listed above in this subparagraph that the depredation was likely to 
have been caused by a gray wolf and depredation at the site is likely 
to continue in the absence of a taking. In addition, such taking must 
be performed in a humane manner and occur within 1 mile of the place 
where the depredation occurred if in Michigan or Wisconsin and within 4 
miles of the place where the depredation occurred if in North Dakota or 
South Dakota. Any young of the year taken by trapping on or before 
August 1 of that year must be released. Any take for depredation 
control must reported to a Law Enforcement Office of the Service within 
15 calendar days. The specimen may be retained, disposed of, or 
salvaged only in accordance with directions from the Service.

[[Page 43496]]

    (v) Take Under Section 6 Cooperative Agreements. When acting in the 
course of official duties, any authorized employee or agent of the 
Michigan Department of Natural Resources; the Wisconsin Department of 
Natural Resources; the North Dakota Game and Fish Department; or the 
South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department, as described in section 
17.31(b), who is designated by his/her agency for such purposes under a 
Cooperative Agreement under section 6 of the Act, may take a gray wolf 
in his/her respective State to carry out scientific research or 
conservation programs. Such takings must be reported to the Service as 
specified in the reporting provisions of the Cooperative Agreement.
    (vi) Take under permit. Any person who has a permit under section 
50 CFR 17.32 of this subpart may carry out activities as specified by 
the permit with regard to gray wolves in Michigan, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, and Wisconsin.
    (3) What types of take are not allowed for gray wolves in Michigan, 
Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota?
    (i) Any form of taking not described in paragraph (o)(2) of this 
section is prohibited.
    (ii) Export and commercial transactions. Except as may be 
authorized by a permit issued under section 17.32 of this subpart, no 
person may sell or offer for sale in interstate commerce, import or 
export, or in the course of a commercial activity transport or receive 
any gray wolves from Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, or 
Wisconsin.
    (iii) In addition to the offenses defined in this paragraph (o), we 
consider any attempts to commit, solicitations of another to commit, or 
actions that cause to be committed any such offenses to be unlawful.
    (iv) Use of unlawfully taken wolves. No person, except for an 
authorized person, may possess, deliver, carry, transport, or ship a 
gray wolf taken unlawfully in Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, or 
Wisconsin.
    (4) What are the reporting requirements for gray wolf takings? 
Except when otherwise indicated in this paragraph (o), or when a permit 
issued under 50 CFR 17.32 specifies otherwise, any taking must be 
reported to us within 24 hours. Any wolf, or wolf part taken legally, 
must be turned over to the Service which will determine the disposition 
of any live or dead wolves.

    Dated: June 9, 2000.
Stephen C. Saunders,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 00-17621 Filed 7-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P