[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 62 (Thursday, April 2, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15070-15123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5981]
[[Page 15069]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Identify
the Western Great Lakes Populations of Gray Wolves as a Distinct
Population Segment; Final Rule To Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain
Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment; and To Revise
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Final Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 15070]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R3-ES-2008-0120; 92220-1113-000; ABC Code: C6]
RIN 1018-AW41
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To
Identify the Western Great Lakes Populations of Gray Wolves as a
Distinct Population Segment and To Revise the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS)
identify the Western Great Lakes (WGL) Distinct Population Segment
(DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis lupus). The geographic extent of this DPS
includes all of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; the eastern half of
North Dakota and South Dakota; the northern half of Iowa; the northern
portions of Illinois and Indiana; and the northwestern portion of Ohio.
We also revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
established under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)
by removing gray wolves within the WGL DPS. We are taking these actions
because available data indicate that this DPS no longer meets the
definitions of threatened or endangered under the Act. The threats have
been reduced or eliminated, as evidenced by a population that is stable
or increasing in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and greatly
exceeds the numerical recovery criteria established in its recovery
plan. Completed State wolf management plans will provide adequate
protection and management of the WGL DPS after this revision of the
listing. This final rule removes this DPS from the lists of Threatened
and Endangered Wildlife, removes the currently designated critical
habitat for the gray wolf in Minnesota and Michigan, and removes the
current special regulations for gray wolves in Minnesota.
On April 16, 2007, three parties filed a lawsuit against the U.S.
Department of the Interior (Department) and the Service, challenging
the Service's February 8, 2007 (72 FR 6052), identification and
delisting of the WGL DPS. On September 29, 2008, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the plaintiffs
(Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, No. 1:07-CV-00677
(D.D.C.). In that ruling the court vacated and remanded the Service's
application of the February 8, 2007 (72 FR 6052), final delisting rule
for the WGL DPS of the gray wolf. On remand, the Service was directed
to provide an explanation as to how simultaneously identifying and
delisting a DPS is consistent with the Act's text, structure, policy
objectives, legislative history, and any relevant judicial
interpretations. This final rule addresses the September 29, 2008,
court ruling.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on May 4, 2009.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours at our Midwest Regional
Office: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, 1 Federal
Drive, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056. Call 612-713-5350 to make
arrangements. The comments and materials we received during the comment
period on the proposed rule also are available for public inspection
and by appointment during normal business hours at this Regional Office
and at our Ecological Services Field Offices in Bloomington, Minnesota
(612-725-3548); New Frankin, Wisconsin (920-866-1717); and East
Lansing, Michigan (517-351-2555). Call those offices to make
arrangements.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Ragan, 612-713-5350. Direct all
questions or requests for additional information to: GRAY WOLF
QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, 1 Federal
Drive, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056. Additional information is
also available on our World Wide Web site at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired
may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY
assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves
For a discussion of the biology and ecology of gray wolves and
general recovery planning efforts, see the proposed WGL wolf rule
published on March 27, 2006, (71 FR 15266-15305) and available on our
World Wide Web site.
Recovery Criteria
The 1978 Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (Recovery Plan)
and the 1992 revised Recovery Plan (Revised Plan) contain the same two
delisting criteria. The first delisting criterion states that the
survival of the wolf in Minnesota must be assured. We, and the Eastern
Timber Wolf Recovery Team (Peterson in litt. 1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b),
have concluded that this first delisting criterion remains valid. It
addresses a need for reasonable assurances that future State, Tribal,
and Federal wolf management and protection will maintain a viable
recovered population of gray wolves within the borders of Minnesota for
the foreseeable future.
Although the Recovery Plan's recovery criteria predate the
scientific field of conservation biology, the conservation principles
of representation (conserving the genetic diversity of a taxon),
resilience (the ability to withstand demographic and environmental
variation), and redundancy (sufficient populations to provide a margin
of safety) were incorporated into these criteria. Maintenance of the
Minnesota wolf population is vital because the remaining genetic
diversity of gray wolves in the eastern United States was carried by
the several hundred wolves that survived in the State into the early
1970s. The Recovery Team insisted that the remnant Minnesota wolf
population be maintained and protected to achieve wolf recovery in the
eastern United States. The successful growth of that remnant population
has maintained and maximized the representation of that genetic
diversity among gray wolves in the WGL DPS. Furthermore, the Recovery
Plan established a planning goal of 1,250-1,400 animals for the
Minnesota wolf population (USFWS 1992, p. 28), which would increase the
likelihood of maintaining its genetic diversity over the long term.
This large Minnesota wolf population also provides resiliency to reduce
the adverse impacts of unpredictable demographic and environmental
events. Furthermore, the Recovery Plan specifies a wolf population that
is spread across about 40 percent of the State (Zones 1 through 4)
(USFWS 1992, p. 28), adding a geographic component to the resiliency of
the Minnesota wolf population.
The second delisting criterion in the Recovery Plan states that at
least one viable wolf population should be reestablished within the
historical range of the eastern timber wolf outside of Minnesota and
Isle Royale, Michigan. The second population enhances both the
resiliency and redundancy of the recovery program. The Recovery Plan
provides two options for reestablishing this second population. If it
is an isolated population, that is, located
[[Page 15071]]
more than 100 miles (160 km) from the Minnesota wolf population, the
second population should consist of at least 200 wolves for at least 5
years (based upon late-winter population estimates) to be considered
viable. Alternatively, if the second population is located within 100
miles (160 km) of a self-sustaining wolf population (for example, the
Minnesota wolf population), it would be considered viable if it
maintained a minimum of 100 wolves for at least 5 years. Such a nearby
second population would be viable at a smaller size, because it would
exchange wolves with the Minnesota population (that is, they would
function as a metapopulation), thereby bolstering the smaller second
population genetically and numerically.
The Recovery Plan does not specify where in the eastern United
States the second population should be reestablished. Therefore, the
second population could be located anywhere within the triangular
Minnesota-Maine-Florida area covered by the 1978 Recovery Plan and the
1992 Revised Recovery Plan, except on Isle Royale (Michigan) or within
Minnesota. The 1992 Revised Recovery Plan retained potential gray wolf
re-establishment areas in northern Wisconsin, the upper peninsula (UP)
of Michigan, the Adirondack Forest Preserve of New York, a small area
in eastern Maine, and a larger area of northwestern Maine and adjacent
northern New Hampshire (USFWS 1992, pp. 56-58). Neither the 1978 nor
the 1992 recovery criteria suggest that the restoration of the gray
wolf throughout all or most of its historical range in the eastern
United States, or to all of these potential re-establishment areas, is
necessary to achieve recovery under the Act.
In 1998, the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team clarified the
application of the delisting criterion for the second population to the
wolf population that had developed in northern Wisconsin and the
adjacent UP. The Recovery Team recommended that the numerical delisting
criterion for the Wisconsin-Michigan population will be achieved when 6
consecutive late-winter wolf surveys document that the population
equals or exceeds 100 wolves (excluding Isle Royale wolves) for the 5
consecutive years between the 6 surveys (Peterson in litt. 1998). This
second population is less than 200 miles from the Minnesota wolf
population.
Recovery of the Gray Wolf in the Western Great Lakes Area
Minnesota Recovery
During the pre-1965 period of wolf bounties and legal public
trapping, wolves persisted in the remote northeastern portion of
Minnesota, but were eliminated from the rest of the State. Estimated
numbers of Minnesota wolves before their listing under the Act in 1974
include 450 to 700 in 1950-53 (Fuller et al. 1992, p. 43, based on data
in Stenlund 1955, p. 19), 350 to 700 in 1963 (Cahalane 1964, p. 10),
750 in 1970 (Leirfallom 1970, p. 11), 736 to 950 in 1971-72 (Fuller et
al. 1992, p. 44), and 500 to 1,000 in 1973 (Mech and Rausch 1975, p
85). Although these estimates were based upon different methodologies
and are not directly comparable, each puts the pre-listing abundance of
wolves in Minnesota at 1,000 or less. This was the only significant
wolf population in the United States outside Alaska during those time-
periods.
After the wolf was listed as endangered under the Act, the
Minnesota population estimates increased (see Table 1 below). Mech
estimated the population to be 1,000 to 1,200 in 1976 (USFWS 1978, pp.
4, 50-52), and Berg and Kuehn (1982, p. 11) estimated that there were
1,235 wolves in 138 packs in the winter of 1978-79. In 1988-89, the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) repeated the 1978-79
survey and also used a second method to estimate wolf numbers in the
State. The resulting independent estimates were 1,500 and 1,750 wolves
in at least 233 packs; the lower number was derived by a method
comparable to the 1978-79 survey (Fuller et al. 1992, pp. 50-51).
During the winter of 1997-98, a statewide wolf population and
distribution survey was repeated by MN DNR, using methods similar to
those of the two previous surveys. Field staff of Federal, State,
Tribal, and county land management agencies and wood products companies
were queried to identify occupied wolf range in Minnesota. Data from 5
concurrent radio telemetry studies tracking 36 packs, representative of
the entire Minnesota wolf range, were used to determine average pack
size and territory area. Those figures were then used to calculate a
statewide estimate of wolf and pack numbers in the occupied range, with
single (non-pack) wolves factored into the estimate (Berg and Benson
1999, pp. 1-2).
Table 1--Gray Wolf Winter Populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (Excluding Isle Royale) From 1976
Through 2006
[Note that there are several years between the first three estimates]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI & MI
Year Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1976..................................................... 1,000-1,200 ........... ........... ...........
1978-79.................................................. 1,235 ........... ........... ...........
1988-89.................................................. 1,500-1,750 31 3 34
1989-90.................................................. .............. 34 10 44
1990-91.................................................. .............. 40 17 57
1991-92.................................................. .............. 45 21 66
1992-93.................................................. .............. 40 30 70
1993-94.................................................. .............. 57 57 114
1994-95.................................................. .............. 83 80 163
1995-96.................................................. .............. 99 116 215
1996-97.................................................. .............. 148 113 261
1997-98.................................................. 2,445 180 139 319
1998-99.................................................. .............. 205 169 374
1999-2000................................................ .............. 248 216 464
2000-01.................................................. .............. 257 249 506
2001-02.................................................. .............. 327 278 604
2002-03.................................................. .............. 335 321 656
2003-04.................................................. 3,020 373 360 733
2004-05.................................................. .............. *435 405 840
[[Page 15072]]
2005-06.................................................. .............. 465 434 899
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Previous estimate of 425 has been corrected, based on subsequent location of 5 packs missed during survey
period (Wydeven et al. 2006, pp. 9-10).
The 1997-98 survey concluded that approximately 2,445 wolves
existed in about 385 packs in Minnesota during that winter period (90
percent confidence interval from 1,995 to 2,905 wolves) (Berg and
Benson 1999, p. 4). This figure indicated the continued growth of the
Minnesota wolf population at an average rate of about 3.7 percent
annually from 1970 through 1997-98. Between 1979 and 1989 the annual
growth rate was about 3 percent, and it increased to between 4 and 5
percent in the next decade (Berg and Benson 1999, 5, Fuller et al.
1992, p. 51). As of the 1998 survey, the number of Minnesota wolves was
approximately twice the planning goal for Minnesota, as specified in
the Eastern Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, p. 28).
Minnesota DNR conducted another survey of the State's wolf
population and range during the winter of 2003-04, again using similar
methodology. That survey concluded that an estimated 3,020 wolves in
485 packs occurred in Minnesota at that time (90 percent confidence
interval for this estimate is 2,301 to 3,708 wolves). Due to the wide
overlap in the confidence intervals for the 1997-98 and 2003-04
surveys, the authors conclude that, although the population point
estimate increased by about 24 percent over the 6 years between the
surveys (about 3.5 percent annually), there was no statistically
significant change in the State's wolf population during that period
(Erb and Benson 2004, pp. 7 and 9).
As wolves increased in abundance in Minnesota, they also expanded
their distribution. During 1948-53, the major wolf range was estimated
to be about 11,954 sq mi (31,080 sq km) (Stenlund 1955, p. 19). A 1970
questionnaire survey resulted in an estimated wolf range of 14,769 sq
mi (38,400 sq km) (calculated by Fuller et al. 1992, p. 43, from
Leirfallom 1970). Fuller et al. (1992, p. 44), using data from Berg and
Kuehn (1982), estimated that Minnesota primary wolf range included
14,038 sq mi (36,500 sq km) during winter 1978-79. By 1982-83, pairs or
breeding packs of wolves were estimated to occupy an area of 22,000 sq
mi (57,050 sq km) in northern Minnesota (Mech et al. 1988, p. 86). That
study also identified an additional 15,577 sq mi (40,500 sq km) of
peripheral range, where habitat appeared suitable but no wolves or only
lone wolves existed. The 1988-89 study produced an estimate of 23,165
sq mi (60,200 sq km) as the contiguous wolf range at that time in
Minnesota (Fuller et al. 1992, pp. 48-49; Berg and Benson 1999, p. 3,
5), an increase of 65 percent over the primary range calculated for
1978-79. The 1997-98 study concluded that the contiguous wolf range had
expanded to 33,971 sq mi (88,325 sq km), a 47 percent increase in 9
years (Berg and Benson 1999, p. 5). By that time the Minnesota wolf
population was using most of the occupied and peripheral range
identified by Mech et al. (1988, p. 86). The wolf population in
Minnesota had recovered to the point that its contiguous range covered
approximately 40 percent of the State during 1997-98. In contrast, the
2003-04 survey failed to show a continuing expansion of wolf range in
Minnesota, and any actual increase in wolf numbers since 1997-98 was
attributed to increased wolf density within a stabilized range (Erb and
Benson 2004, p. 7).
Although Minnesota DNR does not conduct a formal wolf population
survey annually, it includes the species in its annual carnivore track
survey. This survey, standardized and operational since 1994, provides
an annual index of abundance for several species of large carnivores by
counting their tracks along 51 standardized survey routes in the
northern portion of Minnesota. Based on these surveys, the wolf track
indices for winter 2004-05 showed little change from the previous
winter, and no statistically significant trends are apparent since
1994. However, the data show some indication of an increase in wolf
density (Erb 2005, p. 2, 5). Thus, the winter track survey results are
consistent with a stable or slowly increasing wolf population in
northern Minnesota over this 11-year period.
Wisconsin Recovery
Wolves were considered to have been extirpated from Wisconsin by
1960. No formal attempts were made to monitor the State's wolf
population from 1960 until 1979. From 1960 through 1975, individual
wolves and an occasional wolf pair were reported. There is no
documentation, however, of any wolf reproduction occurring in
Wisconsin, and the wolves that were reported may have been dispersing
animals from Minnesota.
Wolves are believed to have returned to Wisconsin in more
substantial numbers around 1975, and the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WI DNR) began wolf population monitoring in 1979-80
and estimated a statewide population of 25 wolves at that time (Wydeven
and Wiedenhoeft 2000, pp. 151, 159). This population remained
relatively stable for several years, then declined slightly to
approximately 15 to 19 wolves in the mid-1980s. In the late 1980s, the
Wisconsin wolf population began an increase that has continued into
2006 (Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 35).
Wisconsin DNR intensively surveys its wolf population annually
using a combination of aerial, ground, and satellite radio telemetry,
complemented by snow tracking and wolf sign surveys (Wydeven et al.
2006, pp. 4-5). Wolves are trapped from May through September and
fitted with radio collars, with a goal of having at least one radio-
collared wolf in about half of the wolf packs in Wisconsin. Aerial
locations are obtained from each functioning radio-collar about once
per week, and pack territories are estimated and mapped from the
movements of the individuals who exhibit localized patterns. From
December through March, the pilots make special efforts to visually
locate and count the individual wolves in each radio-tracked pack. Snow
tracking is used to supplement the information gained from aerial
sightings and to provide pack size estimates for packs lacking a radio-
collared wolf. Tracking is done by assigning survey blocks to trained
trackers who then drive snow-covered roads in their blocks and follow
all wolf tracks they encounter. Snowmobiles are used to locate wolf
tracks in more remote areas with few roads. The results of the aerial
and
[[Page 15073]]
ground surveys are carefully compared to properly separate packs and to
avoid over-counting (Wydeven et al. 2006a, pp. 4-5). The number of
wolves in each pack is estimated based on the aerial and ground
observations made of the individual wolves in each pack over the
winter.
Because the monitoring methods focus on wolf packs, lone wolves are
likely undercounted in Wisconsin. As a result, the annual population
estimates are probably slight underestimates of the actual wolf
population within the State during the late-winter period. Fuller
(1989, p. 19) noted that lone wolves are estimated to compose from 2 to
29 percent of the total population in the area. Also, these estimates
are made at the low point of the annual wolf population cycle; the
late-winter surveys produce an estimate of the wolf population at a
time when most winter mortality has already occurred and before the
birth of pups. Thus, Wisconsin wolf population estimates are
conservative in two respects: They undercount lone wolves and the count
is made at the annual low point of the population. This methodology is
consistent with the recovery criteria established in the 1992 Recovery
Plan, which established numerical criteria to be measured with data
obtained by late-winter surveys.
From mid-September 2005 through mid-April 2006, 43 radio collars
were active on Wisconsin wolves, including 38 packs. An estimated 465
to 502 wolves in 115 packs, including 16 to 17 wolves on Native
American reservations, were in the State in early 2006, representing a
7 percent increase from 2005 (Wydeven et al. 2006, pp. 1, 6).
Wisconsin population estimates for 1985 through 2006 increased from
15 to 465-502 wolves (see Table 1 above) and from 4 to 115 packs
(Wydeven et al. 2006, pp. 1, 35). This represents an annual increase of
21 percent through 2000, and an average annual increase of 11 percent
for the most recent 6 years.
In 1995, wolves were first documented in Jackson County, Wisconsin,
well to the south of the northern Wisconsin area occupied by other
Wisconsin wolf packs. The number of wolves in this central Wisconsin
area has dramatically increased since that time. During the winter of
2004-05, there were 53-56 wolves in 14 packs in the central forest wolf
range (Zone 2 in the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan; WI DNR 1999, p.
18) and an additional 17-19 wolves in 7 packs in the marginal habitat
in Zone 3, located between Zone 1 (northern forest wolf range) and
Zones 2 and 4 (Wydeven et al. 2006, pp. 6, 33).
During the winter of 2002-03, 7 wolves were believed to be
primarily occupying Native American reservation lands in Wisconsin
(Wydeven et al. 2003, p. 9); this increased to 11 to 13 wolves in the
winter of 2004-05 (Wydeven in litt. 2005) and 16-17 in 2005-06. The
2005-06 animals consisted of 2 packs totaling 7 to 8 wolves on the Bad
River Chippewa Reservation and a pack of 4 wolves on the Lac Courtes
Oreilles Chippewa Reservation, both in northwestern Wisconsin. There
also was a single pack of three wolves on the Lac du Flambeau
Reservation and a two-wolf pack on the Menominee Reservation, in north-
central and northeastern Wisconsin, respectively (Wydeven et al. 2006,
pp. 27, 28, 33). Additional wolves have spent some time on the Red
Cliff Chippewa Reservation, the St. Croix Chippewa Reservation, and the
Ho Chunk Reservation in the last few years. It is likely that the
Potowatomi Reservation lands will also host wolves in the near future
(Wydeven in litt. 2005). Of these reservations the Ho-Chunk, St. Croix
Chippewa, and Potowatomi are composed mostly of scattered parcels of
land, and are not likely to provide significant amounts of wolf
habitat.
In 2002, wolf numbers in Wisconsin alone surpassed the Federal
criterion for a second population, as identified in the 1992 Recovery
Plan (i.e., 100 wolves for a minimum of 5 consecutive years, as
measured by 6 consecutive late-winter counts). Furthermore, in 2004
Wisconsin wolf numbers exceeded the Recovery Plan criterion of 200
animals for 6 successive late-winter surveys for an isolated wolf
population. The Wisconsin wolf population continues to increase,
although the slower rates of increase seen since 2000 may be the first
indications that the State's wolf population growth and geographic
expansion are beginning to level off. Mladenoff et al. (1997, p. 47)
and Wydeven et al. (1999, p. 49) estimated that occupancy of primary
wolf habitat in Wisconsin would produce a wolf population of about 380
animals in the northern forest area of the State plus an additional 20-
40 wolves in the central forest area. If wolves occupy secondary
habitat (areas with a 10-50 percent probability of supporting a wolf
pack) in the State, their estimated population could be 50 percent
higher or more (Wydeven et al. 1999, p. 49) resulting in a statewide
population of 600 or more wolves.
Michigan Recovery
Wolves were extirpated from Michigan as a reproducing species long
before they were listed as endangered in 1974. Prior to 1991, and
excluding Isle Royale, the last known breeding population of wild
Michigan wolves occurred in the mid-1950s. However, as wolves began to
reoccupy northern Wisconsin, the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (MI DNR) began noting single wolves at various locations in
the UP of Michigan. In 1989, a wolf pair was verified in the central
UP, and it produced pups in 1991. Since that time, wolf packs have
spread throughout the UP, with immigration occurring from Wisconsin on
the west and possibly from Ontario on the east. They now are found in
every county of the UP, with the possible exception of Keweenaw County
(Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6).
The MI DNR annually monitors the wolf population in the UP by
intensive late-winter tracking surveys that focus on each pack. The UP
is divided into seven monitoring zones, and specific surveyors are
assigned to each zone. Pack locations are derived from previous
surveys, citizen reports, and extensive ground and aerial tracking of
radio-collared wolves. During the winter of 2004-05 at least 87 wolf
packs were resident in the UP (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6). A minimum
of 40 percent of these packs had members with active radio-tracking
collars during the winter of 2004-05 (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6-7).
Care is taken to avoid double-counting packs and individual wolves, and
a variety of evidence is used to distinguish adjacent packs and
accurately count their members. Surveys along the border of adjacent
monitoring zones are coordinated to avoid double-counting of wolves and
packs occupying those border areas. In areas with a high density of
wolves, ground surveys by 4 to 6 surveyors with concurrent aerial
tracking are used to accurately delineate territories of adjacent packs
and count their members (Beyer et al. 2004, pp. 2-3, Huntzinger et al.
2005, pp. 3-6; Potvin et al. 2005, p. 1661). As with Wisconsin, the
Michigan surveys likely miss many lone wolves, thus underestimating the
actual population.
Annual surveys have documented minimum late-winter estimates of
wolves occurring in the UP as increasing from 57 wolves in 1994 to 434
in 91 packs in 2006 (see Table 1 above). Over the last 10 years the
annualized rate of increase has been about 18 percent (Beyer et al.
2006, p. 35; Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6; MI DNR
[[Page 15074]]
2006a; Roell in litt. 2006a). The rate of annual increase has varied
from year to year during this period, but there appears to be two
distinct phases of population growth, with relatively rapid growth
(24.3 to 25.9 percent per year) from 1997 through 2000 and slower
growth (11.6 to 15.5 percent from 2000 through 2005 and 7.2 percent in
2006) since then. As with the Wisconsin wolves, the number of wolves in
the Michigan UP wolf population by itself has surpassed the recovery
criterion for a second population in the eastern United States (i.e.,
100 wolves for a minimum of 5 consecutive years, based on 6 late-winter
estimates), as specified in the Federal Recovery Plan, since 2001. In
addition, the UP numbers have now surpassed the Federal criterion for
an isolated wolf population of 200 animals for 6 successive late-winter
surveys (USFWS 1992, pp. 24-26).
To date, no wolf packs are known to be primarily using tribal-owned
lands in Michigan (Roell in litt. 2006b). Native American tribes in the
UP of Michigan own small, scattered parcels of land. As such, no one
tribal property would likely support a wolf pack. However, as wolves
occur in all counties in the UP and range widely, tribal land is likely
utilized periodically by wolves.
The wolf population of Isle Royale National Park, Michigan, is not
considered to be an important factor in the recovery or long-term
survival of wolves in the WGL DPS. This is a small and isolated wolf
population that probably has not had any contact with mainland wolf
populations since its founding pair crossed the Lake Superior ice in
the late 1940s (Peterson et al. 1998, p. 828). This wolf population
lacks sufficient genetic uniqueness (Wayne et al. 1991, pp. 47-49), and
due to the island's small size, cannot satisfy the discreteness
criterion for a separate DPS. For these same reasons it will not make a
significant numerical contribution to gray wolf recovery, although
long-term research on this wolf population has added a great deal to
our knowledge of the species. The wolf population on Isle Royale has
ranged from 12 to 50 wolves since 1959, and was 30 wolves in the winter
of 2005-06 (Peterson and Vucetich 2006, p. 6).
Although there have been verified reports of wolf sightings in the
Lower Peninsula of Michigan, resident breeding packs have not been
confirmed there. In October 2004 the first gray wolf since 1910 was
documented in the Lower Peninsula (LP). This wolf had been trapped and
radio-collared by the MI DNR while it was a member of a central UP pack
in late 2003. At some point it had moved to the LP and ultimately was
killed by a trapper who believed it was a coyote (MI DNR 2004). Shortly
after that, MI DNR biologists and conservation officers confirmed that
two additional wolves were traveling together in Presque Isle County in
the northern Lower Peninsula (NLP). A subsequent two-week survey was
conducted in that area, but no additional evidence of wolf presence was
found (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 35). Recognizing the likelihood that
small numbers of gray wolves will eventually move into the Lower
Peninsula and form persistent packs (Potvin 2003, pp. 29-30, Gehring
and Potter 2005, p. 1242; Beyer et at. 2006, p. 35), MI DNR has begun a
revision of its Wolf Management Plan in part to incorporate provisions
for wolf management there.
Summary for Wisconsin and Michigan
The two-State wolf population, excluding Isle Royale wolves, has
exceeded 100 wolves since late-winter 1993-94 and has exceeded 200
wolves since late-winter 1995-96. Therefore, the combined wolf
population for Wisconsin and Michigan has exceeded the second
population recovery goal of the 1992 Recovery Plan for a non-isolated
wolf population since 1999. Furthermore, the two-State population has
exceeded the recovery goal for an isolated second population since
2001.
Other Areas in and Near the Western Great Lakes DPS
As described earlier, the increasing wolf population in Minnesota
and the accompanying expansion of wolf range westward and southwestward
in the State have led to an increase in dispersing wolves that have
been documented in North and South Dakota in recent years. No surveys
have been conducted to document the number of wolves present in North
Dakota or South Dakota. However, biologists who are familiar with
wolves there generally agree that there are only occasional lone
dispersers that appear primarily in the eastern portion of these
States. There were reports of pups being seen in the Turtle Mountains
of North Dakota, in 1994 (Collins in litt. 1998), an adult male wolf
was shot near Devil's Lake, North Dakota in 2002, another adult male
shot in Richland County in extreme southeastern North Dakota in 2003
(Fain in litt. 2006), and a vehicle-killed adult male found near
Sturgis, South Dakota, in 2006 (Larson in litt. 2006a). In contrast to
the other South Dakota wolves of the last twenty-five years, this
animal has been genetically identified as having come from the Greater
Yellowstone area (Fain in litt. 2006). See the Delineating the WGL Gray
Wolf DPS for a detailed discussion of movement of wolves.
Wolf dispersal is expected to continue as wolves travel away from
the more saturated habitats in the core recovery areas into areas where
wolves are extremely sparse or absent. Unless they return to a core
recovery population and join or start a pack there, they are unlikely
to contribute to long-term maintenance of recovered wolf populations.
Although it is possible for them to encounter a mature wolf of the
opposite sex, to mate, and to reproduce outside the core wolf areas,
the lack of large expanses of unfragmented public land make it unlikely
that any wolf packs will persist in these areas, and this is a
bottleneck that seriously impedes further expansion. The only exception
is the NLP of Michigan, where several studies indicate that a
persistent wolf population may develop (Gehring and Potter 2005, p.
1242; Potvin 2003, 29-30), perhaps dependent on occasional to frequent
immigration of UP wolves. However, currently existing wolf populations
in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP of Michigan have already greatly
exceeded the Federal recovery criteria and are not dependent on wolves
or wolf populations from other areas of the WGL DPS to maintain these
recovered numbers.
Previous Federal Action
On April 1, 2003, we published a final rule revising the listing
status of the gray wolf across most of the conterminous United States
(68 FR 15804). Within that rule, we identified three distinct
population segments (DPS) for the gray wolf. Gray wolves in the Western
DPS and the Eastern DPS were reclassified from endangered to
threatened, except where already classified as threatened or as an
experimental population. Gray wolves in the Southwestern DPS retained
their previous endangered or experimental population status. Three
existing gray wolf experimental population designations were not
affected by the April 1, 2003, final rule. We removed gray wolves from
the lists of threatened and endangered wildlife in all or parts of 16
southern and eastern States where the species historically did not
occur. We also established a new special rule under section 4(d) of the
Act for the threatened Western DPS to increase our ability to
effectively manage wolf-human conflicts outside the two experimental
population areas in the Western DPS. In addition, we established a
second section 4(d) rule that applied provisions similar to those
[[Page 15075]]
previously in effect in Minnesota to most of the Eastern DPS. These two
special rules were codified in 50 CFR 17.40(n) and (o), respectively.
On January 31, 2005, and August 19, 2005, U.S. District Courts in
Oregon and Vermont, respectively, ruled that the April 1, 2003, final
rule violated the Act (Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 03-1348-JO, D.
OR 2005; National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, 1:03-CV-340, D. VT.
2005). The Courts' rulings invalidated the revisions to the gray wolf
listing. Therefore, the status of gray wolves outside of Minnesota and
outside of areas designated as nonessential experimental populations
reverted back to endangered (as had been the case prior to the 2003
reclassification). The courts also invalidated the three DPSs
identified in the April 1, 2003, rule as well as the associated special
regulations.
On March 27, 2006, we published a proposal (71 FR 15266-15305) to
identify a WGL DPS of the gray wolf, to remove the WGL DPS from the
protections of the Act, to remove designated critical habitat for the
gray wolf in Minnesota and Michigan, and to remove special regulations
for the gray wolf in Minnesota. The proposal was followed by a 90-day
comment period, during which we held four public hearings on the
proposal.
On February 8, 2007, we published a final rule identifying a WGL
DPS of the gray wolf, removing the WGL DPS from the protections of the
Act, removing designated critical habitat for the gray wolf in
Minnesota and Michigan, and removing special regulations for the gray
wolf in Minnesota (72 FR 6052).
On April 16, 2007, three parties filed a lawsuit against the U.S.
Department of the Interior (Department) and the Service, challenging
the Service's February 8, 2007 (72 FR 6052), identification and
delisting of the WGL DPS. The plaintiffs argued that the Service may
not identify a DPS within a broader pre-existing listed entity for the
purpose of delisting the DPS. Based on this argument, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia remanded and vacated the February 7,
2008, WGL DPS final rule (72 FR 6052). The court found that the Service
had made that decision based on its interpretation that the plain
meaning of the ESA authorizes the Service to identify and delist a DPS
within an already-listed entity. The court disagreed, and concluded
that the Act is ambiguous as to whether the Service has this authority.
The court accordingly remanded the final rule so that the Service can
provide a reasoned explanation of how its interpretation is consistent
with the text, structure, legislative history, judicial
interpretations, and policy objectives of the Act (Humane Society of
the United States v. Kempthorne, Civ. No. 07-0677, 2008 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 74495 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2008) (J. Friedman).
On December 11, 2008, we published a notice reinstating protections
for the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes and northern Rocky
Mountains pursuant to court-orders (73 FR 75356).
Please refer to the March 27, 2006, (71 FR 15266-15305) proposed
rule for further information on previous Federal actions.
Issues on Remand
In an Opinion dated September 29, 2008, the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia vacated the final rule (72 FR 6052)
(Feb. 8, 2007) identifying the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population
Segment of gray wolf and delisting that DPS. The Humane Society of the
United States v. Kempthorne, Civ. No. 07-0677, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
74495 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2008) (J. Friedman). Judge Friedman remanded
the matter to the Secretary to allow the agency to ``bring its
expertise and experience to bear on the question of whether the Act
permits it to use the DPS tool in the fashion it has proposed.'' Id. at
*40. Judge Friedman instructed that the agency must explain how the
agency's interpretation of the statute conforms to the text, structure,
and legislative history of the ESA; how the agency's interpretation is
consistent with judicial interpretations of the Act, if any; and how
the agency's interpretation serves the Act's policy objectives. Id. In
so doing, Judge Friedman did not find that the Service could not
utilize the DPS tool to simultaneously identify and delist a DPS.
Instead, Judge Friedman found that the record lacked an explanation on
this point to which he could defer under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and
afforded the agency an opportunity to respond.
While the Service acknowledges that the ESA is arguably ambiguous
on the ``precise question'' posed by the court, it notes that the
court's question does not accurately describe what we did in the Final
Rule. What we actually did, under the precise language of the Act, was
to determine, pursuant to section 4(a)(1), that gray wolves in the
Western Great Lakes area constituted a DPS and that the DPS was neither
endangered nor threatened, and then revised the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, pursuant to section 4(c)(1), to reflect those
determinations. Our conclusion is that we had clear authority to make
the determinations and the revisions. We did not delist a previously
unlisted species; rather, we revised the existing listing of a species
(the gray wolf in the lower 48 States) to reflect a determination that
a sub-part of that species (the Western Great Lakes DPS) was healthy
enough that it no longer needed the ESA's protections. Our authority to
make these determinations and to revise the list accordingly is found
in the precise language of the ESA. Moreover, even if that authority
was not clear, our interpretation of this authority to make
determinations under section 4(a)(1) and to revise the endangered and
threatened species list to reflect those determinations under section
4(c)(1) is reasonable and fully consistent with the ESA's text
structure, legislative history, relevant judicial interpretations, and
policy objectives.
By vacating the previous final rule and remanding the rulemaking to
the Service, the court required the Service to make a new final
determination on the March 27, 2006 proposed rule (71 FR 15266) on
which the vacated final rule was based. In that proposed rule, the
Service provided public notice of its consideration of identifying the
Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment of gray wolves and to
remove that DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. At
that time, the Service requested public comments on the proposal and
received 360 comments addressing a wide range of issues, including but
not limited to the Service's use of the DPS tool in the manner
proposed. Comments were received from 40 identifiable states, 5 foreign
countries, 19 preservation and conservation organizations, 16
agricultural and livestock organizations, 249 private individuals, and
6 Native American governments or organizations. All of these comments
were given meaningful consideration in the course of the Secretary
promulgating this final rule.
This final rule constitutes a new final determination on the March
27, 2006 proposed rule. It is also substantially similar to the vacated
final rule in form and substance, including the biological and
ecological basis for its conclusions. This final rule differs in that
it contains a section entitled ``Issues on Remand'' that represents the
Secretary's response to the issues raised by the Court, in consultation
with the Department of the Interior's Solicitor's Office. This section
of the final rule merely addresses the narrow legal issue within the
agency's expertise and experience--namely, whether the Secretary may
simultaneously identify and delist a currently listed species. The
section
[[Page 15076]]
entitled Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview
responds to the court's question regarding the agency's past practice
and use of DPSs.
Before issuing this final rule, we verified that no new scientific
data exist that would alter our previous analysis of the relevant facts
that serve as the basis for the Secretary's decision to identify the
Western Great Lakes DPS and the Secretary's conclusion that the Western
Great Lakes DPS should be removed from the list of threatened and
endangered species because it has recovered and no longer meets the
criteria for remaining on the list. Note that we did examine updated
monitoring data and the final Michigan plan and determined that this
new data merely supplements our existing record. The Service is simply
responding to the narrow legal issues raised by the Court.
Consequently, Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) does not require an additional period of public notice and
comment.
We consulted with the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior
to address the issue in Judge Friedman's opinion that the agency must
explain how our interpretation of the statute conforms to the text,
structure, and legislative history of the ESA; is consistent with
judicial interpretations of the Act, if any; and serves the Act's
policy objectives. On December 12, 2008, a formal opinion was issued by
the Solicitor, ``U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Authority Under Section
4(c)(1) of the Endangered Species Act to Revise Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Species to `Reflect Recent Determinations' '' (U.S. DOI
2008), which fully addresses these issues. The Service fully agrees
with the analysis and conclusions set out in the Solicitor's opinion.
This action is consistent with the opinion. The complete text of the
Solicitor's opinion can be found at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/.
Geographical Area of the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population
Segment
The geographical area of the WGL DPS is shown in Figure 1, below,
and is described as all of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; the
portion of North Dakota north and east of the Missouri River upstream
to Lake Sakakawea and east of the centerline of Highway 83 from Lake
Sakakawea to the Canadian border; the portion of South Dakota north and
east of the Missouri River; the portions of Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana
north of the centerline of Interstate Highway 80; and the portion of
Ohio north of the centerline of Interstate Highway 80 and west of the
Maumee River at Toledo.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 15077]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02AP09.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview
Pursuant to the Act, we consider if information is sufficient to
indicate that listing, reclassifying, or delisting any species,
subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa may be
warranted. To interpret and implement the DPS provision of the Act and
congressional guidance, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) published a policy regarding the identification of
distinct vertebrate population segments under the Act (61 FR 4722,
February 7, 1996). Under this policy, two factors are considered in a
decision regarding the potential identification of a DPS and then a
final factor is considered regarding the listing, reclassification, or
delisting of the DPS. The first two factors determine whether the
population segment is a valid DPS--(1) discreteness of the population
segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon, and (2) the
significance of the population segment to the taxon to which it
belongs. If a population meets both tests, it can be identified as a
DPS. Then the third factor, the population segment's conservation
status, is evaluated in relation to the Act's standards for listing,
delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is the DPS endangered or
threatened).
Agency's Past Practice and History of Using DPSs
Of the over 370 native vertebrate ``species'' listed under the Act,
77 are listed as less than an entire taxonomic species or subspecies
(henceforth referred to as populations) under one of several
authorities including the DPS language in the definition of
``species''. Of these 77 listed populations, 32 predate the 1996 DPS
policy (61 FR 4722); therefore, the final listing determinations for
these populations did not include formal DPS analyses per the 1996 DPS
policy. Specifically, the 77 populations encompass 51 different species
or subspecies. During the history of the Act, the Service and NMFS have
taken actions with respect
[[Page 15078]]
to populations in 98 listing, reclassification, and delisting actions.
The majority of those actions identified a classification other than a
taxonomically recognized species or subspecies at the time of listing.
In several instances, however, the agencies have identified a DPS and,
as appropriate, revised the list of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife
in a single action. For example, we (1) established a DPS of the
grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) for the Greater Yellowstone Area
and surrounding area, within the existing listing of the grizzly bear
in the lower 48 States, and removed this DPS from the List of
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (March 29, 2007; 72 FR 14865); (2)
established two DPSs of the Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus leucurus): the Douglas County DPS and the Columbia River
DPS; and removed the Douglas County DPS from the List of Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife (July 24, 2003; 68 FR 43647); (3) removed the brown
pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) in the Southeastern United States from
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and continued to
identify the brown pelican as endangered throughout the remainder of
its range (February 4, 1985; 50 FR 4938); (4) identified the American
crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in Florida as a DPS within the existing
endangered listing of the American crocodile in the United States and
reclassified the Florida DPS from endangered to threatened (March 20,
2007; 71 FR 13027); and (5) amended the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants by revising the entry for the gray whale
(Eschrichtius robustus) to remove the eastern North Pacific population
from the List while retaining the western North Pacific population as
endangered (June 16, 1994; 59 FR 31094)). We also proposed in 2000 to
identify four DPSs within the existing listing of the gray wolf in the
lower 48 States and to reclassify three of the DPSs from endangered to
threatened (July 13, 2000; 65 FR 43450). As described above under
``Previous Federal Action,'' the final rule we issued in 2003
identified three gray wolf DPSs and reclassified two of the DPSs from
endangered to threatened (April 1, 2003; 68 FR 15804). Although courts
subsequently invalidated these DPSs, they did not question the
Service's authority to identify and reclassify DPSs within a larger
pre-existing listing. Identifying and delisting the Western Great Lakes
DPS of gray wolves is consistent with the Service's past practice and
does not represent a change in agency position.
Analysis for Discreteness
Under our Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
Population Segments, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be
considered discrete if it satisfies either of the following
conditions--(1) it is markedly separated from other populations of the
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or (2) it is
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
Markedly Separated From Other Populations of the Taxon--The western
boundary of the WGL DPS is approximately 400 mi (644 km) from the
nearest known wolf packs in Wyoming and Montana. The distance between
those western packs and the nearest packs within the WGL DPS is nearly
600 miles (966 km). The area between Minnesota packs and Northern Rocky
Mountain packs largely consists of unsuitable habitat, with only
scattered islands of possibly suitable habitat, such as the Black Hills
of eastern Wyoming and western South Dakota. There are no known gray
wolf populations to the south or east of the WGL DPS.
As discussed in the previous section, gray wolves are known to
disperse over vast distances, but straight line documented dispersals
of 400 mi (644 km) or more are very rare. While we cannot rule out the
possibility of a Midwest wolf traveling 600 miles or more and joining
or establishing a pack in the Northern Rockies, such a movement has not
been documented and is expected to happen very infrequently, if at all.
Similar movements from the NRM wolf population into the WGL DPS are
unknown and are expected to happen infrequently. The 2006 Sturgis,
South Dakota, wolf is the closest that an NRM wolf has come to entering
the WGL DPS (Fain in litt. 2006). However, the Sturgis wolf still had
over 300 mi (500 km) to travel before it would encounter the nearest
WGL DPS wolf pack. As the discreteness criterion requires that the DPS
be ``markedly separated'' from other populations of the taxon rather
than requiring complete isolation, this high degree of physical
separation between the Western Great Lakes and the Northern Rocky
Mountains satisfies the discreteness criterion. Similarly, we feel it
is unlikely for wolves to cross the eastern boundary into the
Laurentian Mixed Habitat Province of New York, Pennsylvania, and New
England due to inhospitable conditions.
Delimited by International Boundaries with Significant Management
Differences Between the U.S. and Canada--This border has been used as
the northern boundary of the listed entity since gray wolves were
reclassified in the 48 States and Mexico in 1978. There remain
significant cross-border differences in exploitation, management,
conservation status, and regulatory mechanisms. More than 50,000 wolves
exist in Canada, where suitable habitat is abundant, human harvest of
wolves is common, Federal protection is absent, and provincial
regulations provide widely varying levels of protection. In general,
Canadian wolf populations are sufficiently large and healthy so that
harvest and population regulation, rather than protection and close
monitoring, is the management focus. There are an estimated 4,000
wolves in Manitoba (Manitoba Conservation undated). Hunting is allowed
nearly province-wide, including in those provincial hunting zones
adjoining northwestern Minnesota, with a current season that runs from
August 28, 2006, through March 31, 2007 (Manitoba Conservation 2006a).
Trapping wolves is allowed province-wide except in and immediately
around Riding Mountain National Park (southwestern Manitoba), with a
current season running from October 14, 2006, through February 28 or
March 31, 2007 (varies with trapping zone) (Manitoba Conservation
2006b). The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources estimates there are
8,850 wolves in the province, based on prey composition and abundance,
topography, and climate. Wolf numbers in most parts of the province are
believed to be stable or increasing since about 1993 (Ontario MNR
2005a, pp. 7-9). In 2005 Ontario limited hunting and trapping of wolves
by closing the season from April 1 through September 14 in central and
northern Ontario (Ontario MNR 2005b). In southern Ontario (the portion
of the province that is adjacent to the WGL DPS), wolf hunting and
trapping is permitted year around except within, and immediately
around, Algonquin Provincial Park in southeastern Ontario (north of
Lake Ontario) where seasons are closed all year (Ontario MNR 2005c).
We, therefore, conclude that the above-described WGL DPS boundary
satisfies both conditions that can be used to demonstrate discreteness
of a potential DPS.
[[Page 15079]]
Analysis for Significance
If we determine that a population segment is discrete, we next
consider available scientific evidence of its significance to the taxon
to which it belongs. Our DPS policy states that this consideration may
include, but is not limited to, the following--(1) persistence of the
discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique
for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population
segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon;
(3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; and/
or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
Below we address Factors 1 and 2. Factors 3 and 4 do not apply to the
WGL wolf DPS and thus are not included in our analysis for
significance.
Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting--Wolves within the WGL DPS
occupy the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province, a biotic province that is
transitional between the boreal forest and the broadleaf deciduous
forest. Laurentian Mixed Forest consists of mixed conifer-deciduous
stands, pure deciduous forest on favorable sites, and pure coniferous
forest on less favorable sites. Within the United States this biotic
province occurs across northeastern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, the
UP, and the NLP, as well as the eastern half of Maine, and portions of
New York and Pennsylvania (Bailey 1995). In the Midwest, current wolf
distribution closely matches this province, except for the NLP and the
Door Peninsula of Wisconsin, where wolf packs currently are absent. To
the best of our knowledge, wolf packs currently do not inhabit the New
England portions of the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province, nor do we
expect wolves from the WGL DPS to move into them due to the vast
distance between these two areas and inhospitable terrain they would
need to traverse. Therefore, WGL wolves represent the only wolf packs
in the United States occupying this province. Furthermore, WGL wolves
represent the only use by gray wolf packs of any form of eastern
coniferous or eastern mixed coniferous-broadleaf forest in the United
States.
Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon--This factor may be
primarily of value when considering the initial listing of a taxon
under the Act to prevent the development of a major gap in a taxon's
range (``the loss of the discrete population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of the taxon'' (61 FR 4725)). However,
this successful restoration of a viable wolf metapopulation to large
parts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan has filled a significant
gap in the historical range of the wolf in the United States, and it
provides an important extension of the range of the North American gray
wolf population. The recovered Western Great Lakes wolf metapopulation
is the only wolf population in the conterminous States east of the
Rocky Mountains except for the red wolves being restored along the
Atlantic Coast and currently holds about 80 percent of North American
gray wolves that occur south of Canada.
Discrete Vertebrate Population Segment Conclusion
We conclude, based on our review of the best available scientific
data, that the WGL DPS is discrete from other wolf populations as a
result of physical separation and the international border with Canada.
The DPS is significant to the taxon to which it belongs because it
contains the only populations of the species in the Laurentian Mixed
Forest Biotic Province in the United States, it contains a wolf
metapopulation that fills a large gap in the historical range of the
taxon; and it contains the majority of gray wolves in the conterminous
States. Therefore, we have determined that this population segment of
wolves satisfies the discreteness and significance criteria required to
identify it as a DPS. The evaluation of the appropriate conservation
status for the WGL DPS is found below.
Delineating the WGL Gray Wolf DPS
In contrast to a species or a subspecies, a DPS is a biological
population that is delineated by a boundary that is based on something
other than established taxonomic distinctions. Therefore, the starting
point for delineating a DPS is the biological population or
metapopulation, and a geographical delineation of the DPS must
reasonably represent the population/metapopulation and its biological
characteristics.
To delineate the boundary of the WGL DPS, we considered the current
distribution of wolves in the Midwest and the characteristic movements
of those wolves and of gray wolves elsewhere. We examined the available
scientific data on long-distance movements, including long-distance
movements followed by return movements to the vicinity of the natal
pack. We concluded that wolf behavior and the nature of wolf
populations require that we include within the area of the DPS some
subset of known long-distance movement locations. However, as described
below, wolf biology and common sense argue against the inclusion within
the DPS boundary of all known or potential long-distance movements.
This analysis resulted in a WGL DPS boundary that is shown in
Figure 1. As discussed below, this DPS has been delineated to include
the core recovered wolf population plus a wolf movement zone around the
core wolf populations. This geographic delineation is not intended to
include all areas to which wolves have moved from the Great Lakes
population. Rather, it includes the area currently occupied by wolf
packs in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; the nearby areas in these
States, including the Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan, in which
wolf packs may become established in the foreseeable future; and a
surrounding area into which Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan wolves
occasionally move but where persistent packs are not expected to be
established because suitable habitat is rare and exists only as small
patches. The area surrounding the core wolf populations includes the
locations of most known dispersers from the core populations,
especially the shorter and medium-distance movements from which wolves
are most likely to return to the core areas and contribute to the
recovered wolf population.
The WGL areas that are regularly occupied by wolf packs are well
documented in Minnesota (Erb and Benson 2004, p. 12, fig. 3), Wisconsin
(Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 33, fig. 1), and the UP of Michigan
(Huntzinger et al. 2005, pp. 25-27, figs. 4-6). Wolves have
successfully colonized most, perhaps all, suitable habitat in
Minnesota. Minnesota data from the winter of 2003-04 indicate that wolf
numbers and density either have continued to increase slowly or have
stabilized since 1997-98, and there was no expansion of occupied range
in the State (Erb and Benson 2004, p. 7). Wisconsin wolves now occupy
most habitat areas believed to have a high probability of wolf
occurrence except for some areas of northeastern Wisconsin, and the
State's wolf population continues to annually increase in numbers and,
to a lesser degree, in area (Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 33). The UP of
Michigan has wolf packs throughout, although the current population
remains well below the estimated biological carrying capacity
(Mladenoff et al. 1997, pp. 25-27, and
[[Page 15080]]
figs. 5 & 7) and will likely continue to increase in numbers in the UP
for at least several more years.
When delineating the WGL DPS, we had to consider the high degree of
mobility shown by wolves. The dispersal of wolves from their natal
packs and territories is a normal and important behavioral attribute of
the species that facilitates the formation of new packs, the occupancy
of vacant territories, and the expansion of occupied range by the
``colonization'' of vacant habitat. Data on wolf dispersal rates from
numerous North American studies (summarized in Fuller et al. 2003, p.
179, Table. 6.6; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1102, Table 6) show
dispersal rates of 13 to 48 percent of the individuals in a pack.
Sometimes the movements are temporary, and the wolf returns to a
location in or near its natal territory. In some cases a wolf may
continue its movement for scores or even hundreds of miles until it
locates suitable habitat, where it may establish a territory or join an
existing pack. In other cases, a wolf is found dead at a distance from
its original territory, leaving unanswered the questions of how far it
would have gone and whether it eventually would have returned to its
natal area or population.
Minnesota--The current record for a documented extra-territorial
movement by a gray wolf in North America is held by a Minnesota wolf
that moved a minimum (that is, the straight line distance from known
starting point to most distant point) of at least 550 mi (886 km)
northwest into Saskatchewan (Fritts 1983, p. 166-167). Nineteen other
primarily Minnesota movements summarized by Mech (in litt. 2005)
averaged 154 mi (248 km). Their minimum distance of travel ranged from
32-532 mi (53-886 km) with the minimum dispersal distance shown by
known returning wolves ranging from 54 mi (90 km) to 307 mi (494 km).
Wisconsin--In 2004, a wolf tagged in Michigan was killed by a
vehicle in Rusk County in northwestern Wisconsin, 295 miles (475 km)
west of his original capture location in the eastern UP (Wydeven et al.
2005b, p. 4). A similar distance (298 mi, 480 km) was traveled by a
north-central Wisconsin yearling female wolf that moved to the Rainy
Lake region of Ontario during 1988-89 (Wydeven et al. 1995, p. 149).
Michigan--Drummer et al. (2002, pp. 14-15) reported 10 long-
distance dispersal events involving UP wolves. One of these wolves
moved to north-central Missouri and another to southeastern Wisconsin,
both beyond the core wolf areas in the WGL. The average straight-line
distance traveled by those two wolves was 377 mi (608 km), while the
average straight-line distance for all 10 of these wolves was 232 mi
(373 km). Their straight-line distances ranged from 41 to 468 mi (66 to
753 km).
Illinois and Indiana--The December 2002, Marshall County, Illinois,
wolf likely dispersed from the Wisconsin wolf population, nearly 200
miles (322 km) to the north (Great Lakes Directory 2003). The Randolph
County, Indiana wolf had traveled a minimum distance of at least 420
miles (676 km) to get around Lake Michigan from its central Wisconsin
birthplace; it likely traveled much farther than that unless it went
through the city or suburbs of Chicago (Wydeven et al. 2004, pp. 10-
11). The Pike County, Illinois, wolf that was shot in late 2005 was
about 300 mi (180 km) from the nearest wolf packs in central Wisconsin.
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska--Licht and Fritts (1994,
p. 77) tabulated seven gray wolves found dead in North Dakota and South
Dakota from 1981 through 1992 that are believed to have originated from
Minnesota, based on skull morphometrics. Although none of these wolves
were marked or radio-tracked, making it impossible to determine the
point of initiation of their journey, a minimum travel distance for the
seven of Minnesota origin can be determined from the nearest wolf
breeding range in Minnesota. For the seven, the average distance to the
nearest wolf breeding range was 160 mi (257 km) and ranged from 29 to
329 mi (46 to 530 km). One of these seven wolves moved west of the
Missouri River before it died.
Genetic analysis of a wolf killed in Harding County, in extreme
northwestern South Dakota, in 2001 indicated that it originated from
the Minnesota--Wisconsin--Michigan wolf populations (Fain in litt.
2006). The straight-line travel distance to the nearest Minnesota wolf
pack is nearly 400 miles (644 km).
The wolf from the Greater Yellowstone area that was killed by a
vehicle on Interstate 90 near Sturgis, SD, in March of 2006 traveled a
minimum straight-line distance of about 270 mi (435 km) from the
nearest known Greater Yellowstone pack before it died (USFWS et al.
2006, in USFWS Program Report, Figure 1).
A large canid was shot by a Boyd County, Nebraska, rancher in late
1994 or early 1995, likely after crossing the frozen Missouri River
from South Dakota (Anschutz in litt. 2006, Jobman in litt. 1995). It
was determined to be a wolf that originated from the Great Lakes wolf
populations (Fain in litt. 2006), whose nearest pack would have been
about 300 mi (480 km) away. A wolf illegally killed near Spalding,
Nebraska, in December of 2002 also originated from the Minnesota--
Wisconsin--Michigan wolf population, as determined by genetic analysis
(Anschutz in litt. 2003, Fain in litt. 2006). The nearest Minnesota
wolf pack is nearly 350 miles (563 km) from this location.
Other notable extra-territorial movements--Notable are several
wolves whose extra-territorial movements were radio-tracked in
sufficient detail to provide insight into their actual travel routes
and total travel distances for each trek, rather than only documenting
straight-line distance from beginning to end-point. Merrill and Mech
(2000, pp. 429-431) reported on four such Minnesota wolves with
documented travel distances ranging from 305 to 2,641 mi (490 to 4,251
km) and an average travel route length of 988 mi (1590 km). Wydeven
(1994, pp. 20-22) described a Wisconsin wolf that moved from
northwestern Wisconsin to the northern suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota,
for 2 weeks (apparently not seen or reported to authorities by the
local residents), then moved back to north-central Wisconsin. The total
travel distance was 278 mi (447km) from her natal pack into Minnesota
and on to the north-central Wisconsin location where she settled down.
While investigating the origins of Scandinavian wolf populations,
Linnell et al. (2005, p. 387) compiled gray wolf dispersal data from 21
published studies, including many cited separately here. Twenty-two of
298 compiled dispersals (7.4 percent) were over 300 km (186 mi). Eleven
dispersals (3.7 percent) were over 500 km (311 mi). Because of the
likelihood that many long-distance dispersers are never reported, they
conclude that the proportion of long-distance dispersers is probably
severely underestimated.
From these extra-territorial movement records we conclude that gray
wolf movements of over 200 miles (320 km) straight-line distance have
been documented on numerous occasions, while shorter distance movements
are more frequent. Movements of 300 miles (480 km) straight-line
distance or more are less common, but include one Minnesota wolf that
journeyed a straight-line distance of 300 mi (480 km) and a known
minimum travel distance of 2,550 mi (4,251 km) before it reversed
direction, as determined by its satellite-tracked collar. This wolf
returned to a spot only 24 mi (40 km) from its natal territory (Merrill
and Mech 2000, p. 430). While much longer movements
[[Page 15081]]
have been documented, including some by midwestern wolves, return
movements to the vicinity of natal territories have not been documented
for extra-territorial movements beyond 300 mi (480 km).
Based on these extra-territorial movement data, we conclude that
affiliation with the midwestern wolf population has diminished and is
essentially lost when dispersal takes a Midwest wolf a distance of 250
to 300 miles (400 to 480 km) beyond the outer edge of the areas that
are largely continuously occupied by wolf packs. Although some WGL
wolves will move beyond this distance, available data indicate that
longer distance dispersers are unlikely to return to their natal
population. Therefore, they have lost their functional connection with
and potential conservation value to, the WGL wolf population.
Wolves moving substantial distances outward from the core areas of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan will encounter landscape features
that are at least partial barriers to further wolf movement, and that
may--if crossed--impede attempts of wolves to return toward the WGL
core areas. If such partial barriers are in a location that has
separate utility in delineating the biological extent of a wolf
population, they can and should be used to delineate the DPS boundary.
Such landscape features are the Missouri River in North Dakota and
downstream to Omaha, Nebraska, and Interstate Highway 80 from Omaha
eastward through Illinois, Indiana, and into Ohio, ending where this
highway crosses the Maumee River in Toledo, Ohio. We do not believe
these are absolute barriers to wolf movement. There is evidence that
several Minnesota-origin wolves have crossed the Missouri River (Licht
and Fritts 1994, pp. 75 & 77, Fig. 1 and Table 1; Anschutz in litt.
2003, 2006) and some Midwest wolves have crossed interstate highways
(Merrill and Mech 2000, p. 430). There is also evidence that some
wolves are hesitant to cross highways, (Whittington et al. 2004, pp. 7,
9; Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 5; but see Blanco et al. 2005, pp. 315-316,
319-320 and Kohn et al. 2000, p. 22). Interstate highways and smaller
roads are a known mortality factor for wolves and, therefore, are a
partial barrier to wolf movements (Blanco et al. 2005, p. 320).
The recent death of a NRM wolf near Sturgis in western South Dakota
(Fain in litt. 2006) suggests that the area of the Dakotas west of the
Missouri River may be traversed by a small number of wolves coming from
both the NRM and Great Lakes wolf populations, as well as wolves from
Canada (Licht and Fritts 1994, pp. 75-77). Wolves in this area cannot
be assumed to belong to the Great Lakes wolf population, supporting our
belief that the DPS boundary should not be designed to include the
locations of all known dispersers. As this record shows, an additional
weakness of basing a DPS boundary on the location of the most distant
dispersal is that it results in a boundary that is valid only until a
more distant dispersal event is documented.
Peer Review
In accordance with the December 16, 2004, Office of Management and
Budget's ``Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review'', we
have obtained comments from at least three independent scientific
reviewers regarding the scientific data and interpretations contained
in the March 27, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 15266). The purpose of such
review is to ensure that our delisting proposal provided to the public
and our delisting decision is based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. Peer reviewer comments were received during
the public comment period from ten individuals and were considered as
we made our final decision on the proposal. Substantive peer reviewer
comments are summarized in the remaining paragraphs of this section as
well as discussed in greater detail in the appropriate Issue/Response
sections which follow.
All ten peer reviewers have extensive biological experience with
gray wolves. Most are currently involved in wolf research for the
Federal Government (three individuals in two agencies), Canadian
Government (one reviewer), or universities (two individuals). One
reviewer is a biologist for a tribe with extensive involvement in wolf
recovery and management, one leads a long-term Federal wolf depredation
control program, another directs an endangered species conservation
organization, and the tenth is a retired State wolf biologist. None of
the peer reviewers are employed by the Service or by State agencies
within the WGL DPS.
All eight peer reviewers who expressed a clear opinion supported
the biological approach we used to identify the DPS and its boundaries,
and they agreed that the delisting criteria have been achieved by the
DPS. Three of these eight had previously opposed the proposed 2003
identification and 2004 delisting of the much larger Eastern DPS. None
of the peer reviewers stated that the currently proposed DPS boundary
or delisting was inappropriate. One peer reviewer's expertise is
limited to wolf diseases and causes of wolf mortality. This reviewer
limited her comments to those areas. The remaining peer reviewer was
unclear regarding support for, or opposition to, our biological basis
for the proposed boundary of the DPS, but agreed that wolves in the
Great Lakes have met the federally established delisting criteria.
In general, the peer reviewers judged the delisting proposal to be
well researched, thorough, and adequate to support delisting of the WGL
DPS. Except for one reviewer who stated that the State plans need
greater emphasis on educating and informing the public, all comments
related to State plans and our analysis of the plans indicated that the
reviewers believed the State population goals were adequate and the
protection and management actions contained in the plans would ensure
viable wolf populations following delisting.
None of the peer reviewers expressed concerns with the expanded use
of wolf control measures by the States following delisting. Several
specifically stated that they were confident that the States would not
allow human-caused mortality to threaten the security of viable
populations within the three States. One reviewer, who has several
decades of experience with wolf depredation control measures, expressed
a belief that wolf control or harvest by the public will not result in
excessive take of wolves.
There were no criticisms of, or recommendations to improve, the
current population monitoring done by the three States. One reviewer,
while noting that the Minnesota population estimate ``is probably much
less accurate than [those developed by] MI or WI'' and likely
overestimates the State's wolf population, went on to state that this
is not a critical point and may not matter, because the Minnesota wolf
population is well over the minimum number needed to delist. He also
stated that ``managers have as good a dataset on wolves as just about
any other species they manage, even white-tailed deer * * *.'' Another
reviewer stated that the three States are using ``adequate and
consistent techniques'' to develop their wolf population estimates.
There were no suggestions that other States within the DPS should
be developing wolf management plans or wolf monitoring programs.
However, one reviewer recommended that all States in the DPS cooperate
in the documenting and reporting of wolves dispersing from the northern
Minnesota,
[[Page 15082]]
Wisconsin, and Michigan recovery areas.
Several reviewers pointed out that, while there currently is
sufficient habitat that is likely to remain secure for the foreseeable
future, this should be monitored by the States after delisting. The
fragmentation of private industrial forests for second homes and other
developments was identified as a potential future threat to occupied
wolf habitat. Most reviewers pointed to the need for effective and
timely monitoring of wolf numbers and wolf health following delisting.
None of the peer reviewers expressed concern that the Wisconsin and
Michigan Plans--being updated and revised, respectively, at the time
the delisting proposal was published--would be weakened and
substantially reduce protections for the wolves in the State. However,
one of the reviewers urged that the two plans be finalized prior to
delisting. Two peer reviewers specifically recommended that the Service
complete the post-delisting monitoring plan prior to delisting.
One reviewer supported the identification of the DPS and its
delisting and said its boundaries ``do not extend delisting beyond an
area that is reasonably affected by the DPS.'' However, this reviewer
cautioned that in delineating a DPS the Service should avoid over-
emphasizing ``the importance of the biological (or population
viability) aspect of `significant portion of the range' '' within the
Act's definitions of endangered and threatened. He provided a recent
co-authored scientific publication that seems to argue for a primarily
quantitative approach to determining what part of a species' range is
significant. This same reviewer objected to the Service's
interpretation of ``range'' to mean current range, when used in the
context of ``significant portion of the range.''
Regarding the Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan, one peer
reviewer indicated his belief that wolves are likely to move into
habitat there and the State should allow that to happen. Another
reviewer agreed with the Service that the currently unoccupied habitat
in the NLP is not a significant portion of their range in the WGL DPS.
One peer reviewer supported the delisting but criticized the
``bizarre aspect'' of it that would result in wolves in areas beyond
the DPS retaining the Act's protection as endangered, when ``[t]he area
outside the proposed DPS is precisely the area that the Eastern Timber
Wolf recovery Team believed should not harbor wolves * * *.'' The
reviewer recommends delisting gray wolves in the unsuitable habitat
areas beyond the WGL DPS, as well.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We received 360 total comments, including 310 original letters and
50 form responses based on 2 form letters. These comments included 10
that we solicited from peer reviewers, as well as verbal and written
comments received at public hearings. We received comments from 40
identifiable states and the District of Columbia, as well as 5 foreign
countries. Private individuals submitted 249 of the comments. Nineteen
came from preservation, conservation, or animal welfare organizations,
and 16 were submitted by agriculture or livestock organizations. State
agency representatives or elected officials provided 12 comments, and 6
were received from Native American government agencies or
organizations.
Issue 1--One commenter requested the Service double the length of
the public comment period and hold additional public hearings in all
``recipient states.''
Response--The Act and implementing regulations for adding or
removing species from the list of threatened and endangered species
require a public comment period of at least 60 days and holding one
public hearing if requested within 45 days of the publication of the
proposal (50 CFR 424.16). We opened a 90-day public comment period and
held four public hearings in the States that would be most affected by
the proposed changes. Additionally, we facilitated public involvement
in this process by providing a great deal of information on our web
site regarding wolf biology and behavior; wolf identification and wolf-
dog hybrids; threats to human safety; depredation control programs; and
our summaries of State wolf management plans and copies of those plans.
We mailed summaries of the proposal to approximately 1,600 individuals
and organizations that had previously expressed interest in wolf
recovery and delisting issues, and we provided ways to submit comments
via the web, e-mail, fax, and mail, as well as at the four hearings. We
provided ample opportunities for interested individuals and
organizations to learn about the proposal and to provide comments
within the 90-day comment period and at the four hearings; therefore,
we did not extend the comment period nor schedule additional hearings.
Issue 2--A number of comments expressed opposition to delisting,
making statements such as ``wolves should always be protected'' by the
Act, the Service ``should abandon its goal of delisting wolves in the
US,'' and wolves should not be delisted until ``their numbers reach
exorbitant levels,'' they have reached biological carrying capacity, or
wolves have overpopulated and are damaging the natural ecosystem. Other
commenters wanted the critical habitat designations to remain in place
after delisting to keep the Service involved in preserving habitat for
a delisted species.
Response--The Act provides the Federal Government with authority to
protect and recover threatened and endangered species. When a species
has been recovered to the extent that it no longer meets the definition
of ``threatened'' or ``endangered'' the Act provides that it be removed
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
and its management be returned to the appropriate States and tribes (in
cases where treaties identify such authorities for tribes). The goal of
the Act is to recover and delist species that have been listed as
threatened or endangered.
The gray wolf WGL DPS no longer meets the definition of threatened
or endangered, because it has achieved long-standing recovery criteria
by greatly expanding in numbers and geographic range and threats to its
long-term viability have been reduced or eliminated. Therefore, the Act
authorizes delisting the taxon, but it also requires that we continue
to monitor the status of the species for a minimum of five years after
delisting, and we can list it again if the monitoring results show that
to be necessary.
``Critical habitat'' is a legal designation under the Act that is
given to geographical areas that are essential to the conservation of a
listed species. Critical habitat is designated only for endangered or
threatened species, and any critical habitat designations must be
removed if the taxon is removed from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Issue 3--Numerous commenters indicated that our delisting proposal
was based on unspecified political considerations, pressure from the
livestock industry, exaggerated fears for human safety, pressure from
deer hunters and furbearer trappers, and pressure from States. We were
asked by other commenters to consider the value of wolves as an
umbrella or keystone species, for keeping deer numbers in check, to
maintaining healthy ungulate populations, in balancing nature, and
providing a legal mechanism to protect habitat needed by other species.
Others thought we should consider the economic benefits provided by a
large
[[Page 15083]]
wolf population and recognize that protecting ``the entire ecology of
Minnesota'' requires that we keep wolves listed under the Act.
Response--The Act requires that listing and delisting decisions be
based entirely on whether a species is endangered or threatened due to
one or more categories of threats (section 4(a)(1)) and that we make
this determination ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.'' In compliance with the Act, the other
considerations and factors described above have not been used in making
this decision.
Issue 4--Several commenters stated that wolf recovery should
include repopulating suitable habitat in the Lower Peninsula of
Michigan, or that a larger geographical area needs to be reoccupied
before recovery is achieved. One comment stated that population numbers
alone cannot be used ``as the sole proof of long-term recovery.'' Other
commenters pointed to scientific publications that advocate larger
populations with more individuals to ensure long-term viability of
species, in general.
Response--The Act states that the Service will develop recovery
plans and, within these recovery plans, to the maximum extent
practicable, establish ``objective, measurable criteria which, when
met, would result in a determination * * * that the species be removed
from the list * * *.'' (section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii)). Therefore, while a
delisting decision must include an evaluation of the threats to a
species, we must also establish and utilize measurable criteria to
assess progress towards recovery. Our delisting decision is not based
on population numbers alone, but also on population distribution and
threats to that population and its habitat, as required by the Act.
Issue 5--We received several comments that stated that the recovery
criteria have not been achieved because either the wolf population data
are wrong, and/or because the Wisconsin-Upper Peninsula wolf population
is not a second population as is required by the recovery criteria
found in the 1992 Recovery Plan.
Response--We, and the peer reviewers of the delisting proposal, are
fully satisfied that the wolf population estimates provided by the DNRs
of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan demonstrate that the numerical
recovery criteria have been achieved for far longer than the five years
recommended in the Federal Recovery Plan. The methods used by WI and MI
DNRs result in a conservative count of the wolves that are alive at the
late-winter annual low point of the wolf population. The method used by
the Minnesota DNR for its much larger wolf population is less precise,
but even the lower bound of its 90 percent confidence interval (CI)
exceeded the Federal Recovery Plan's Minnesota goal of 1,250-1,440
wolves back as far as the 1988-89 survey (Fuller et al. 1992, p. 50)
and the CI lower bound has been well above that goal since then (Erb
and Benson 2004, table 1). Therefore, we see no problem with using
these Minnesota population estimates. The Recovery Team has also
expressed confidence in the population estimates of all three States
(Peterson in litt. 1999a, in litt. 1999b).
The 1992 Federal Recovery Plan describes two scenarios that would
satisfy its requirement for a second viable wolf population. One
scenario deals with the development of an isolated wolf population;
such a population must be composed of at least 200 wolves over five
successive years. The second scenario is a population that is located
within 100 miles of another viable wolf population; such a population
must consist of only 100 wolves for five consecutive years (USFWS 1992,
pp 25-26). The Recovery Plan discusses the conservation tradeoffs of
completely separate populations versus adjacent populations, and it
specifically states that a wolf population larger than 100 wolves
``closely tied to the Minnesota population'' will be considered a
viable population despite its small size, because of immigration of
wolves from Minnesota (USFWS 1992, pp. 24-25). Although this Recovery
Plan was written prior to the common acceptance and use of the
conservation biology term ``metapopulation,'' this clearly was the
concept being discussed and advocated in the Federal Recovery Plan. The
second scenario describes what has occurred in the WGL DPS and
therefore the wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan qualify as a second
population.
Issue 6--Several comments stated that a DPS cannot be used for
delisting a species; DPSs can only be identified for listing species as
threatened or endangered.
Response--DPSs can be utilized for both listing and delisting
species. Section 4(a)(1) of the Act directs the Secretary of the
Interior to determine whether ``any species'' is endangered or
threatened. Numerous sections of the Act refer to adding and removing
``species'' from the list of threatened or endangered plants and
animals. Section 3(15) defines ``species'' to include any subspecies
``and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish
or wildlife * * *.'' Therefore, the Act authorizes us to list,
reclassify, and delist species, subspecies, and DPSs of vertebrate
species. Furthermore, our ``Policy Regarding the Recognition of
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Endangered Species
Act'' states that the policy is intended for ``the purposes of listing,
delisting, and reclassifying species under the Endangered Species Act *
* *.'' (61 FR 4722, Feb. 7, 1996), and that it ``guides the evaluation
of distinct vertebrate population segments for the purposes of listing,
delisting, and reclassifying under the Act.'' (61 FR 4725).
Most recently, on December 12, 2008, the Solicitor of the
Department of the Interior issued a formal opinion, ``U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Authority Under Section 4(c)(1) of the Endangered
Species Act to Revise Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species to
`Reflect Recent Determinations' '' (U.S. DOI 2008). This opinion
represents the views of the Service and fully supports the Service's
position that it is authorized in a single action to identify a DPS
within a larger listed entity, determine that the DPS is neither
endangered nor threatened, and then revise the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife to reflect those determinations. The opinion also
notes that, although the term ``delist'' is not used in the Act, it is
used extensively in the regulations implementing the section 4 listing
provisions of the Act, such as 50 CFR 424.11(d). As explained in
footnote 8 to the Solicitor's opinion, ``As used by FWS, delisting
applies broadly to any action that revises the lists either to remove
an already-listed entity from the appropriate list in its entirety, or
to reduce the geographic or taxonomic scope of a listing to exclude a
group of organisms previously included as part of an already-listed
entity (as was the case with the Western Great Lakes DPS of gray
wolves).'' The complete text of the Solicitor's formal opinion can be
found at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/.
Issue 7--Several commenters, including State natural resource
agencies, stated that the proposed DPS is too small and should be
expanded to include all of their State (North Dakota, South Dakota,
Iowa), and for Missouri, should include the northern two-thirds of the
State. They expressed concerns that some gray wolves will disperse
beyond the boundaries of the proposed WGL DPS, where they would have
endangered status under the Act. If those wolves subsequently cause
conflicts with livestock or other human activities, the States would be
limited in
[[Page 15084]]
the management or control actions that they could undertake to address
the conflict.
Response--We have delineated this DPS boundary to be based solely
on the wolf population in the Western Great Lakes. Suggestions to
enlarge the DPS to include the locations of all known dispersers from
this recovered population are not practical for several reasons. It is
not possible to predict where additional long-distance dispersers will
turn up. Attempting to lay out the DPS boundary so that it
circumscribes all future Midwest dispersers would require either an
unacceptably large DPS, or making a series of future outward boundary
adjustments to reflect new dispersal locations as they occur.
Upon request we will work with the States where the gray wolf
retains endangered status to identify and pursue options to deal with
wolf-human conflicts that may arise there. We also point out that the
Act's implementing regulations for endangered wildlife specifically
allow a person to take an endangered wolf ``in defense of his own life
or the lives of others'' (50 CFR 17.21(c)(3)) and provide that
employees or agents of the Service, other Federal land management
agencies, and State conservation agencies may take an endangered wolf
that is ``a demonstrable but nonimmediate threat to human safety.'' (50
CFR 17.21(c)(3)(iv)).
Issue 8--One comment stated that the DPS should not include small
areas of northern Indiana and Ohio and instead the DPS should end at
the southern border of Michigan.
Response--We believe the use of I-80 is preferable to the State
line for several reasons. First, the interstate highway more clearly
identifies the terminus of the DPS on the ground, making it easier for
an individual or for law enforcement agents to determine the legal
status of a wolf in the field. Second, this major interstate highway
will serve as a partial barrier to wolf dispersal out of the DPS.
Therefore, this boundary makes it less likely that these two States
will have to deal with dispersing gray wolves that are protected as
endangered within their state. Neither State has requested the proposed
boundary be modified.
Issue 9--The DPS should not include areas of suitable habitat that
lack wolf packs. The DPS should not include any areas that lack wolf
packs.
Response--We have identified the DPS to be closely tied to the
biological wolf population that has been recovered, and to be
consistent with the two relevant court rulings (Defenders of Wildlife
v. Norton, 03-1348-JO, D. OR. 2005; National Wildlife Federation v.
Norton, 1:03-CV-340, D. VT. 2005). Wolf biology makes it unreasonable
to define a wolf population, and hence a wolf DPS, solely as the area
where wolf packs are present at viable levels. Any area that hosts wolf
packs also is producing a substantial number of dispersing wolves, some
of which return after short absences, while others travel farther and
some never return. Delineation of a wolf population must recognize and
account for this dispersal behavior to some degree. We believe our DPS
delineation is appropriately based on the biological features of the
species and the nature of a wolf population by being centered around
the focal areas of the recovery program, but also including a
reasonable portion of those wolves making longer distance movements
from their natal areas.
We have included nearby areas that are likely to be visited by
wolves that have dispersed from the core recovery areas because we
believe these wolves should be considered part of that biological
population while they are within a reasonable distance from the core
areas. The areas of potentially suitable habitat that are currently
unoccupied are relatively small, and even if occupied in the future,
will not make a significant contribution to the long-term viability of
the gray wolf population in the DPS or in the United States.
Additionally, wolves that ultimately occupy the NLP will have dispersed
from the UP, so we believe the NLP should be included within the WGL
DPS.
Issue 10--One comment stated that other gray wolf DPSs should be
proposed and identified simultaneously. Piecemeal identification of
DPSs and de-listing thwarts the intent of both the vertebrate
population policy and the Act.
Response--While in some situations it may be appropriate to
identify multiple DPSs simultaneously, there is no requirement in the
Act or the DPS Policy to do so. The Service lists or delists species
when data are available that supports a decision that best serves the
conservation of the taxon. As mentioned above, on December 12, 2008, a
formal opinion was issued by the Solicitor for the Department of the
Interior, ``U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Authority Under Section
4(c)(1) of the ESA to Revise Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species
to `Reflect Recent Determinations' '' (U.S. DOI 2008) and fully
supports the Secretary's actions in this final rule. The complete text
of the Solicitor's formal opinion can be found at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/.
Issue 11--Several commenters expressed the concern that delisting
the WGL DPS will eliminate the possibility of wolf recovery in the
northeastern United States.
Response--Following this delisting, gray wolves in the northeastern
states will retain their classification as endangered under the Act,
thereby preserving the possibility of efforts to restore the gray wolf
to that region. It also preserves the Federal protections of the Act
that would aid gray wolf restoration actions in the northeastern United
States if undertaken by State or tribal agencies, and it protects gray
wolves immigrating from Canada.
Issue 12--The Service must consider gray wolf subspecies when
constructing DPS boundaries, and a DPS cannot include portions of the
historical range of two subspecies (C. lupus lycaon and C. l. nubilus)
within its boundary.
Response--The gray wolf entity that has been protected by the Act
since 1978 is the species C. lupus in the United States and Mexico,
rather than a subspecies of the gray wolf. This DPS creates a subunit
of the species listing, thereby indicating that the population of the
species within this geographical boundary has been recovered. It makes
no reference to any gray wolf subspecies. Because the listed entity is
the gray wolf, creating a DPS from a portion of the listed entity does
not create or require a nexus with subspecies taxonomy.
Issue 13--Several comments suggested that a separate species of
wolf may be present in the Upper Peninsula and should be recognized and
protected by the Service.
Response--There are several scientific hypotheses regarding the
identity of large canids in the eastern United States and adjacent
Canada. One of these hypotheses suggests that the wolves in
southeastern Ontario are a separate wolf species being referred to as
the ``eastern wolf'' and tentatively given the scientific name Canis
lycaon. If southeastern Ontario wolves are this separate species, those
wolves may have contributed their genetic material to the wolf
population in the UP via movement westward across the St. Mary's River.
However, we believe the UP wolf population primarily developed from
Minnesota and Wisconsin wolves that made overland movements into the UP
from the west, and that wolf immigration across the St. Mary's River
from the east was of much smaller magnitude. At this point there have
been no published or peer-reviewed studies of the genetic makeup of UP
wolves. Therefore, we will continue to consider WGL wolves to be C.
lupus.
[[Page 15085]]
Issue 14--One comment applied the meaning of significance (using
examples of unique ecological setting and differences in genetic
characteristics) as used in our 1996 DPS Policy (61 FR 4725, Feb. 7,
1996) to the usage of ``significant'' in ``significant portion of its
range'' as the phrase is used in the definitions of endangered and
threatened in paragraphs 3(6) and 3(19), respectively. As a result, the
comment concludes that we have not applied the DPS Policy's examples of
significance during our analysis of whether wolves have been recovered
to a sufficient area of the DPS.
Response--These two uses of significant/significance are context-
specific, do not have the same meaning, and should not be used
interchangeably. When applying the DPS policy, we are required to
evaluate whether the discrete group of animals under consideration is
sufficiently important to the overall taxon so that it warrants a
separate listing under the Act--that is, is the population significant
to the overall taxon. In contrast, when applying the definitions of
endangered and threatened to a taxon, we are considering whether a
certain area is important to that same taxon. Another way of explaining
the difference is that in one case we are evaluating the importance of
a group of organisms; in the other case we are assessing the value of a
portion of geographic range. The evaluations are not comparable and are
dependent on different factors. Therefore, we believe we are correct in
our usage of these terms in this rule.
Issue 15--Wolves remain extirpated in approximately 60 percent of
the DPS. This is a significant portion of the range (SPR) within the
DPS; therefore, wolves remain endangered in the DPS.
Response--The determination of whether a portion of a species'
range is ``significant'' is based on the biological needs of the
species and the threats to the species. In making this determination we
consider the quality, quantity, and distribution of suitable habitat,
the use, uniqueness, and importance of the habitat, and other
biological factors appropriate to the species and area under
consideration. We do not focus solely, or even primarily, on a
quantitative assessment, because quantity of range might have no
relationship to the biological needs of the species. In the case of the
gray wolf, the portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois,
Indiana, and Ohio within the WGL DPS are not significant portions of
the range even though they may be sizeable pieces of historical range.
These areas contain wolf habitat that is severely degraded at best, and
even if they remained listed as endangered, they would not be likely to
develop viable wolf populations in the foreseeable future. These areas
thus are not important to the gray wolf metapopulation in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Similarly, the areas of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan that currently are unoccupied by
wolves contain only small areas of potentially suitable habitat, mostly
in the NLP of Michigan, and eventual wolf pack occupancy of these areas
will have minimal influence on the viability of the current recovered
wolf populations in the three States. Consequently, these areas have
minimal biological significance to the conservation status of gray
wolves in the DPS, and they are not an SPR within the DPS.
Issue 16--The Service must consider the historical range of the
gray wolf, rather than the currently occupied range, when assessing
what is a ``significant part of the range'' as that phrase is used in
the definitions of endangered and threatened species.
Response--For the purposes of this rule, and for determining the
significant portion of the range of the gray wolf in the DPS, the
Service considers the range of the gray wolf to be the entire
geographical area delineated by the WGL DPS. We have clarified this in
the final rule.
Issue 17--One comment stated that a rangewide recovery plan is
required by the Act before any wolf delisting actions can occur.
Response--The Service has developed, implemented, and revised, as
needed, three geographically based recovery plans for the gray wolf.
The Act requires that we develop and implement recovery plans for
listed species unless they ``will not promote the conservation of the
species * * *'' (section 4(f)(1)). In its 2005 ruling, the Vermont
District Court specifically commented on this issue, finding that the
Service's use of ``three recovery plans for the gray wolf rather than
one comprehensive plan must be afforded Chevron deference, and is
therefore an appropriate agency course of action'' (National Wildlife
Federation v. Norton, 1:03-CV-340, D. VT. 2005, p. 28).
Issue 18--A comment letter stated that the Act does not permit the
creation of a WGL DPS (and Northern Rocky Mountain DPS) while
maintaining the pre-existing species listing across the remaining 48
States.
Response--We believe this approach of creating a small DPS reflects
the recovered status of wolves in the DPS and is consistent with the
2005 rulings (Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 03-1348-JO, D. OR 2005;
National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, 1:03-CV-340, D. VT. 2005). The
Vermont ruling stated ``Nowhere in the ESA is the Secretary prevented
from creating a `non-DPS remnant', especially when the remnant area was
already listed as endangered'' (National Wildlife Federation v. Norton,
1:03-CV-340, D. VT. 2005, p. 20). Our current identification of a WGL
DPS, while retaining the remaining 48-state and Mexico gray wolf
listing intact as endangered, is consistent with this aspect of the
District Court's ruling.
Issue 19--The Service cannot delist the DPS because the gray wolf
remains extirpated from 95 percent of its historical range.
Response--We have clarified in this final rule that we are only
delisting the gray wolf in the WGL DPS; we are not delisting the gray
wolf across its historical range in the 48 coterminous States and
Mexico. We have considered only whether the gray wolf is threatened or
endangered within this DPS.
Issue 20--The DPS can only delist wolves in the core recovery
areas, rather than include and delist dispersing animals from those
areas.
Response--A critical component of delineating the boundaries of a
DPS is gaining an understanding of the population/metapopulation that
is being identified as a DPS. Wolf biology clearly shows that temporary
and permanent movements beyond the pack's territory are a key element
of wolf population dynamics, and as such, these movements must be
considered when delineating a boundary for a DPS. Furthermore, a
biologically based DPS boundary cannot follow the edge of the fully
occupied core areas, as this comment seems to advocate. Individual
wolves would be constantly moving back and forth across such a
boundary, and pack territories may form on both sides of the line in
some years, and might disappear from one or both sides in subsequent
years, depending on a number of physical, biological, and societal
factors. We determined that the DPS boundary should recognize and
accommodate the normal behavior of the population/metapopulation
members.
Issue 21--The Service did not use wolf dispersal data as claimed,
because wolves disperse outside of the proposed DPS boundary.
Response--In the proposed rule we did not attempt to include the
locations of all known dispersing MN/WI/MI wolves within the proposed
DPS, or to use the maximum known gray wolf dispersal distance to
delineate the DPS boundary. We have provided further
[[Page 15086]]
clarification in this final rule on the biological method we have used.
Issue 22--The DPS must contain a uniform biotype (the Laurentian
Mixed Forest Province), or the DPS boundaries must be based on biotype
or habitat boundaries, because this is what makes the WGL wolves
``significant.''
Response--A number of factors contributed to our determination that
the WGL DPS was significant, only one of which included occupancy of
these in the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province. However, even if the
only factor contributing to ``significance'' was the Laurentian Mixed
Forest Province, the DPS boundaries would not use (nor is there a
requirement to use) that habitat or biotype as the boundary. As
discussed in the rule, many factors concerning wolf biology were
considered in identifying the WGL DPS. Limiting the DPS to one habitat
type would not make sense biologically for this species.
Issue 23--Highways I-80 and the Missouri River cannot be used for
DPS boundaries, because wolves cross them, making them arbitrary
choices.
Response--In our proposal we described Interstate 80 and the
Missouri River as being ``partial barriers,'' and we cited data showing
they have been crossed by a small number of wolves (p. 15277). We did
not use these features to identify the discreteness of the wolf
population within the WGL DPS. Rather, we use them as readily
identifiable features on the landscape that are in a biologically
appropriate location for use in delineating the DPS, and they are also
partial barriers to wolf movements.
Issue 24--The 1992 Service Recovery Plan is outdated, and its
recovery criteria cannot be used to justify delisting.
Response--When wolf numbers in the Midwest appeared to be
approaching the recovery criteria specified in the 1992 Plan, we
reconvened the Recovery Team in 1997 to query them regarding the
appropriateness of those criteria. The Team expressed confidence that
the recovery criteria remained ``necessary and sufficient'' (Peterson
in litt. 1997, in litt. 1998). Furthermore, the peer reviewers
overwhelmingly supported our conclusion that the WGL DPS wolves have
recovered, and they expressed no concern with the 1992 recovery
criteria that were used as part of our determination.
The population goals in the 1992 Recovery Plan are not the sole
determinants of whether delisting is appropriate. While the Act states
that recovery plans shall contain ``objective, measurable criteria''
(sec. 4(f)(1)(B)(ii)) when practicable, achieving these criteria alone
cannot result in a delisting. Rather, recovery criteria are important
indicators that identify the need for consideration of delisting. The
consideration of delisting is a broad review of the past, current, and
likely future threats to the species, as required by the Act. The
delisting decision is made based on the threats assessment, and the
resulting determination of whether the species meets the Act's
definition of threatened or endangered.
Issue 25--One commenter stated that increasing use of off-highway
vehicles (OHV) in Minnesota and growing human populations pose serious
threats to wolves, especially in the core of Minnesota's wolf range.
The commenter pointed out that most of primary wolf range (e.g.,
Management Zone A) (MN DNR 2001, Appendix III) is north of Highway 2
and that trails in these forests may be subject to few limitations to
motorized use.
Response--As discussed in ``Suitable Habitat in the Western Great
Lakes Gray Wolf DPS'' road density has largely been accepted as the
best single predictor of habitat suitability in the Midwest due to the
connection between roads and human-related wolf mortality. Off-highway
vehicle trails introduce only a portion of the impacts and risk factors
associated with roads, such as increased human access to areas occupied
by wolves and increased likelihood of unauthorized shooting or
trapping. Off-highway vehicle trails do not introduce significant
levels of the other risk factors, such as more farms and residences,
more domestic animals, a greater likelihood of mortality due to
livestock-depredation control or vehicle collisions, and increased
likelihood of disease transmission from domestic dogs. Therefore, we
believe wolf populations are more sensitive to normal road
infrastructure density than to OHV trail density.
MN DNR is developing recommendations for motorized use of State
forest lands. In preparation for this analysis, it completed an
inventory in 2004 of all State forest roads and access routes on State,
county, and Federal lands within State forest boundaries--a total of
5.7 million acres. (MN DNR 2005). This inventory found an overall route
density of 0.8 km per km2, but did not differentiate between
motorized and non-motorized trails (routes). MN DNR is now conducting a
forest-by-forest review and proposing which roads and trails will be
available for motor vehicle use. As of September 2006, MN DNR had
completed reviews on 16 State forests and had closed approximately 57
percent of routes to motorized use. If this trend continues, the
density of routes open to motorized use in Minnesota State forests
(State forest roads and OHV trails) may approximate 0.5 km per
km2. Only 3 of the 16 forests reviewed thus far, however,
are north of Highway 2 and all were either completely closed to
motorized use or given a ``Limited'' use designation. As the department
begins to evaluate larger, more remote northern forests, however, this
trend (i.e., about 50 percent closure) may change and some forests may
retain the ``managed'' classification (i.e., open unless posted closed,
OHV trail designation questions and answers, MN DNR Division of Trails
and Waterways, St. Paul, MN; http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/mgmtplans/ohv/designation/index.html.
According to the commenter, registered ATVs in Minnesota increased
from 32,501 in 1990 to 266,283 in 2004. Although this is a sharp
increase, the wolf population in Minnesota grew and, more recently, may
have stabilized at about 3,020 wolves (Erb and Benson 2004, Table 1)
during this time. Therefore, there is no clear relationship between OHV
use and wolf abundance statewide. Nevertheless, we agree that the
combination of growing human populations and extensive use of OHV's
warrants careful monitoring and regulation to ensure that wolf
populations are not adversely affected. Minnesota's wolf management
plan states that ``in areas of sufficient size to sustain one or more
wolf packs, land managers should be cautious about adding new road
access that could exceed a density of one mile of road per square mile
of land, without considering the potential effect on wolves'' (MN DNR
2001, p. 29). We expect MN DNR to continue to also consider human
densities when monitoring the extent and distribution of suitable wolf
habitat in the State and to take necessary actions (e.g., decreasing
road density in State forests) to maintain a population of at least
1,600 gray wolves if increases in human density erode the extent of
suitable habitat such that the population falls below this level.
Issue 26--A commenter pointed out that increasing volume of
automobile traffic in Minnesota's wolf range will fragment habitat,
increase wolf mortality, destroy habitat, displace wolves, and
contribute to urban sprawl. Four examples were provided.
Response--It is clear that automobiles kill wolves on roads and
highways and that wolves tend to avoid these features relative to road-
free areas (Whittington et al. 2004, pp. 9-11; Whittington et al. 2005,
pp. 549-551), but highways are far from absolute barriers to dispersal.
For
[[Page 15087]]
example, in a study of U.S. Highway 53 in northwest Wisconsin (4,700
vehicles per day) in the late 1990's, Kohn et al. (2000, p. 2) found
that 12 of 13 radio-collared wolves that encountered the highway
successfully crossed it, some of them multiple times, and that each of
these dispersing wolves subsequently became dominant members of packs
in newly established territories. In addition, the successful
reestablishment of wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan depended on a
sufficient number of Minnesota wolves crossing Interstate Highway 35
where current average traffic volumes are greater than 15,000 vehicles
per day (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/tda/maps/trunkhighway/2004/state_and_metro/stateflo.pdf. Wolf crossing of roads, however, is dependent
on adjacent human development and habitat fragmentation, and land
managers can likely influence the ability of wolves to disperse across
highways in Minnesota's wolf range by ensuring that sufficient road
reaches occur in areas with high crossing potential (i.e., low
fragmentation of adjacent habitat due to open or developed areas; Frair
1999, pp. 19-20).
Issue 27--Disease remains a serious threat and post-delisting
disease monitoring is inadequate or unfunded. One comment states that
the Michigan Plan only commits the DNR to monitor wolf health until the
State wolf population reaches 200 wolves.
Response--The expectation in the 1997 Michigan Wolf Plan was that
Federal wolf delisting would occur before the State reached its own
minimum goal of 200 wolves. As a result, the plan states that wolf
monitoring, including health and disease monitoring, would continue
``at least until the minimum population sustainable population goal [of
200] is met.'' (MI DNR 1997, p. 21.) However, the 1997 Michigan Plan
also states that wolf health and disease monitoring will occur ``for a
minimum of five years after Federal delisting'' (MI DNR 1997 p. 21-22,
45). In fact, wolf health and disease monitoring has continued well
beyond the attainment of the 200-wolf threshold, which occurred in
early 1996. We believe the commenters' fear that wolf health and
disease monitoring will cease upon delisting is unwarranted by the
facts or by the State Plan.
Issue 28 --The delisting should be delayed, or should be done in a
manner to promote wolf expansion into the NLP.
Response--We believe the gray wolf has achieved recovery in the DPS
and is no longer threatened or endangered. Therefore, it should be
delisted with management returning to the States and tribes. Those
governments and their constituents will determine if additional wolf
recovery will be promoted. We will consider providing technical
assistance to further State or tribal wolf recovery efforts if
requested.
Issue 29 --Human predation poses too high a risk to delist the
wolf. The wolf cannot be delisted ``until this threat has been
adequately controlled.''
Response--Our detailed review of the past, current, and likely
future threats to wolves within the WGL DPS identified human-caused
mortality of all forms to constitute the majority of documented wolf
deaths. However, the wolf populations in Wisconsin and Michigan have
continued to expand in numbers and the Minnesota wolf population is at
least maintaining itself at well over the population goal recommended
in the 1992 Recovery Plan and at about twice the minimum level
established in the 2001 Minnesota Wolf Plan. Healthy wolf populations
clearly can withstand a high level of mortality, from human and other
causes, and remain viable. Although the commenters do not provide any
clarification on what is meant by ``adequately controlled'' we believe
that for purposes of this delisting decision, the numerical growth and
range expansion shown by WGL DPS wolves indicates that ``adequate
control'' already exists since the species is being maintained at
healthy levels.
Issue 30--WGL DPS wolves should be reclassified to threatened
instead of delisted. Another comment stated that only Minnesota wolves
should be delisted now.
Response--Minnesota wolves were classified as threatened in 1978.
The Act does not require endangered species to first be moved to
threatened status before delisting, but for some species that
intermediate step is appropriate. The WGL DPS wolf metapopulation has
continued to increase to the extent that it greatly exceeds our
recovery criteria, and it has exceeded our numerical delisting criteria
since 1999. Therefore, we believe delisting is appropriate for this
DPS.
Issue 31--It will be difficult to relist these wolves if it becomes
necessary following delisting.
Response--The Act requires that we monitor the status of a delisted
species for at least five years after delisting. Section 4(g) of the
Act authorizes the Service to make prompt use of our emergency listing
authority under section 4(b)(7) to prevent a significant risk to the
well-being of any recovered species. Therefore, we believe the Act
provides the authority and the requirement to relist midwestern gray
wolves if necessary.
Issue 32--A large number of comments recommended that specific
changes be made to the three State wolf management plans.
Response--We have reviewed the 2001 Minnesota Plan, the 1999 and
2006 Updated Wisconsin Plan, and the 1997 Michigan Plan. We reviewed
these plans to determine if they will provide sufficient protection and
reduce threats. We are primarily concerned with the outcome of the
plan's implementation. Once a species is delisted, the details of its
management are a State or tribal responsibility; the Federal
responsibility is to monitor the plan's implementation and the species'
response for at least five years to ensure that the plan's outcome is
as expected. We have concluded that each plan provides adequate
protection for wolves, and will keep threats at a sufficiently low
level, so that the WGL DPS wolves will not become threatened or
endangered in the foreseeable future. Suggestions for changes to the
State wolf management plans should be directed to the respective State
management agency for consideration.
Issue 33 --Wisconsin and Michigan DNR have not completed their wolf
management plans, so delisting should be delayed until after those
plans are completed and they are shown to be adequate.
Response--The Wisconsin DNR did not revise its 1997 Wolf Management
Plan. Instead, the plan has had some portions of the text updated, and
several appendices have been added to deal with new public opinion data
and a 2004 DNR questionnaire. The Plan's management goal of 350 wolves
and the vast majority of management practices remain unchanged. We
received the updated Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan Addendum 2006 in
time to evaluate it as part of our delisting decision.
The 1997 Michigan Wolf Management Plan is in the midst of revision.
The process for its revision includes obtaining recommendations in the
form of ``guiding principles'' from a roundtable group composed of
diverse stakeholders, and it will not be completed until late in 2007.
In the meantime, the 1997 Michigan Plan will remain in effect, as
supplemented by additional guidance developed since 1997 to deal with
aspects of wolf management and recovery not adequately covered in the
1997 Plan, such as ``Guidelines for Management and Lethal Control of
Wolves Following Confirmed Depredation Events'' (MI DNR 2005a).
[[Page 15088]]
Issue 34--The delisting decision is based on the assumption that
the State wolf management plans will be fully implemented after Federal
delisting.
Response--We are required to evaluate the likely future threats
that a delisted wolf population will experience. We rely heavily on the
State wolf management plans for our assessment of the degree of
protection and monitoring that will occur after Federal delisting.
Because these plans have received the necessary approvals within the
State governments, we believe it is reasonable to assume the plans will
be funded and implemented largely as written. Wisconsin and Michigan
DNRs have led the efforts to restore wolves to their States for several
decades, including a 1974 reintroduction effort initiated by Michigan
DNR (Weise et al. 1975). Based on their proven leadership in Midwest
wolf recovery, we see no reason to doubt the continuing commitment of
these State agencies to wolf conservation.
We recognize that State wolf plans can be changed by the respective
DNR or State legislature, creating some uncertainty regarding plan
implementation. However, given the high public visibility of wolf
management, the extent of public interest and involvement in the
development and updating of the States' plans, the vast amount of
scientific data available regarding wolf management, and the status
monitoring that we will be maintaining for the next five years, we
believe it is reasonable and proper to assume that the three State wolf
plans will not be significantly changed, nor will their implementation
be critically underfunded, in a manner that would jeopardize the
viability of any State's wolf population. If this assumption turns out
to be incorrect, we have the ability to relist the species, including
an emergency relisting, if necessary.
Issue 35--Many comments expressed distrust for State wolf
protection, based on past State programs aimed at wolf eradication.
Response--We acknowledge the past involvement of State and Federal
government agencies in intensive, and largely successful, programs to
eradicate wolves. However, we believe that public sentiment and agency
mandates have changed dramatically since the 1960s and earlier. While
wolf eradication might still be the wish of a small number of
individuals, we believe there is broad support among the public and
within governmental agencies to allow wolves to occupy our landscape,
with some degree of management imposed to maintain control of the level
of wolf-human conflicts. Based on existing State laws and State
management plans, we will rely upon the States to provide sufficient
protection to wolves until and unless it is shown they are unwilling or
unable to do so.
Issue 36--The Post-Delisting Monitoring (PDM) Plan should be
completed before delisting occurs.
Response--The Act requires a minimum of five years of PDM. There is
no requirement that a PDM plan be completed before delisting. We are
working on a PDM plan, utilizing the expertise of the Recovery Team,
and we expect to complete the plan shortly. Because past wolf
monitoring by the States has been successful and adequate to document
progress toward recovery, we expect that PDM will be similar to
recovery monitoring. The PDM plan will organize data-gathering more
than has been done in the past, and it will identify the Service office
that will be responsible for initiating the data gathering and
coordinating the data review.
Issue 37--Several commenters stated that the Service must ensure
that State wolf management strategies accommodate tribal interests
within reservation boundaries as well as honor the tribal role and
authority in wolf management in the ceded territories. Furthermore, the
Federal trust responsibility, as it pertains to wolf management, must
be continued after delisting. They asked how, and by whom, that Federal
trust responsibility will be continued after the Act no longer provides
the authority for the Service to protect wolves.
Response--The Service and the Department of the Interior recognize
the unique status of the federally recognized tribes, their right to
self-governance, and their inherent sovereign powers over their members
and territory. The Department, the Service, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), and other Federal agencies, as appropriate, will take
the needed steps to ensure that tribal authority and sovereignty within
reservation boundaries are respected as the States implement their wolf
management plans and revise those plans in the future. Furthermore,
there may be tribal activities or interests associated with the wolf
encompassed within the tribes' retained rights to hunt, fish, and
gather in treaty-ceded territories. The Department will assist in the
exercise of those rights. If biological assistance is needed, the
Service may provide it via our field offices. The Service will remain
involved in the post-delisting monitoring of the gray wolf, but all
Service management and protection authority under the Act will end with
this delisting. Legal assistance will be provided to the tribes by the
Department of the Interior, and the BIA will be involved, when needed.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated
to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures
for listing, reclassifying, and delisting species. A species may be
listed as threatened or endangered if one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act threaten its continued
existence. A species may be delisted, according to 50 CFR 424.11(d), if
the best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that the
species is neither endangered nor threatened because of (1) extinction,
(2) recovery, or (3) error in the original data used for classification
of the species.
A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's
definition of threatened or endangered. Determining whether a species
is recovered requires consideration of the same five categories of
threats specified in section 4(a)(1). This analysis of threats is an
evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species and the
threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the
foreseeable future after its delisting and the consequent removal of
the Act's protections.
Foreseeable future is defined by the Services on a case-by-case
basis, taking into consideration a variety of species-specific factors
such as lifespan, genetics, breeding behavior, demography, threat
projection timeframes, and environmental variability. ``Foreseeable''
is commonly viewed as ``such as reasonably can or should be
anticipated: such that a person of ordinary prudence would expect it to
occur or exist under the circumstances'' (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
of Law 1996: Western Watershed Project v. Foss (D. Idaho 2005; CV 04-
168-MHW). For the WGL DPS, the foreseeable future differs for each
factor potentially affecting the DPS. It took a considerable length of
time for public attitudes and regulations to result in a social climate
that promoted and allowed for wolf recovery in the WGL DPS and NRM DPS.
The length of time over which this shift occurred, and the ensuing
stability in those attitudes, give us confidence that this social
climate will persist. Also, the States have had a solid history of
cooperating and assisting in wolf recovery and have made a commitment,
through legislative actions, to continue these activities. We believe
this
[[Page 15089]]
commitment will continue. When evaluating the available information,
with respect to the foreseeable future, we take into account reduced
confidence as we forecast further into the future.
A species is ``endangered'' for purposes of the Act if it is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a ``significant portion of its
range'' and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a ``significant portion
of its range.'' The following describes how we interpret the terms
``range'' and ``significant'' as used in the phrase ``significant
portion of its range,'' and explains the bases for our use of those
terms in this rule. On March 16, 2007, a formal opinion was issued by
the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, ``The Meaning of `In
Danger of Extinction Throughout All or a Significant Portion of Its
Range' '' (U.S. DOI 2007). Our explanation below is consistent with
that opinion.
``Range''
The word ``range'' in the phrase ``significant portion of its
range'' refers to the range in which a species currently exists, not to
the historical range of the species where it once existed. The context
in which the phrase is used is crucial. Under the Act's definitions, a
species is ``endangered'' only if it ``is in danger of extinction'' in
the relevant portion of its range. The phrase ``is in danger'' denotes
a present-tense condition of being at risk of a future, undesired
event. To say that a species ``is in danger'' in an area that is
currently unoccupied, such as unoccupied historical range, would be
inconsistent with common usage. Thus, ``range'' must mean ``currently-
occupied range,'' not ``historical range.'' This interpretation of
``range'' is further supported by the fact that section 4(a)(1)(A) of
the Act requires us to consider the ``present'' or ``threatened''
(i.e., future), rather than the past, ``destruction, modification, or
curtailment'' of a species' habitat or range in determining whether a
species is endangered or threatened.
However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to conclude,
without any analysis or explanation that the ``range'' referred to in
the SPR phrase includes the historical range of the species. The court
stated that a species ``can be extinct `throughout * * * a significant
portion of its range' if there are major geographical areas in which it
is no longer viable but once was,'' and then faults the Secretary for
not ``at least explain[ing] her conclusion that the area in which the
species can no longer live is not a significant portion of its range.''
Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136, 1145 (emphasis added).
This would suggest that the range we must analyze in assessing
endangerment includes unoccupied historical range--i.e., the places
where the species was once viable but no longer exists.
The statute does not support this interpretation. This
interpretation is based on what appears to be an inadvertent misquote
of the relevant statutory language. In addressing this issue, the Ninth
Circuit states that we must determine whether a species is ``extinct
throughout * * * a significant portion of its range.'' Id. If that were
true, we would have to study the historical range. But that is not what
the statute says, and the Ninth Circuit quotes the statute correctly
elsewhere in its opinion. Under the Act, we are not to determine if a
species is ``extinct throughout * * * a significant portion of its
range,'' but are to determine if it ``is in danger of extinction
throughout * * * a significant portion of its range.'' A species cannot
presently be ``in danger of extinction'' in that portion of its range
where it ``was once viable but no longer is''--if by the latter phrase
the court meant lost historical habitat. In that portion of its range,
the species has by definition ceased to exist. In such a situation, it
is not ``in danger of extinction''; it is extinct.
Although we must focus on the range in which the species currently
exists, data about the species' historical range and how the species
came to be extinct in that location may be relevant in understanding or
predicting whether a species is ``in danger of extinction'' in its
current range and therefore relevant to our 5 factor analysis. But the
fact that it has ceased to exist in what may have been portions of its
historical range does not necessarily mean that it is ``in danger of
extinction'' in a significant portion of the range where it currently
exists.
For the purposes of this notice, we consider the range of the gray
wolf to be the entire geographical area delineated by the boundaries of
the WGL DPS.
``Significant''
The Act does not clearly indicate what portion(s) of a species'
range should be considered ``significant.'' Most dictionaries list
several definitions of ``significant.'' For example, one standard
dictionary defines ``significant'' as ``important,'' ``meaningful,''
``a noticeably or measurably large amount,'' or ``suggestive''
(Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1088 10th ed. 2000). If it
means a ``noticeably or measurably large amount,'' then we would have
to focus on the size of the range in question, either in relation to
the rest of the range or perhaps even in absolute terms. If it means
``important,'' then we would have to consider factors in addition to
size in determining a portion of a species' range is ``significant.''
For example, would a key breeding ground of a species be
``significant,'' even if it was only a small part of the species'
entire range?
One district court interpreted the term to mean ``a noticeably or
measurably large amount'' without analysis or any reference to other
alternate meanings, including ``important'' or ``meaningful.''
Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 239 F. Supp. 2d 9, 19 (D.D.C. 2002).
We consider the court's interpretation to be unpersuasive, because the
court did not explain why we could not employ another, equally
plausible definition of ``significant.'' It is impossible to determine
from the word itself, even when read in the context of the entire
statute, which meaning of ``significant'' Congress intended. Moreover,
even if it were clear which meaning was intended, ``significant'' would
still require interpretation. For example, if it were meant to refer to
size, what size would be ``significant'': 30 percent, 60 percent, 90
percent? Should the percentage be the same in every case or for each
species? Moreover, what factors, if any, would be appropriate to
consider in making a size determination? Is size all by itself
``significant,'' or does size only become ``significant'' when
considered in combination with other factors? On the other hand, if
``significant'' were meant to refer to importance, what factors would
need to be considered in deciding that a particular portion of a
species' range is ``important'' enough to trigger the protections of
the Act?
Where there is ambiguity in a statute, as with the meaning of
``significant,'' the agency charged with administering the statute, in
this case the Service, has broad discretion to resolve the ambiguity
and give meaning to the term. As the Supreme Court has stated:
In Chevron, this Court held that ambiguities in statutes within
an agency's jurisdiction to administer are delegations of authority
to the agency to fill the statutory gap in reasonable fashion.
Filling these gaps, the Court explained, involves difficult policy
choices that agencies are better equipped to make than courts. If a
statute is ambiguous, and if the implementing agency's construction
is reasonable, Chevron requires a federal court to accept the
agency's construction of the statute, even if the agency's reading
differs from what the court believes is the best statutory
interpretation.
[[Page 15090]]
Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S.
967, 980 (2005) (internal citations omitted).
We have broad discretion in defining what portion of a species'
range is ``significant.'' No ``bright line'' or ``predetermined''
percentage of historical range loss is considered ``significant'' in
all cases, and we may consider factors other than simply the size of
the range portion in defining what is ``significant.'' In light of the
general ecosystems conservation purposes and findings in section 2 of
the Act, our goal is to define ``significant'' in such a way as to
insure the conservation of the species protected by the Act. In
determining whether a range portion is significant, we consider the
ecosystems on which the species that use that range depend as well as
the values listed in the Act that would be impaired or lost if the
species were to become extinct in that portion of the range or in the
range as a whole.
However, our discretion in defining ``significant'' is not
unlimited. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, while acknowledging that
we have ``a wide degree of discretion in delineating'' what portion of
a range is ``significant,'' appeared to set outer limits of that
discretion. See Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136. On the
one hand, it rejected what it called a quantitative approach to
defining ``significant,'' where a ``bright line'' or ``predetermined''
percentage of historical range loss is considered ``significant'' in
all cases. 258 F.3d. at 1143. As the court explained:
First, it simply does not make sense to assume that the loss of
a predetermined percentage of habitat or range would necessarily
qualify a species for listing. A species with an exceptionally large
historical range may continue to enjoy healthy population levels
despite the loss of a substantial amount of suitable habitat.
Similarly, a species with an exceptionally small historical range
may quickly become endangered after the loss of even a very small
percentage of habitat.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that what is ``significant'' must
``necessarily be determined on a case by case basis,'' and must take
into account not just the size of the range but also the biological
importance of the range to the species. 258 F.3d. at 1143. At the other
end of the spectrum, the Ninth Circuit rejected what it called ``the
faulty definition offered by the Secretary,'' a definition that holds
that a portion of a species' range is ``significant'' only if the
threats faced by the species in that area are so severe as to threaten
the viability of the species as a whole. 258 F.3d. at 1143, 1146. It
thus appears that within the two outer boundaries set by the Ninth
Circuit, we have wide discretion to give the definitive interpretation
of the word ``significant'' in the phrase significant ``portion of its
range.''
Based on these principles, we consider the following factors in
determining whether a portion of a range is ``significant''--quality,
quantity, and distribution of habitat relative to the biological
requirements of the species; the historical value of the habitat to the
species; the frequency of use of the habitat; the uniqueness or
importance of the habitat for other reasons, such as breeding, feeding,
migration, wintering, or suitability for population expansion; genetic
diversity; and other biological factors. We focus on portions of a
species' range that are important to the conservation of the species,
such as ``recovery units'' identified in approved Section 4 recovery
plans; unique habitat or other ecological features that provide
adaptive opportunities that are of conservation importance to the
species; and ``core'' populations that generate additional individuals
of a species that can, over time, replenish depleted populations or
stocks at the periphery of the species' range. We do not apply the term
``significant'' to portions of the species' range that constitute less-
productive peripheral habitat, artificially-created habitat, or areas
where wildlife species have established themselves in urban or suburban
settings--such portions of the species' range are not ``significant,''
in our view, to the conservation of the species in the wild.
Determining the SPR for the WGL DPS of the gray wolf is based on
the biological needs of the species in the DPS. As discussed previously
in our proposed WGL wolf rule (71 FR 15266-15305; March 27, 2006),
wolves are highly adaptable habitat generalists, and their primary
biological need is an adequate natural prey base of large ungulates.
The primary current and likely future threats to wolves are excessive
human-caused mortality and increased mortality from diseases and
parasites. Therefore, our determination of the SPR for the WGL DPS of
the gray wolf is primarily based on the portion of the DPS that
provides an adequate wild prey base, suitably low levels of human-
caused mortality, and sufficient representation, resiliency, and
redundancy to buffer the impacts of disease and parasite-induced
mortality.
These biological needs, and the threats to gray wolves in the WGL
DPS, are discussed in the following paragraphs addressing the five
factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We describe the
necessary characteristics of suitable habitat and the necessary size
and distribution of such habitat for it to constitute a SPR in the WGL
DPS. Areas of habitat within the range of the gray wolf that are not
suitable, or are not of sufficient size or appropriate geographic
distribution, are not an SPR of the DPS.
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
A common misperception is that wolves inhabit only remote portions
of pristine forests or mountainous areas, where human developments and
other activities have produced negligible change to the natural
landscape. Their extirpation south of Canada and Alaska, except for the
heavily forested portions of northeastern Minnesota, reinforced this
popular belief. Wolves, however, survived in those areas not because
those were the only places with the necessary habitat conditions, but
because only in those remote areas were they sufficiently free of the
human persecution that elsewhere killed wolves faster than the species
could reproduce (Mech 1995a, p. 271).
In the western Great Lakes region, wolves in the densely forested
northeastern corner of Minnesota have expanded into the more
agricultural portions of central and northwestern Minnesota, northern
and central Wisconsin, and the entire UP of Michigan. Habitats
currently being used by wolves span the broad range from the mixed
hardwood-coniferous forest wilderness area of northern Minnesota,
through sparsely settled, but similar habitats in Michigan's UP and
northern Wisconsin, and into more intensively cultivated and livestock-
producing portions of central and northwestern Minnesota and central
Wisconsin.
Wolf research and the expansion of wolf range over the last three
decades have shown that wolves can successfully occupy a wide range of
habitats, and they are not dependent on wilderness areas for their
survival. In the past, gray wolf populations occupied nearly every type
of habitat north of mid-Mexico that contained large ungulate prey
species, including bison, elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, and
woodland caribou; thus, wolves historically occupied the entire
Midwest. Inadequate prey density or high levels of human-caused
mortality appear to be the only factors that limit wolf distribution
(Mech 1995a, p. 271; 1995b, p. 544).
[[Page 15091]]
Suitable Habitat Within the Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPS
Various researchers have investigated habitat suitability for
wolves in the central and eastern portions of the United States. In
recent years, most of these efforts have focused on using a combination
of human density, deer density or deer biomass, and road density, or
have used road density alone to identify areas where wolf populations
are likely to persist or become established. (Mladenoff et al. 1995,
pp. 284-285, 1997, pp. 23-27, 1998, pp. 1-8, 1999, pp. 39-43; Harrison
and Chapin 1997, p. 3, 1998, pp. 769-770; Wydeven et al. 2001a, pp.
110-113; Erb and Benson 2004, p. 2; Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 1661-1668).
Road density has largely been adopted as the best predictor of
habitat suitability in the Midwest due to the connection between roads
and human-related wolf mortality. Several studies demonstrated that
wolves generally did not maintain breeding packs in areas with a road
density greater than about 0.9 to 1.1 linear miles per sq mi (0.6 to
0.7 km per sq km) (Thiel 1985, pp. 404-406; Jensen et al. 1986, pp.
364-366; Mech et al. 1988, pp. 85-87; Fuller et al. 1992, pp. 48-51).
Work by Mladenoff and associates indicated that colonizing wolves in
Wisconsin preferred areas where road densities were less than 0.7 mi
per sq mi (0.45 km per sq km) (Mladenoff et al 1995, p. 289). However,
recent work in the UP of Michigan indicates that in some areas with low
road densities, low deer density appears to separately limit wolf
occupancy (Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 1667-1668) and may prevent
recolonization of portions of the UP. In Minnesota a combination of
road density and human density is used by MN DNR to model suitable
habitat. Areas with a human density up to 8 per sq km are suitable if
they also have a road density less than 0.5 km per sq km. Areas with a
human density of less than 4 per sq km are suitable if they have road
densities up to 0.7 km per sq km (Erb and Benson 2004, p. 2).
Road density is a useful parameter because it is easily measured
and mapped, and because it correlates directly and indirectly with
various forms of other human-related wolf mortality factors. A rural
area with more roads generally has a greater human density, more
vehicular traffic, greater access by hunters and trappers, more farms
and residences, and more domestic animals. As a result, there is a
greater likelihood that wolves in such an area will encounter humans,
domestic animals, and various human activities. These encounters may
result in wolves being hit by motor vehicles, being controlled by
government agents after becoming involved in depredations on domestic
animals, being shot intentionally by unauthorized individuals, being
trapped or shot accidentally, or contracting diseases from domestic
dogs (Mech et al. 1988, pp. 86-87; Mech and Goyal 1993, p. 332;
Mladenoff et al. 1995, p. 282, 291). Based on mortality data from
radio-collared Wisconsin wolves from 1979 to 1999, natural causes of
death predominate (57 percent of mortalities) in areas with road
densities below 1.35 mi per sq mi (0.84 km per sq km), but human-
related factors produced 71 percent of the wolf deaths in areas with
higher road densities (Wydeven et al. 2001a, pp. 112-113).
Some researchers have used a road density of 1 mi per sq mi (0.6 km
per sq km) of land area as an upper threshold for suitable wolf
habitat. However, the common practice in more recent studies is to use
road density to predict probabilities of persistent wolf pack presence
in an area. Areas with road densities less than 0.7 mi per sq mi (0.45
km per sq km) are estimated to have a greater than 50 percent
probability of wolf pack colonization and persistent presence, and
areas where road density exceeded 1 mi per sq mi (0.6 km per sq km)
have less than a 10 percent probability of occupancy (Mladenoff et al.
1995. pp. 288-289; Mladenoff and Sickley 1998, p. 5; Mladenoff et al.
1999, pp. 40-41). Wisconsin researchers view areas with greater than 50
percent probability ``primary wolf habitat,'' areas with 10 to 50
percent probability as ``secondary wolf habitat,'' and areas with less
than 10 percent probability as unsuitable habitat (WI DNR 1997, pp. 47-
48). The territories of packs that do occur in areas of high road
density, and hence with low expected probabilities of occupancy, are
generally near broad areas of more suitable habitat that are likely
serving as a source of wolves, thereby assisting in maintaining wolf
presence in the higher road density, less suitable, areas (Mech 1989,
pp. 387-388; Wydeven et al. 2001a, p.112). We note that the predictive
ability of this model has recently been questioned (Mech 2006a, 2006b)
and responded to (Mladenoff et al. 2006), and that an updated analysis
of Wisconsin pack locations and habitat has been completed and is being
prepared for publication (Mladenoff et al., to be submitted).
It appears that essentially all suitable habitat in Minnesota is
now occupied, and the wolf population within the State may have slowed
its increase or has stabilized (Erb and Benson 2004, p. 7). This
suitable habitat closely matches the areas designated as Wolf
Management Zones 1 through 4 in the Federal Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992,
p. 72), which are identical in area to Minnesota Wolf Management Zone A
(see Figure 2, below; MN DNR 2001, Appendix III).
Recent surveys for Wisconsin wolves and wolf packs show that wolves
have now recolonized the areas predicted by habitat models to have high
and moderate probability of occupancy (primary and secondary wolf
habitat). The late winter 2005-06 Wisconsin wolf survey identified
packs occurring throughout the central Wisconsin forest area (Wolf
Management Zone 2, Figure 3) and across the northern forest zone (Zone
1, Figure 3), with highest pack densities in the northwest and north
central forest; pack densities are lower, but increasing, in the
northeastern corner of the State (Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 33).
Michigan wolf surveys in winter 2003-04 and 2004-05 continue to
show wolf pairs or packs (defined by Michigan DNR as three or more
wolves traveling together) in every UP county except Keweenaw County
(Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6), which probably lacks a suitable
ungulate prey base during winter months (Potvin et al. 2005, p. 1665).
Such habitat suitability studies in the Upper Midwest indicate that
the only large areas of suitable or potentially suitable habitat areas
that are currently unoccupied by wolves are located in the NLP of
Michigan (Mladenoff et al. 1997, p. 23; Mladenoff et al. 1999, p. 39;
Potvin 2003, pp. 44-45; Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1239). One
published Michigan study (Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1239) estimates
that these areas could host 46 to 89 wolves, while a masters degree
thesis investigation estimates that 110-480 wolves could exist in the
NLP (Potvin 2003, p. 39). The NLP is separated from the UP by the
Straits of Mackinac, whose 4-mile (6.4 km) width freezes during mid-
and late-winter in some years. In recent years there have been two
documented occurrences of wolves in the NLP (the last recorded wolf in
the LP was in 1910), but no indication of persistence beyond several
months. In the first instance a radio-collared female wolf from the
central UP was trapped and killed by a coyote trapper in Presque Isle
County in late October 2004. In late November 2004, tracks from two
wolves were verified in the same NLP county. Follow-up winter surveys
by the DNR in early 2005 failed to find additional wolf tracks in the
NLP (Huntzinger et al.
[[Page 15092]]
2005, p. 7); additional surveys conducted in February and March 2006
also failed to find evidence of continued NLP wolf presence (Beyer et
al. 2006, p. 35).
These NLP patches of potentially suitable habitat contain a great
deal of private land, are small in comparison to the occupied habitat
on the UP and in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and are intermixed with
agricultural and higher road density areas (Gehring and Potter 2005, p.
1240). Therefore, continuing wolf immigration from the UP may be
necessary to maintain a future NLP population. The Gehring and Potter
study (p. 1239) concludes that NLP suitable habitat (i.e., areas with
greater than a 50 percent probability of wolf occupancy) amounts to 850
sq mi (2,198 sq km). Potvin, using deer density in addition to road
density, believes there are about 3,090 sq mi (8,000 sq km) of suitable
habitat in the NLP (Potvin 2003, p. 21). Gehring and Potter exclude
from their calculations those NLP low-road-density patches that are
less than 19 sq mi (50 sq km), while Potvin does not limit habitat
patch size in his calculations (Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1239;
Potvin 2003, pp. 10-15). Both of these area estimates are well below
the minimum area described in the Federal Recovery Plan, which states
that 10,000 sq mi (25,600 sq km) of contiguous suitable habitat is
needed for a viable isolated gray wolf population, and half that area
(5,000 sq mi or 12,800 sq km) is needed to maintain a viable wolf
population that is subject to wolf immigration from a nearby population
(USFWS 1992, pp. 25-26).
Based on the above-described studies and the guidance of the 1992
Recovery Plan, the Service has concluded that suitable habitat for
wolves in the WGL DPS can be determined by considering four factors--
road density, human density, prey base, and size. An adequate prey base
is an absolute requirement, but in much of the WGL DPS the white-tailed
deer density is well above adequate levels, causing the other factors
to become the determinants of suitable habitat. Prey base is primarily
of concern in the UP where severe winter conditions cause deer to move
away from some lakeshore areas, making otherwise suitable areas locally
and seasonally unsuitable. Road density and human density frequently
are highly correlated; therefore, road density is the best single
predictor of habitat suitability. However, areas with higher road
density may still be suitable if the human density is very low, so a
consideration of both factors is sometimes useful (Erb and Benson 2004,
p. 2). Finally, although the territory of individual wolf packs can be
relatively small, a single, or several, packs are not likely to persist
as a viable population if they occupy a small isolated island of
otherwise suitable habitat. The 1992 Recovery Plan indicates that a
wolf population needs to occupy at least 10,000 contiguous sq mi
(25,600 sq km) to be considered viable if it is isolated from other
wolf populations, and must occupy at least half that area if it is not
isolated from another self-sustaining population (USFWS 1992, pp. 25-
26).
In summary, Minnesota Wolf Management Zone A (Federal Wolf
Management Zones 1-4, Figure 2), Wisconsin Wolf Zones 1 and 2 (Figure
3), and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan contain suitable wolf habitat.
The other areas within the DPS are unsuitable habitat, or are
potentially habitat that is too small or too fragmented to be suitable
for maintaining a viable wolf population.
Determining the Significant Portion of the Range Within the WGL DPS
The biological values of the various portions of the suitable
habitat in the DPS are the important considerations for determining
what constitutes SPR. Portions of the range that contribute minimally
to the long-term viability of a species are likely to be insignificant,
even if those areas constitute geographically large portions of the
species' range. On the other hand, a small portion of the range that is
necessary for a species' survival (e.g., the nesting areas of a wide-
ranging colonially nesting bird) is a significant portion of its range
regardless of its size. Significance of portions of the range must be
evaluated in a case-by-case context, and not only in a quantitative or
theoretical context.
Therefore, in determining the SPR within the WGL DPS we considered
the factors listed above. These include the quality, quantity, and
distribution of the habitat relative to the biological needs of the
species, the need to maintain the remaining genetic diversity, the
importance of geographic distribution in coping with catastrophes such
as disease, the ability of the habitat to provide adequate wild prey,
and the need to otherwise meet the conservation needs of the species.
It is generally recognized that Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
provide the only sufficiently large areas in the Midwest having an
adequate wild ungulate prey base and low road and human density for
this DPS (USFWS 1992, pp. 56-58). Based on the biology of the gray
wolf, threats to its continued existence, and conservation biology
principles, the federal Recovery Plan specifies that two populations
(or what equates to a single metapopulation) are needed to ensure long-
term viability (see Recovery Criteria, above). The Recovery Plan states
the importance of a large wolf population throughout Minnesota Wolf
Management Zones 1 through 4 (geographically identical to Zone A in the
2001 Minnesota Wolf Management Plan, see Figure 2 in this rule) and the
need for a second viable wolf population occupying 10,000 sq mi or
5,000 sq mi elsewhere in the eastern United States (depending on its
isolation from the Minnesota wolf population) (USFWS 1992, pp. 24-29).
These portions of Minnesota (Management Zones 1 through 4) and the
portions of the range that support the second viable wolf population
(Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2 and the entire Upper Peninsula of Michigan)
are a SPR in the WGL DPS.
The Recovery Plan also discusses the importance of low-road-density
areas, the importance of minimizing wolf-human conflicts, and the
maintenance of an adequate natural prey base in the areas hosting these
two necessary wolf populations. The Recovery Plan, along with numerous
other scientific publications, supports the need to manage and reduce
wolf-human conflicts. The Recovery Plan specifically recommends against
managing wolves in large areas of unsuitable habitat, stating that
Minnesota Zone 5 should be managed with a goal of zero wolves there,
because ``Zone 5 is not suitable for wolves. Wolves found there should
be eliminated by any legal means'' (USFWS 1992, p. 20). Therefore, the
Recovery Plan views Zone 5 (identical to Minnesota Wolf Management Zone
B, Figure 2), which is roughly 60 percent of the State, as not an
important part of the range of the gray wolf. This portion of the State
is predominantly agricultural land, with high road densities, and high
potential for wolves to depredate on livestock. Although individual
wolves and some wolf packs occupy parts of Zone 5, these wolves are
using habitat islands or are existing in other situations where
conditions generally are not conducive to their long-term persistence.
Therefore, Minnesota Wolf Management Zone B (Recovery Plan Zone 5) is
not a significant portion of the range within the DPS.
The second population, necessary to enhance both the resiliency and
redundancy of the WGL DPR, has developed by naturally recolonizing
suitable habitat areas in Wisconsin and the UP (see Recovery of the
Gray Wolf in the Western Great Lakes Area, above). In Wisconsin,
suitable habitat
[[Page 15093]]
(delineated as Zones 1 and 2 in Figure 3) is now largely occupied by
wolf packs, but there are some gaps in the northeastern part of the
State in Zone 1 where there appears to be room for additional packs to
occupy areas between existing packs (Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 33).
Similarly, in the UP of Michigan, wolf pairs or packs occur throughout
the area identified as suitable (i.e., a high probability of wolf pack
occupancy; Mladenoff et al. 1995, p. 287, Potvin et al. 2005, p. 1666),
including every county of the UP except possibly Keweenaw County. Wolf
density is lower in the northern and eastern portions of the UP where
lower deer numbers may prevent establishment of packs in some
localities (Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 1665-1666), but over the next
several years packs may be able to fill in some of the currently
unoccupied areas. Based on the suitability of the habitat in these
areas and the importance of this second population to long-term wolf
population viability, Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2 (see Figure 3) and the
entire UP of Michigan are a SPR of the gray wolf WGL DPS.
The NLP of Michigan appears to have the only unoccupied potentially
suitable wolf habitat in the Midwest that is of sufficient size to
maintain wolf packs (Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1239; Potvin 2003, pp.
44-45), although its small size and fragmented nature may mean that NLP
wolf population viability would be dependent upon continuing
immigration from the UP. The only part of Michigan's Lower Peninsula
that warrants any consideration for inclusion as suitable habitat for
the WGL DPS is composed of those areas of fragmented habitat studied by
Potvin (2003, pp. 44-45) and Gehring and Potter (2005, p. 1239).
However, these areas amount to less than half of the minimum area
identified by the Recovery Plan as needed for the establishment of
viable populations. These Lower Peninsula areas therefore might have
difficulty maintaining wolf populations even with the help of
occasional immigration of wolves from the UP (see Suitable Habitat
Within the Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPS for additional
discussion). While the UP wolves may be significant to any Lower
Peninsula wolf population that may develop (occasional UP to Lower
Peninsula movements may provide important genetic and demographic
augmentation crucial to a small population founded by only a few
individuals), the reverse will not be true--Lower Peninsula wolves
would not be important to the wolf population in the UP. Thus, we
conclude that the Northern Lower Peninsula is not a significant portion
of the range of the gray wolf in the WGL DPS.
The only area outside these three states and within the WGL DPS
that potentially might hold wolves on a frequent or possibly constant
basis is the Turtle Mountain region that straddles the international
border in north central North Dakota in the northwestern corner of the
DPS. Road densities within the Turtle Mountains are below the
thresholds believed to limit colonization by wolves. However, this area
is only about 579 sq mi (1,500 sq km), with approximately 394 sq mi
(1,020 sq km) in North Dakota, and roughly 185 sq mi (480 sq km) in
Manitoba (Licht and Huffman 1996, p. 172). This area is far smaller
that the 10,000 sq mi of habitat considered minimally necessary to
support an isolated wolf population (USFWS 1992, pp. 25-26).
Furthermore, the Manitoba portion of the Turtle Mountains is outside
the currently listed area for the gray wolf and outside this WGL DPS.
While this area may provide a small area of marginal wolf habitat and
may support limited and occasional wolf reproduction, the Turtle
Mountain area within the United States is not a SPR of gray wolves
within the WGL DPS, because of its very small area and its setting as
an island of forest surrounded by a landscape largely modified for
agriculture and grazing (Licht and Huffman 1996, p. 173).
Similarly, other portions of the WGL DPS that lack suitable
habitat, or only have areas of suitable habitat that are below the area
thresholds specified in the Recovery Plan and/or are highly fragmented,
cannot be considered a SPR of the gray wolf in the WGL DPS. These areas
include the rest of eastern North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin Wolf Management Zones 3 and 4 (see Figure 3),
and most of the LP of Michigan. While large areas of historical range
within the DPS boundary are either unoccupied by the species or
occupied only on a transient basis, these areas are almost completely
lacking suitable habitat, and there is little likelihood that they
could ever support viable wolf populations. For example, of the five
States partially included in the WGL DPS, the eastern halves of North
Dakota and South Dakota arguably contain the best potential area for
wolf recovery because of their low human population densities. Yet even
there, the landscape is predominantly cropland and grazing land, the
result of massive conversion from the native prairies where gray wolves
once hunted bison, and it is covered with a network of public roads.
Road density in eastern South Dakota is approximately 1.68 mi per sq
mi, and the South Dakota Department of Transportation states that
figure likely does not include the many section line roads that are
open to public travel but are not on a regular maintenance schedule
(Larson in litt. 2006b). The landscape of North Dakota is similar, with
merely two percent of the State forested, resulting in a cropland-
dominated landscape in eastern North Dakota that provides negligible
cover for wolf use in denning and escape, except in the Turtle
Mountains. The road density across the portion of North Dakota within
the WGL DPS is 1.01 mi per sq mi (Barnhardt in litt. 2006). A finer-
grained analysis (Moffett 1997, p. 31) shows that only small and
scattered areas are below the 1 mi per sq mi threshold established by
Great Lakes area researchers (Mladenoff et al., 1995, pp. 288-289) as
needed for the maintenance of viable wolf populations, and none of
these areas of lower road density come close to the minimum size
identified by the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 25-26) for a viable
wolf population. In the open grazing and cropland-dominated landscape
of the eastern Dakotas, it is likely that viable wolf populations would
require even lower road densities than the threshold established by
researchers in the much more wooded landscapes of Minnesota, Wisconsin,
and the UP. Therefore, the eastern portions of South Dakota and North
Dakota do not provide suitable gray wolf habitat and these areas cannot
be considered to be significant portions of gray wolf range in the WGL
DPS.
In summary, the areas that we determine to be a significant portion
of the range of the WGL DPS are Minnesota Wolf Management Zone A
(Figure 2), Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2 (Figure 3), and the entire Upper
Peninsula of Michigan. These areas constitute the SPR in the DPS,
because they fully meet the biological needs of the species and provide
the conditions and land base to counter the threats to the wolf
population within the DPS. The other areas of the WGL DPS do not
constitute significant portions of the range of the gray wolf.
Wolf Populations on Federal Lands
National forests, and the prey species found in their various
habitats, have been important to wolf conservation and recovery in the
core areas of the WGL DPS. There are five national forests with
resident wolves (Superior, Chippewa, Chequamegon-Nicolet, Ottawa, and
Hiawatha National Forests) in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. Their
wolf populations range from approximately 20 on the Nicolet portion
[[Page 15094]]
of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in northeastern Wisconsin,
to 160-170 on the UP's Ottawa National Forest, to an estimated 465 (in
winter of 2003-04) on the Superior National Forest in northeastern
Minnesota (Lindquist in litt. 2005). Nearly half of the wolves in
Wisconsin currently use the Chequamegon portion of the Chequamegon-
Nicolet National Forest.
Voyageurs National Park, along Minnesota's northern border, has a
land base of nearly 882 km\2\ (340 mi\2\). There are 40 to 55 wolves
within 7 to 11 packs that exclusively or partially reside within the
park, and at least 4 packs are located wholly inside the Park
boundaries (Holbeck in litt. 2005, based on 2000-2001 data).
Within the boundaries of the WGL DPS, we currently manage seven
units within the National Wildlife Refuge System with significant wolf
activity. Primary among these are Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR), Tamarac NWR, and Rice Lake NWR in Minnesota; Seney NWR in the UP
of Michigan; and Necedah NWR in central Wisconsin. Agassiz NWR has had
as many as 20 wolves in 2 to 3 packs in recent years. In 1999, mange
and illegal shootings reduced them to a single pack of five wolves and
a separate lone wolf. Since 2001, however, two packs with a total of 10
to 12 wolves have been using the Refuge. About 60 percent of the packs'
territories are located on the Refuge or on adjacent State-owned
wildlife management area (Huschle in litt. 2005). Tamarac NWR has 2
packs, with a 15-year average of 12 wolves in one pack; adults and an
unknown number of pups comprise the second pack Boyle, in litt. 2005).
Rice Lake NWR, in Minnesota, has one pack of nine animals using the
Refuge in 2004; in 2005, the pack had at least 6 individuals. Other
single or paired wolves pass through the Refuge frequently (Stefanski
pers. comm. 2004; McDowell in litt. 2005). In 2003, Seney NWR had one
pack with two adults and two pups; in 2005 there were two pairs of
wolves and several lone individuals using the Refuge (Olson in litt.
2005). Necedah NWR currently has 2 packs with at least 13 wolves in the
packs (Trick in litt. 2005). Over the past ten years, Sherburne and
Crane Meadows NWRs in central Minnesota have had intermittent, but
reliable, observations and signs of individual wolves each year. To
date, no established packs have been documented on either of those
Refuges. The closest established packs are within 15 miles of Crane
Meadows NWR at Camp Ripley Military Installation and 30 miles north of
Sherburne NWR at Mille Lacs State Wildlife Management Area (Holler in
litt. 2005).
Suitable Habitat Ownership and Protection
In Minnesota, public lands, including national forests, a national
park, national wildlife refuges, tax-forfeit lands (managed mostly by
counties), State forests, State wildlife management areas, and State
parks, encompass approximately 42 percent of current wolf range.
American Indians and Tribes own 3 percent, an additional 1,535 square
miles (2,470 sq km), in Minnesota's wolf range (see Erb and Benson
2004, table 1). In its 2001 Minnesota Wolf Management Plan, MN DNR
states that it ``will continue to identify and manage currently
occupied and potential wolf habitat areas to benefit wolves and their
prey on public and private land, in cooperation with landowners and
other management agencies'' (MN DNR 2001, p. 25). MN DNR will monitor
deer and moose habitat and, when necessary and appropriate, improve
habitat for these species. MN DNR maintains that several large public
land units of State parks and State forests along the Wisconsin border
will likely ensure that the connection between the two States' wolf
populations will remain open to wolf movements. Nevertheless, MN DNR
stated that it would cooperate with Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources to incorporate the effects of future development ``into long-
term viability analyses of wolf populations and dispersal in the
interstate area'' (MN DNR 2001, p. 27).
The MN DNR Divisions of Forestry and Wildlife directly administer
approximately 5,330 square miles of land in Minnesota's wolf range. DNR
has set goals of enlarging and protecting its forested land base by, in
part, ``minimizing the loss and fragmentation of private forest lands''
(MN DNR 2000, p. 20) and by connecting forest habitats with natural
corridors (MN DNR 2000, p. 21). It plans to achieve these goals and
objectives via several strategies, including the development of
(Ecological) Subsection Forest Resource Management Plans (SFRMP) and to
expand its focus on corridor management and planning.
In 2005 the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified that 4.84
million acres of State-administered forest land are ``well managed''
(FSC 2005); the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) also certified
that MN DNR was managing these lands to meet its standards. For the FSC
certification, independent certifiers assessed forest management
against FSC's Lakes States Regional Standard, which includes a
requirement to maximize habitat connectivity to the extent possible at
the landscape level (FSC 2005, p. 22).
Efforts to maximize habitat connectivity in the range of gray
wolves would complement measures the MN DNR described in its State wolf
plan (MN DNR 2001, pp. 26-27). As part of its post-delisting
monitoring, the Service will review certification evaluation reports
issued by FSC to assess MN DNR's ongoing efforts in this area.
Counties manage approximately 3,860 square miles of tax forfeit
land in Minnesota's wolf range (MN DNR unpublished data). We are aware
of no specific measures that any county in Minnesota takes to conserve
wolves. If most of the tax-forfeit lands are maintained for use as
timber lands or natural areas, however, and if regional prey levels are
maintained, management specifically for wolves on these lands will not
be necessary. MN DNR manages ungulate populations ``on a regional basis
to ensure sustainable harvests for hunters, sufficient numbers for
aesthetic and nonconsumptive use, and to minimize damage to natural
communities and conflicts with humans such as depredation of
agricultural crops'' (MN DNR 2001, p. 17). Moreover, although counties
may sell tax-forfeit lands subject to Minnesota State law, they
generally manage these lands to ensure that they will retain their
productivity as forests into the future. For example, Crow Wing
County's mission for its forest lands includes the commitment to
``sustain a healthy, diverse, and productive forest for future
generations to come.'' In addition, at least four counties in
Minnesota's wolf range--Beltrami, Carlton, Koochiching, and St. Louis--
are certified by SFI, and four others (Aitkin, Cass, Itasca, and Lake)
have been certified by FSC. About ten private companies with industrial
forest lands in Minnesota's wolf range have also been certified by FSC.
There are no legal or regulatory requirements for the protection of
wolf habitat, per se, on private lands in Minnesota. Land management
activities such as timber harvest and prescribed burning carried out by
public agencies and by private land owners in Minnesota's wolf range
incidentally and significantly improves habitat for deer, the primary
prey for wolves in the State. The impact of these measures is apparent
from the continuing high deer densities in Minnesota's wolf range. The
State's three largest deer harvests have occurred in the last three
years (2003-05), and approximately one-half of the
[[Page 15095]]
Minnesota deer harvest is in the Forest Zone, which encompasses most of
the occupied wolf range in the State (Lennarz 2005, p. 93, 98).
Given the extensive public ownership and management of land within
Minnesota's wolf range, as well as the beneficial habitat management
expected from tribal lands, we believe suitable habitat, and especially
an adequate wild prey base, will remain available to the State's wolf
population for the foreseeable future. Management of private lands for
timber production will provide additional habitat suitable for wolves
and white-tailed deer.
Similarly, current lands in northern and central Wisconsin that are
judged to be primary and secondary wolf habitat are well protected from
significant adverse development and habitat degradation due to public
ownership and/or protective management that preserves the habitat and
wolf prey base. Primary habitat (that is, areas with greater than 50
percent probability of wolf pack occupancy, Wydeven et al. 1999, pp.
47-48) totals 5,743 sq mi (14,874 sq km) and is 62 percent in Federal,
State, Tribal, or county ownership. County lands, mostly county
forests, comprise 29 percent of the primary habitat and Federal lands,
mostly the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, total another 17
percent. Most tribal land (7 percent of primary habitat), while not
public land, is also very likely to remain as suitable deer and wolf
habitat for the foreseeable future. State forest ownership protects 8
percent. Private industrial forest management practices will protect
another 10 percent of the primary habitat, although unpredictable
timber markets and the demand for second or vacation home sites may
reduce this acreage over the next several decades. The remaining 29
percent is in other forms of private ownership and is vulnerable to
loss from the primary habitat category to an unknown extent (Sickley in
litt. 2006, unpublished data updating Table C2 of WI DNR 1999, p. 48).
Areas judged to be secondary wolf habitat by Wisconsin DNR (10 to
50 percent probability of occupancy by wolf packs, Wydeven et al. 1999,
pp. 47-48) are somewhat more developed or fragmented habitats and are
less well protected overall, because only slightly over half is in
public ownership or under management that protects the habitat and prey
base. Public and tribal ownership protects 48 percent of the secondary
habitat, with county (17 percent) and national (18 percent) forests
ownership again protecting the largest segments. Tribal ownership
covers 5 percent, and state ownership, 7 percent. Private industrial
forest ownership provides protection to 5 percent, and the remaining 47
percent is in other forms of private ownership (Sickley in litt. 2006).
County forest lands represent the single largest category of
primary wolf habitat in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Statute 28.11 guides the
administration of county forests, and directs management for production
of forest products together with recreational opportunities, wildlife,
watershed protection and stabilization of stream flow. This Statute
also provides a significant disincentive to conversion for other uses.
Any proposed withdrawal of county forest lands for other uses must meet
a standard of a higher and better use for the citizens of Wisconsin,
and be approved by two-thirds of the County Board. As a result of this
requirement, withdrawals are infrequent, and the county forest land
base is actually increasing.
This analysis shows that nearly three-quarters of the primary
habitat in Wisconsin receives substantial protection due to ownership
and/or management for sustainable timber production. Over half of the
secondary habitat is similarly protected. Given that portions of the
primary habitat in northeastern Wisconsin remain sparsely populated
with wolf packs (Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 33), thereby allowing for
continuing wolf population expansion in that area, we believe this
degree of habitat protection is more than adequate to support a viable
wolf population in Wisconsin for the foreseeable future.
In the UP of Michigan, State and Federal ownership comprises 2.0
and 2.1 million acres respectively, representing 19.3 percent and 20.1
percent of the land surface of the UP. The Federal ownership is
composed of 87 percent national forest, 8 percent national park, and 5
percent national wildlife refuge. The management of these three
categories of Federal land is discussed elsewhere, but clearly will
benefit gray wolves and their prey.
State lands on the UP are 94 percent State forest land, 6 percent
State park, and less than 1 percent in fishing and boating access areas
and State game areas. Part 525, Sustainable Forestry on State
Forestlands, of the Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended, directs State forestland
management in Michigan. It requires the MI DNR to manage the State
forests in a manner consistent with sustainable forestry, to prepare
and implement a management plan, and to seek and maintain a third party
certification that the lands are managed in a sustainable fashion (MI
DNR 2005c, p. 1).
Much of the private land on the UP is managed or protected in a
manner that will maintain forest cover and provide suitable habitat for
wolves and white-tailed deer. Nearly 1.9 million acres of large-tract
industrial forest lands and another 1.9 million acres of smaller
private forest land are enrolled in the Commercial Forest Act (CFA).
These 3.7 million acres are managed for long-term sustainable timber
production under forest management plans written by certified
foresters; in return, the landowners benefit from a reduction in
property taxes. In addition, nearly 37,000 acres on the UP are owned by
The Nature Conservancy, and continue to be managed to restore and
preserve native plant and animal communities. Therefore, these private
land management practices currently are preserving an additional 36
percent of the UP as suitable habitat for wolves and their prey
species.
In total, 39 percent of the UP is federally- and State-owned land
whose management will benefit wolf conservation for the foreseeable
future, and another 36 percent is private forest land that is being
managed, largely under the incentives of the CFA, in a way that
provided provides suitable habitat and prey for wolf populations.
Therefore, a minimum of nearly three-quarters of the UP should continue
to be suitable for gray wolf conservation, and we do not envision UP
habitat loss or degradation as a problem for wolf population viability
in the foreseeable future.
Hearne et al. (2003), determined that a viable wolf population (one
having less than 10 percent chance of extinction over 100 years),
should consist of at least 175 to 225 wolves (p. 170), and they modeled
various likely scenarios of habitat conditions in the UP of Michigan
and northern Wisconsin through the year 2020 to determine whether
future conditions would support a wolf population of that size. Most
scenarios of future habitat conditions resulted in viable wolf
populations in each State through 2020. When the model analyzed the
future conditions in the two States combined, all scenarios produced a
viable wolf population through 2020. Their scenarios included increases
in human population density, changes in land ownership that may result
in decreased habitat suitability, and increased road density (pp. 101-
151).
The large areas of unsuitable habitat in the eastern Dakotas; the
northern portions of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio; and the
southern areas of
[[Page 15096]]
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; as well as the relatively small
areas of unoccupied potentially suitable habitat, do not constitute a
SPR for the WGL DPS. Therefore, we have determined that the existing
and likely future threats to wolves outside the currently occupied
areas, and especially to wolves outside of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
the UP, do not rise to the level that they threaten the long-term
viability of wolf populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP of
Michigan.
In summary, wolves currently occupy the vast majority of the
suitable habitat in the WGL DPS, which constitutes the SPR within the
WGL DPS, and that habitat is adequately protected for the foreseeable
future. Unoccupied areas that have the characteristics of suitable
habitat exist in small and fragmented parcels and are not likely to
develop viable wolf populations. Threats to those habitat areas, which
are not a SPR within the WGL SPR, will not adversely impact the
recovered wolf metapopulation in the DPS.
Prey
Wolf density is heavily dependent on prey availability (e.g.,
expressed as ungulate biomass, Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 170-171), but
prey availability is not likely to threaten wolves in the WGL DPS.
Conservation of primary wolf prey in the WGL DPS, white-tailed deer and
moose, is clearly a high priority for State conservation agencies. As
Minnesota DNR points out in its wolf management plan (MN DNR 2001, p.
25), it manages ungulates to ensure a harvestable surplus for hunters,
nonconsumptive users, and to minimize conflicts with humans. To ensure
a harvestable surplus for hunters, MN DNR must account for all sources
of natural mortality, including loss to wolves, and adjust hunter
harvest levels when necessary. For example, after severe winters in the
1990's, MN DNR modified hunter harvest levels to allow for the recovery
of the local deer population (MN DNR 2001, p. 25). In addition to
regulation of human harvest of deer and moose, MN DNR also plans to
continue to monitor and improve habitat for these species. Land
management carried out by other public agencies and by private land
owners in Minnesota's wolf range, including timber harvest and
prescribed fire, incidentally and significantly improves habitat for
deer, the primary prey for wolves in the State. The success of these
measures is apparent from the continuing high deer densities in the
Forest Zone of Minnesota, and the fact that the State's three largest
deer harvests have occurred in the last three years. Approximately one-
half of the Minnesota deer harvest is in the Forest Zone, which
encompasses most of the occupied wolf range in the State (Lennarz 2005,
p. 93). There is no indication that harvest of deer and moose or
management of their habitat will significantly depress abundance of
these species in Minnesota's core wolf range. Therefore, prey
availability is not likely to endanger gray wolves in the foreseeable
future in the State.
Similarly, the deer populations in Wisconsin and the UP of Michigan
are at historically high levels. Wisconsin's pre-season deer population
has exceeded 1 million animals since 1984 (WI DNR undated a), and
hunter harvest has exceeded 400,000 deer in 9 of the last 11 years (WI
DNR undated b). Michigan's 2005 pre-season deer population was
approximately 1.7 million deer, with about 336,000 residing in the UP,
and the 2006 estimates projects slightly higher UP deer populations (MI
DNR 2006b, pp. 2-4). Currently MI DNR is proposing revised deer
management goals to guide management of the deer population through
2010. The proposed UP 2006-2010 goal range is 323,000 to 411,000 (MI
DNR 2005d), which would maintain, or possibly increase, the current
ungulate prey base for UP wolves. Short of a major, and unlikely, shift
in deer management and harvest strategies, there will be no shortage of
prey for Wisconsin and Michigan wolves for the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A--The wolf population in the WGL DPS currently
occupies all the suitable habitat area identified for recovery in the
Midwest in the 1978 and 1992 Recovery Plans, which are the SPR within
the DPS, and most of the potentially suitable habitat in the WGL DPS.
Unsuitable habitat, and the small fragmented areas of suitable habitat
away from these core areas, are areas where viable wolf populations are
unlikely to develop and persist. Although they may have been historical
habitat, many of these areas are no longer suitable for wolves, and
none of them are important to meet the biological needs of the species.
They therefore are not a SPR of the WGL DPS.
The WGL DPS wolf population exceeds its numerical, temporal, and
distributional goals for recovery. A delisted wolf population would be
safely maintained above recovery levels for the foreseeable future
within the SPR of the DPS. Because much important wolf habitat in the
SPR is in public ownership, the States will continue to manage for high
ungulate populations, and the States, Tribes, and Federal land
management agencies will adequately regulate human-caused mortality of
wolves and wolf prey. This will allow these three States to easily
support a recovered and viable wolf metapopulation into the foreseeable
future. We conclude that gray wolves within the SPR in this DPS are not
in danger of extinction now, or likely to be in danger of extinction in
the foreseeable future, as a result of destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species' habitat or range.
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes.
Threats to wolves resulting from scientific or educational purposes
are not likely to increase substantially following delisting of the
DPS, and any increased use for these purposes will be regulated and
monitored by the States and Tribes in the core recovery areas. Since
their listing under the Act, no gray wolves have been legally killed or
removed from the wild in any of the nine States included in the WGL DPS
for either commercial or recreational purposes. Some wolves may have
been illegally killed for commercial use of the pelts and other parts,
but we think that illegal commercial trafficking in wolf pelts or parts
and illegal capture of wolves for commercial breeding purposes is rare.
State wolf management plans for Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
ensure that wolves will not be killed for these purposes for many years
following Federal delisting, so these forms of mortality will not
emerge as new threats upon delisting. See Factor D for a detailed
discussion of State wolf management plans, and for applicable
regulations in States lacking wolf management plans.
We do not expect the use of wolves for scientific purposes to
increase in proportion to total wolf numbers in the WGL DPS after
delisting. Prior to delisting, the intentional or incidental killing,
or capture and permanent confinement, of endangered or threatened gray
wolves for scientific purposes has only legally occurred under permits
or subpermits issued by the Service (under section 10(a)(1)(A)) or by a
State agency operating under a cooperative agreement with the Service
pursuant to section 6 of the Act (50 CFR 17.21(c)(5) and 17.31(b)).
Although exact figures are not available, throughout the conterminous
48 States, such permanent removals of wolves from the wild have been
very limited and probably comprise an average of not more than two
animals per year since the species was first listed as endangered. In
the WGL DPS, these animals were either taken from the
[[Page 15097]]
Minnesota wolf population during long-term research activities (about
15 gray wolves) or were accidental takings as a result of research
activities in Wisconsin (4 to 5 mortalities and 1 long-term
confinement) and in Michigan (2 mortalities) (Berg in litt. 1998; Mech
in litt. 1998; Roell in litt. 2004, in litt. 2005a).
The Minnesota DNR plans to encourage the study of wolves with
radio-telemetry after delisting, with an emphasis on areas where they
expect wolf-human conflicts and where wolves are expanding their range
(MN DNR 2001, p. 19). Similarly, Wisconsin and Michigan DNRs will
continue to trap wolves for radio-collaring, examination, and health
monitoring for the foreseeable future (WI DNR 1999, pp. 19-21; MI DNR
1997, p. 22; WI DNR 2006a, p. 14). The continued handling of wild
wolves for research, including the administration of drugs, may result
in some accidental deaths of wolves. We believe that capture and radio-
telemetry-related injuries or mortalities will not increase
significantly above the level observed before delisting in proportion
to wolf abundance; adverse effects to wolves associated with such
activities have been minimal and would not constitute a threat to the
WGL DPS.
No wolves have been legally removed from the wild for educational
purposes in recent years. Wolves that have been used for such purposes
are the captive-reared offspring of wolves that were already in
captivity for other reasons, and this is not likely to change as a
result of Federal delisting. We do not expect taking for educational
purposes to constitute any threat to Midwest wolf populations for the
foreseeable future.
See Factor E for a discussion of taking of gray wolves by Native
Americans for religious, spiritual, or traditional cultural purposes.
See the Depredation Control Programs sections under Factor D for
discussion of other past, current, and potential future forms of
intentional and accidental take by humans, including depredation
control, public safety, and under public harvest. While public harvest
may include recreational harvest, it is likely that public harvest will
also serve as a management tool, so it is discussed in Factor D.
Summary of Factor B--Taking wolves for scientific or educational
purposes in the other WGL DPS States may not be regulated or closely
monitored in the future, but the threat to wolves in those States will
not be significant to the long-term viability of the wolf population in
the WGL DPS. The potential limited commercial and recreational harvest
that may occur in the DPS will be regulated by State and/or Tribal
conservation agencies and is discussed under Factor D. Therefore, we
conclude that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes will not be a threat sufficient to cause the
WGL DPS gray wolves to be in danger of extinction in the foreseeable
future in all or a significant portion of the range within the WGL DPS.
C. Disease or predation.
Disease
Many diseases and parasites have been reported for the gray wolf,
and several of them have had significant impacts during the recovery of
the species in the 48 conterminous States (Brand et al. 1995, p. 419;
WI DNR 1999, p. 61). If not monitored and controlled by States, these
diseases and parasites, and perhaps others, may threaten gray wolf
populations in the future. Thus, to avoid a future decline caused by
diseases or parasites, States and their partners will have to
diligently monitor the prevalence of these pathogens in order to
effectively respond to significant outbreaks.
Canine parvovirus (CPV) is a relatively new disease that infects
wolves, domestic dogs, foxes, coyotes, skunks, and raccoons. Recognized
in the United States in 1977 in domestic dogs, it appeared in Minnesota
wolves (based upon retrospective serologic evidence) live-trapped as
early as 1977 (Mech et al. 1986, p. 105). Minnesota wolves, however,
may have been exposed to the virus as early as 1973 (Mech and Goyal
1995, p. 568). Serologic evidence of gray wolf exposure to CPV peaked
at 95 percent for a group of Minnesota wolves live-trapped in 1989
(Mech and Goyal 1993, p, 331). In a captive colony of Minnesota wolves,
pup and yearling mortality from CPV was 92 percent of the animals that
showed indications of active CPV infections in 1983 (Mech and Fritts
1987, p. 6), demonstrating the substantial impacts this disease can
have on young wolves. It is believed that the population impacts of CPV
occur via diarrhea-induced dehydration leading to abnormally high pup
mortality (WI DNR 1999, p. 61). CPV has been detected in nearly every
wolf population in North America including Alaska (Bailey et al. 1995,
p. 443) and exposure in wolves is now believed to be almost universal.
There is no evidence that CPV has caused a population decline or
has had a significant impact on the recovery of the Minnesota gray wolf
population. Mech and Goyal (1995, p. 566, Table 1, p. 568, Fig. 3),
however, found that high CPV prevalence in the wolves of the Superior
National Forest in Minnesota occurred during the same years in which
wolf pup numbers were low. Because the wolf population did not decline
during the study period, they concluded that CPV-caused pup mortality
was compensatory, that is, it replaced deaths that would have occurred
from other causes, especially starvation of pups. They theorized that
CPV prevalence affects the amount of population increase and that a
wolf population will decline when 76 percent of the adult wolves
consistently test positive for CPV exposure. Their data indicate that
CPV prevalence in adult wolves in their study area increased by an
annual average of 4 percent during 1979-93 and was at least 80 percent
during the last 5 years of their study (Mech and Goyal 1995, pp. 566,
568). Additional data gathered since 1995, currently in preparation for
publication, suggests that CPV has been reducing pup survival both in
the Superior National Forest and statewide, between 1984 and 2004;
however, statewide there is some evidence of a slight increase in pup
survival since about 1995. These conclusions are based upon an inverse
relationship between pup numbers in summer captures and seroprevalence
of CPV antibodies in summer-captured adult wolves (Mech in litt. 2006).
These data provide strong justification for continuing population and
disease monitoring.
Wisconsin DNR, in conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey
National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin, (formerly the
National Wildlife Health Laboratory) has an extensive dataset on the
incidence of wolf diseases, beginning in 1981. Canine parvovirus
exposure was evident in 5 of 6 wolves tested in 1981, and probably
stalled wolf population growth in Wisconsin during the early and mid-
1980s when numbers there declined or were static; at that time 75
percent of 32 wolves tested positive for CPV. During the following
years of population increase (1988-96) only 35 percent of the 63 wolves
tested positive for CPV (WI DNR 1999, p. 62). More recent exposure
rates for CPV continue to be high in Wisconsin wolves, with annual
rates ranging from 60 to 100 percent among wild wolves handled from
2001 through mid-2005. Part of the reason for high exposure percentages
is likely an increased emphasis in sampling pups and Central Forest
wolves starting in 2001, so comparisons of post- and pre-2001 data are
of limited value. CPV appears not to be a significant cause of
mortality, as only a single wolf (male pup) is known to have died from
CPV during this period (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2002, p. 8 Table 4;
2003a,
[[Page 15098]]
pp. 11-12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11-12 Table 5; 2005, pp. 19-20 Table 4;
2006, pp. 23-25 Table 4). While the difficulty of discovering CPV-
killed pups must be considered, and it is possible that CPV-caused pup
mortality is being underestimated, the continuing increase of the
Wisconsin wolf population indicates that CPV mortality is no longer
impeding wolf population growth in the State. It may be that many
Wisconsin wolves have developed some degree of resistance to CPV, and
this disease is no longer a significant threat in the State.
Similar to Wisconsin wolves, serological testing of Michigan wolves
captured from 1992 through 2001 (most recent available data) shows that
the majority of UP wolves have been exposed to CPV. Fifty-six percent
of 16 wolves captured from 1992 to 1999 and 83 percent of 23 wolves
captured in 2001 showed antibody titers at levels established as
indicative of previous CPV exposure that may provide protection from
future infection from CPV (Beheler in litt. undated, in litt. 2004).
There are no data showing any CPV-caused wolf mortality or population
impacts to the gray wolf population on the UP, but few wolf pups are
handled in the UP (Hammill in litt. 2002, Beyer in litt. 2006a), so low
levels of CPV-caused pup mortality may go undetected there. Mortality
data are primarily collected from collared wolves, which until recently
received CPV inoculations. Therefore, mortality data for the UP should
be interpreted cautiously.
Sarcoptic mange is caused by a mite (Sarcoptes scabiei) infection
of the skin. The irritation caused by the feeding and burrowing mites
results in scratching and then severe fur loss, which in turn can lead
to mortality from exposure during severe winter weather. The mites are
spread from wolf to wolf by direct body contact or by common use of
``rubs'' by infested and uninfested animals. Thus, mange is frequently
passed from infested females to their young pups, and from older pack
members to their pack mates. In a long-term Alberta, Canada, wolf
study, higher wolf densities were correlated with increased incidence
of mange, and pup survival decreased as the incidence of mange
increased (Brand et al. 1995, p. 428).
From 1991 to 1996, 27 percent of 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, p.
61). Seven Wisconsin wolves died from mange from 1993 through October
15, 1998, and severe fur loss affected five other wolves that died from
other causes. During that period, mange was the third largest cause of
death in Wisconsin wolves, behind trauma (usually vehicle collisions)
and shooting (Thomas in litt. 1998). Largely as a result of mange, pup
survival was only 16 percent in 1993, compared to a normal 30 percent
survival rate from birth to one year of age.
Mange continues to be prevalent in Wisconsin, especially in the
central Wisconsin wolf population. Mortality data from closely
monitored radio-collared wolves provides a relatively unbiased estimate
of mortality factors, especially those linked to disease or illegal
actions, because nearly all carcasses are located within a few days of
deaths. Diseased wolves suffering from hypothermia or nearing death
generally crawl into dense cover and may go undiscovered if they are
not radio-tracked (Wydeven et al. 2001b, p. 14). These data show that
during the period of 2000 through August 2006 mange has killed as many
wolves as were killed by illegal shooting, making them the two highest
causes of wolf mortality in the State. Based on mortality data from
closely monitored radio-collared wolves, mange mortality ranged from 14
percent of deaths in 2002 to 30 percent of deaths in 2003, totaling 27
percent of radio-collared wolf deaths for this period. Illegal
shootings resulted in the death of an identical percentage of wolves
(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2001, p. 8 Table 5; 2002 p. 8 Table 4; 2003a,
pp. 11-12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11-12 Table 5; 2005, pp. 19-20 Table 4).
Preliminary data for 2006 show mange mortality and illegal shooting
remain equal at 30 percent of radio-collared wolf mortality (Wydeven in
litt. 2006c, unpublished data). Mange mortality does not appear to be
declining in Wisconsin, and the incidence of mange may be on the
increase among central Wisconsin wolf packs (Wydeven et al. 2005b, p.
6). However, not all mangy wolves succumb; other observations showed
that some mangy wolves are able to survive the winter (Wydeven et al.
2001b, p. 14).
The survival of pups during their first winter is believed to be
strongly affected by mange. The highest to date wolf mortality (30
percent of radio-collared wolves; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2004a, p. 12)
from mange in Wisconsin in 2003 may have had more severe effects on pup
survival than in previous years. The prevalence of the disease may have
contributed to the relatively small population increase in 2003 (2.4
percent in 2003 as compared to the average 18 percent to that point
since 1985). However, mange has not caused a decline in the State's
wolf population, and even though the rate of population increase has
slowed in recent years, the wolf population continues to increase
despite the continued prevalence of mange in Wisconsin wolves. Although
mange mortality may not be the primary determinant of wolf population
growth in the State, the impacts of mange in Wisconsin need to be
closely monitored as identified and addressed in the Wisconsin wolf
management plan (WI DNR 1999, p. 21; 2006a, p. 14).
Seven wild Michigan wolves died from mange during 1993-97, making
it responsible for 21 percent of all mortalities, and all disease-
caused deaths, during that period (MI DNR 1997, p. 39). During bioyears
(mid-April to mid-April) 1999-04, mange-induced hypothermia killed 9 of
the 11 radio-collared Michigan wolves whose cause of death was
attributed to disease, and it represented 17 percent of the total
mortality during those years. Mange caused the death of 31 percent of
radio-collared wolves during the 1999-2001 bioyears, but that rate
decreased to 11 percent during the 2001-04 bioyears. However, the
sample sizes are too small to reliably detect a trend (Beyer 2005
unpublished data). Before 2004, MI DNR treated all captured wolves with
Ivermectin if they showed signs of mange. In addition, MI DNR
vaccinated all captured wolves against CPV and canine distemper virus
(CDV) and administered antibiotics to combat potential leptospirosis
infections. These inoculations were discontinued in 2004 to provide
more natural biotic conditions and to provide biologists with an
unbiased estimate of disease-caused mortality rates in the population
(Roell in litt. 2005b).
Wisconsin wolves similarly had been treated with Ivermectin and
vaccinated for CPV and CDV when captured, but the practice was stopped
in 1995 to allow the wolf population to experience more natural biotic
conditions. Since that time, Ivermectin has been administered only to
captured wolves with severe cases of mange. In the future, Ivermectin
and vaccines will be used sparingly on Wisconsin wolves, but will be
used to counter significant disease outbreaks (Wydeven in litt. 1998).
Among Minnesota wolves, mange may always have been present at low
levels. However, based on observations of wolves trapped under the
Federal wolf depredation control program, mange appears to have become
more widespread in the State during the
[[Page 15099]]
1999-2005 period. Data from Wildlife Services trapping efforts showed
only 8 wolves showing symptoms of mange were trapped during a 22-month
period in 1994-96; in contrast, Wildlife Services trapped 10, 6, and 19
mangy wolves in 2003, 2004, and 2005, respectively (2005 data run
through November 22 only). These data indicate that 12.6 percent of
Minnesota wolves were showing symptoms of mange in 2005 (Paul 2005 in
litt.). However, the thoroughness of these observations may not have
been consistent over this 11-year period. In a separate study,
mortality data from 12 years (1994-2005) of monitoring radio-collared
wolves in 7-9 packs in north-central Minnesota show that 11 percent
died from mange (DelGiudice in litt. 2005). However, the sample size
(17 total mortalities, 2 from mange in 1998 and 2004) is far too small
to deduce trends in mange mortality over time. Furthermore, these data
are from mange mortalities, while the Wildlife Services' data are based
on mange symptoms, not mortalities.
It is hypothesized that the current incidence of mange is more
widespread than it would have otherwise been, because the WGL wolf
range has experienced a series of mild winters beginning with the
winter of 1997-98 (Van Deelen 2005, Fig. 2). Mange-induced mortality is
chiefly a result of winter hypothermia, thus the less severe winters
resulted in higher survival of mangy wolves, and increased spread of
mange to additional wolves during the following spring and summer. The
high wolf population, and especially higher wolf density on the
landscape, may also be contributing to the increasing occurrence of
mange in the WGL wolf population. There has been speculation that 500
or more Minnesota wolves died as a result of mange over the last 5 to 6
years, causing a slowing or cessation of previous wolf population
increase in the State (Paul in litt. 2005).
Lyme disease, caused by the spirochete (Borrelia burgdorferi), is
another relatively recently recognized disease, first documented in New
England in 1975, although it may have occurred in Wisconsin as early as
1969. It is spread by ticks that pass the infection to their hosts when
feeding. Host species include humans, horses, dogs, white-tailed deer,
white-footed mice, eastern chipmunks, coyotes, and wolves. The
prevalence of Lyme disease exposure in Wisconsin wolves averaged 70
percent of live-trapped animals in 1988-91, dropped to 37 percent
during 1992-97 and was back up to 56 percent (32 of 57 tested) in 2002-
04 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2004b, pp. 23-24 Table 7; 2005, pp. 23-24
Table 7). Clinical symptoms have not been reported in wolves, but
infected dogs can experience debilitating conditions, and abortion and
fetal mortality have been reported in infected humans and horses. It is
possible that individual wolves may be debilitated by Lyme disease,
perhaps contributing to their mortality; however, Lyme disease is not
believed to be a significant factor affecting wolf populations (Kreeger
2003, p. 212).
The dog louse (Trichodectes canis) has been detected in wolves in
Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alaska, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (Mech et al.
1985, pp. 404-405; Kreeger 2003, p. 208; Paul in litt. 2005). Dogs are
probably the source of the initial infections, and subsequently wild
canids transfer lice by direct contact with other wolves, particularly
between females and pups. Severe infestations result in irritated and
raw skin, substantial hair loss, particularly in the groin. However, in
contrast to mange, lice infestations generally result in loss of guard
hairs but not the insulating under fur, thus, hypothermia is less
likely to occur and much less likely to be fatal (Brand et al. 1995, p.
426). Even though observed in nearly 4 percent in a sample of 391
Minnesota wolves in 2003-05 (Paul in litt. 2005), dog lice infestations
have not been confirmed as a cause of wolf mortality, and are not
expected to have a significant impact even at a local scale.
Canine distemper virus (CDV) is an acute disease of carnivores that
has been known in Europe since the sixteenth century and is now
infecting dogs worldwide (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). CDV generally infects
dog pups when they are only a few months old, so mortality in wild wolf
populations might be difficult to detect (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 420-
421). CDV mortality among wild wolves has been documented only in two
littermate pups in Manitoba (Carbyn 1982, pp. 111-112), in two Alaskan
yearling wolves (Peterson et al. 1984, p. 31), and in two Wisconsin
wolves (an adult in 1985 and a pup in 2002 (Thomas in litt. 2006;
Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003b, p. 20). Carbyn (1982, pp. 113-116)
concluded that CDV was a contributor to a 50 percent decline of the
wolf population in Riding Mountain National Park (Manitoba, Canada) in
the mid-1970s. Serological evidence indicates that exposure to CDV is
high among some Midwest wolves--29 percent in northern Wisconsin wolves
and 79 percent in central Wisconsin wolves in 2002-04 (Wydeven and
Wiedenhoeft 2004b, pp. 23-24 Table 7; 2005, pp 23-24 Table 7). However,
the continued strong recruitment in Wisconsin and elsewhere in North
American wolf populations indicates that distemper is not likely a
significant cause of mortality (Brand et al. 1995, p. 421).
Other diseases and parasites, including rabies, canine heartworm,
blastomycosis, bacterial myocarditis, granulomatous pneumonia,
brucellosis, leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, hookworm, coccidiosis,
and canine hepatitis have been documented in wild gray wolves, but
their impacts on future wild wolf populations are not likely to be
significant (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 419-429; Hassett in litt. 2003;
Johnson 1995, p. 431, 436-438; Mech and Kurtz 1999, pp. 305-306; Thomas
in litt. 1998, Thomas in litt. 2006, WI DNR 1999, p. 61; Kreeger 2003,
pp. 202-214). Continuing wolf range expansion, however, likely will
provide new avenues for exposure to several of these diseases,
especially canine heartworm, raccoon rabies, and bovine tuberculosis
(Thomas in litt. 2000, in litt. 2006), further emphasizing the need for
disease monitoring programs. In addition, the possibility of new
diseases developing and existing diseases, such as chronic wasting
disease (CWD), West Nile Virus (WNV) and canine influenza (Crawford et
al. 2005, 482-485), moving across species barriers or spreading from
domestic dogs to wolves must all be taken into account, and monitoring
programs will need to address such threats. Currently there is no
evidence that CWD can directly affect canids (Thomas in litt. 2006).
Wisconsin wolves have been tested for WNV at necropsy since the first
spread of the virus across the State: to date all results have been
negative. Although experimental infection of dogs produced no ill
effects, WNV is reported to have killed two captive wolf pups, so young
wolves may be at some risk (Thomas in litt. 2006).
In aggregate, diseases and parasites were the cause of 21 percent
of the diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared wolves in Michigan from
1999 through 2004 (Beyer unpublished data 2005) and 27 percent of the
diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared wolves in Wisconsin and
adjacent Minnesota from October 1979 through June 2005 (Wydeven and
Wiedenhoeft 2005, p. 21).
Many of the diseases and parasites are known to be spread by wolf-
to-wolf contact. Therefore, the incidence of mange, CPV, CDV, and
canine heartworm may increase as wolf densities increase in the more
recently colonized areas (Thomas in litt. 2006). Because wolf densities
generally are relatively stable following the first few years of
colonization, wolf-to-wolf
[[Page 15100]]
contacts will not likely lead to a continuing increase in disease
prevalence in areas that have been occupied for several years or more
and are largely saturated with wolf packs (Mech in litt. 1998).
Disease and parasite impacts may increase because several wolf
diseases and parasites are carried and spread by domestic dogs. This
transfer of pathogens from domestic dogs to wild wolves may increase as
gray wolves continue to colonize non-wilderness areas (Mech in litt.
1998). Heartworm, CPV, and rabies are the main concerns (Thomas in
litt. 1998) but dogs may become significant vectors for other diseases
with potentially serious impacts on wolves in the future (Crawford et
al. 2005, pp. 482-485). However, to date wolf populations in Wisconsin
and Michigan have continued their expansion into areas with increased
contacts with dogs and have shown no adverse pathogen impacts since the
mid-1980s impacts from CPV.
Disease and parasite impacts are a recognized concern of the
Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin DNRs. The Michigan Gray Wolf
Recovery and Management Plan states that necropsies will be conducted
on all dead wolves, and that all live wolves that are handled will be
examined, with blood, skin, and fecal samples taken to provide disease
information. The Michigan Plan states that wolf health and disease
monitoring will receive a high priority for a minimum of five years
following Federal delisting (MI DNR 1997, pp. 21-22, 45).
Similarly, the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan states that as long
as the wolf is State-listed as a threatened or endangered species, the
WI DNR will conduct necropsies of dead wolves and test a sample of
live-captured wolves for diseases and parasites, with a goal of
screening 10 percent of the State wolf population for diseases
annually. However, the plan anticipates that since State delisting
(which occurred on March 24, 2004), disease monitoring will be scaled
back because the percentage of the wolf population that is live-trapped
each year will decline. Disease monitoring of captured wolves currently
is focusing on diseases known to be causing noteworthy mortality, such
as mange, and other diseases for which data are judged to be sparse,
such as Lyme disease and ehrlichiosis (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2006, p.
8). The State will continue to test for disease and parasite loads
through periodic necropsy and scat analyses. The 2006 update to the
1999 plan also recommends that all wolves live-trapped for other
studies should have their health monitored and reported to the WI DNR
wildlife health specialists (WI DNR 1999, p. 21; 2006c, p. 14).
Furthermore, the 2006 update identifies a need for ``continued health
monitoring to document significant disease events that may impact the
wolf population and to identify new diseases in the population * * *.''
(WI DNR 2006a, p. 24).
The Minnesota Wolf Management Plan states that MN DNR ``will
collaborate with other investigators and continue monitoring disease
incidence, where necessary, by examination of wolf carcasses obtained
through depredation control programs, and also through blood/tissue
physiology work conducted by DNR and the U.S. Geological Survey. DNR
will also keep records of documented and suspected incidence of
sarcoptic mange (MN DNR 2001, p. 32).'' In addition, it will initiate
``(R)egular collection of pertinent tissues of live captured or dead
wolves'' and periodically assess wolf health ``when circumstances
indicate that diseases or parasites may be adversely affecting portions
of the wolf population (MN DNR 2001, p. 19).'' Unlike Michigan and
Wisconsin, Minnesota has not established minimum goals for the
proportion of its wolves that will be assessed for disease nor does it
plan to treat any wolves, although it does not rule out these measures.
Minnesota's less intensive approach to disease monitoring and
management seems warranted in light of its much greater abundance of
wolves than in the other two States.
In areas within the WGL DPS, but outside Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan, we lack data on the incidence of diseases or parasites in
transient wolves. However, the WGL DPS boundary is laid out in a manner
such that the vast majority of, and perhaps all, wolves that will occur
in the DPS in the foreseeable future will have originated from the
Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf metapopulation. Therefore, they will
be carrying the ``normal'' complement of Midwest wolf parasites,
diseases, and disease resistance with them. For this reason, any new
pairs, packs, or populations that develop within the DPS are likely to
experience the same low to moderate adverse impacts from pathogens that
have been occurring in the core recovery areas. The most likely
exceptions to this generalization would arise from exposure to sources
of novel diseases or more virulent forms that are being spread by other
canid species that might be encountered by wolves dispersing into
currently unoccupied areas of the DPS. To increase the likelihood of
detecting such novel, or more virulent diseases and thereby reduce the
risk that they might pose to the core meta-population after delisting,
we will encourage these States and Tribes to provide wolf carcasses or
suitable tissue, as appropriate, to the USGS Madison Wildlife Health
Center or the Service's National Wildlife Forensics Laboratory for
necropsy. This practice should provide an early indication of new or
increasing pathogen threats before they reach the core metapopulation
or impact future transient wolves to those areas.
Disease summary--We believe that several diseases have had
noticeable impacts on wolf population growth in the Great Lakes region
in the past. These impacts have been both direct, resulting in
mortality of individual wolves, and indirect, by reducing longevity and
fecundity of individuals or entire packs or populations. Canine
parvovirus stalled wolf population growth in Wisconsin in the early and
mid-1980s and has been implicated in the decline in the mid-1980s of
the isolated Isle Royale wolf population in Michigan, and in
attenuating wolf population growth in Minnesota (Mech in litt. 2006).
Sarcoptic mange has affected wolf recovery in Michigan's UP and in
Wisconsin over the last ten years, and it is recognized as a continuing
issue. Despite these and other diseases and parasites, the overall
trend for wolf populations in the WGL DPS continues to be upward. Wolf
management plans for Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin include disease
monitoring components that we expect will identify future disease and
parasite problems in time to allow corrective action to avoid a
significant decline in overall population viability. We conclude that
diseases and parasites will not prevent the continuation of wolf
recovery or the maintenance of viable wolf populations in the DPS.
Delisting wolves in the WGL DPS will not significantly change the
incidence or impacts of disease and parasites on these wolves.
Furthermore, we conclude that diseases and parasites will not be
threats sufficient to cause the WGL DPS gray wolves to be in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future in all or a significant portion of
the range within the WGL DPS.
Predation
No wild animals habitually prey on gray wolves. Large prey such as
deer, elk, or moose (Mech and Nelson 1989, pp. 207-208; Smith et al.
2001, p. 3), or other predators, such as mountain lions (Felis
concolor) or grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) where they are
extant (USFWS 2005, p. 3), occasionally kill
[[Page 15101]]
wolves, but this has only been rarely documented. This very small
component of wolf mortality will not increase with delisting.
Wolves frequently are killed by other wolves, most commonly when
packs encounter and attack a dispersing wolf as an intruder or when two
packs encounter each other along a territorial boundary (Mech 1994, p.
201). This form of mortality is likely to increase as more of the
available wolf habitat becomes saturated with wolf pack territories, as
is the case in northeastern Minnesota, but such a trend is not yet
evident from Wisconsin or Michigan data. From October 1979 through June
1998, seven (12 percent) of the mortalities of radio-collared Wisconsin
wolves resulted from wolves killing wolves, and 8 of 73 (11 percent)
mortalities were from this cause during 2000-05 (Wydeven 1998, p. 16
Table 4; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2001, p. 8 Table 5; 2002, pp. 8-9
Table 4; 2003a, pp. 11-12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11-12 Table 5, 2005, p.
21 Table 5). Gogan et al. (2004, p. 7) studied 31 radio-collared wolves
in northern Minnesota from 1987-91 and found that 4 (13 percent) were
killed by other wolves, representing 29 percent of the total mortality
of radio-collared wolves. Intra-specific strife caused 50 percent of
mortality within Voyageurs National Park and 20 percent of the
mortality of wolves adjacent to the Park (Gogan et al. 2004, p. 22).
The Del Giudice data (in litt. 2005) show a 17 percent mortality rate
from other wolves in another study area in north-central Minnesota from
1994-2005. This behavior is normal in healthy wolf populations and is
an expected outcome of dispersal conflicts and territorial defense, as
well as occasional intra-pack strife. This form of mortality is
something that the species has evolved with and it should not pose a
threat to wolf populations in the WGL DPS following delisting.
Humans have functioned as highly effective predators of the gray
wolf in North America for several hundred years. European settlers in
the Midwest attempted to eliminate the wolf entirely in earlier times,
and the U.S. Congress passed a wolf bounty that covered the Northwest
Territories in 1817. Bounties on wolves subsequently became the norm
for States across the species' range. In Michigan, an 1838 wolf bounty
became the ninth law passed by the First Michigan Legislature; this
bounty remained in place until 1960. A Wisconsin bounty was instituted
in 1865 and was repealed about the time wolves were extirpated from the
State in 1957. Minnesota maintained a wolf bounty until 1965.
Subsequent to the gray wolf's listing as a federally endangered
species, the Act and State endangered species statutes prohibited the
killing of wolves except under very limited circumstances, such as in
defense of human life, for scientific or conservation purposes, or
under special regulations intended to reduce wolf depredations of
livestock or other domestic animals. The resultant reduction in human-
caused wolf mortality is the main cause of the wolf's reestablishment
in large parts of its historical range. It is clear, however, that
illegal killing of wolves has continued in the form of intentional
mortality and incidental deaths.
Illegal killing of wolves occurs for a number of reasons. Some of
these killings are accidental (e.g., wolves are hit by vehicles,
mistaken for coyotes and shot, or caught in traps set for other
animals); some of these accidental killings are reported to State,
Tribal, and Federal authorities. It is likely that most illegal
killings, however, are intentional and are never reported to government
authorities. Because they generally occur in remote locations and the
evidence is easily concealed, we lack reliable estimates of annual
rates of intentional illegal killings.
In Wisconsin, all forms of human-caused mortality accounted for 54
percent of the diagnosed deaths of radio-collared wolves from October
1979 through June 2005. Thirty percent of the diagnosed mortalities,
and 55 percent of the human-caused mortalities, were from shooting
(firearms and bows). Another 14 percent of all the diagnosed
mortalities (25 percent of the human-caused mortalities) resulted from
vehicle collisions. (These percentages and those in the following
paragraphs exclude two radio-collared Wisconsin wolves that were killed
in depredation control actions by USDA--APHIS--Wildlife Services in
2003-04. The wolf depredation control programs in the Midwest are
discussed separately under Depredation Control, below.) Preliminary
2006 data through September (8 diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared
wolves) show these mortality percentages to be unchanged, with 38
percent of the mortalities resulting from mange, 38 percent shot, and
13 percent from vehicle collisions (Wydeven in litt. 2006c).
As the Wisconsin population has increased in numbers and range,
vehicle collisions have increased as a percentage of radio-collared
wolf mortalities. During the October 1979 through June 1992 period,
only 1 of 27 (4 percent) known mortalities was from that cause; but
from July 1992 through June 1998, 5 of the 26 (19 percent) known
mortalities resulted from vehicle collisions (Wydeven 1998, p. 6). From
2002 through 2004, 7 of 45 (16 percent) known mortalities were from
that cause (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003a, pp. 11-12 Table 4; 2004a,
pp. 11-12 Table 5; 2005, pp. 19-20 Table 4).
A comparison over time for diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared
Wisconsin wolves shows that 18 of 57 (32 percent) were illegally shot
from October 1979 through 1998, while 12 of 42 (29 percent) were
illegally shot from 2002 through 2004 (Wisconsin DNR 1999, p. 63;
Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003a, pp. 11-12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11-12
Table 4; 2005. pp. 19-20 Table 4). However, a more recent analysis
incorporating 2005 and preliminary 2006 data for radio-collared wolves
indicates an increase in illegal killing of wolves since 2000 (about 32
percent) compared to the previous decade (about 19 percent). The same
analysis shows vehicle mortality declined and disease/malnutrition
mortality increased from the 1990s to the 2000s (Wiedenhoeft 2006
unpublished data).
In the UP of Michigan, human-caused mortalities accounted for 75
percent of the diagnosed mortalities, based upon 34 wolves recovered
from 1960 to 1997, including mostly non-radio-collared wolves. Twenty-
eight percent of all the diagnosed mortalities and 38 percent of the
human-caused mortalities were from shooting. In the UP during that
period, about one-third of all the known mortalities were from vehicle
collisions (MI DNR 1997, pp. 5-6). During the 1998 Michigan deer
hunting season, 3 radio-collared wolves were shot and killed, resulting
in one arrest and conviction (Hammill in litt. 1999, Michigan DNR
1999). During the subsequent 3 years, 8 additional wolves were killed
in Michigan by gunshot, and the cut-off radio-collar from a ninth
animal was located, but the animal was never found. These incidents
resulted in 6 guilty pleas, with 3 cases remaining open. Data collected
from radio-collared wolves from the 1999 to 2004 bioyears (mid-April to
mid-April) show that human-caused mortalities still account for the
majority of the wolf mortalities (60 percent) in Michigan. Deaths from
vehicular collisions were about 15 percent of total mortality (25
percent of the human-caused mortality) and showed no trend over this
six-year period. Deaths from illegal killing constituted 38 percent of
all mortalities (65 percent of the human-caused mortality) over the
period. From 1999 through 2001 illegal killings were 31 percent of the
mortalities, but this
[[Page 15102]]
increased to 42 percent during the 2002 through 2004 bioyears (Beyer
unpublished data 2005),
North-central Minnesota data from 16 diagnosed mortalities of
radio-collared wolves over a 12-year period (1994-2005) show that
human-causes resulted in 69 percent of the diagnosed mortalities. This
includes 1 wolf accidentally snared, 2 vehicle collisions, and 8 (50
percent of all diagnosed mortalities) that were shot (Del Giudice in
litt. 2005). However, this data set of only 16 mortalities over 12
years is too small for reliable comparison to Wisconsin and Michigan
data.
A smaller mortality dataset is available from a 1987-1991 study of
wolves in, and adjacent to, Minnesota's Voyageurs National Park, along
the Canadian border. Of 10 diagnosed mortalities, illegal killing
outside the Park was responsible for a minimum of 60 percent of the
deaths (Gogan et al. 2004, p. 22).
Two Minnesota studies provide some limited insight into the extent
of human-caused wolf mortality before and after the species' listing.
On the basis of bounty data from a period that predated wolf protection
under the Act by 20 years, Stenlund (1955, p. 33) found an annual
human-caused mortality rate of 41 percent. Fuller (1989, pp. 23-24)
provided 1980-86 data from a north-central Minnesota study area and
found an annual human-caused mortality rate of 29 percent, a figure
that includes 2 percent mortality from legal depredation control
actions. Drawing conclusions from comparisons of these two studies,
however, is difficult due to the confounding effects of habitat
quality, exposure to humans, prey density, differing time periods, and
vast differences in study design. Although these figures provide
support for the contention that human-caused mortality decreased after
the wolf's protection under the Act, it is not possible at this time to
determine if human-caused mortality (apart from mortalities from
depredation control) has significantly changed over the 30-year period
that the gray wolf has been listed as threatened or endangered.
Wolves were largely eliminated from the Dakotas in the 1920s and
1930s and were rarely reported from the mid-1940s through the late
1970s. Ten wolves were killed in these two States from 1981 to 1992
(Licht and Fritts 1994, pp. 76-77). Six more were killed in North
Dakota since 1992, with four of these mortalities occurring in 2002 and
2003; in 2001, one wolf was killed in Harding County in extreme
northwestern South Dakota. The number of reported sightings of gray
wolves in North Dakota is increasing. From 1993-98, six wolf
depredation reports were investigated in North Dakota, and adequate
signs were found to verify the presence of wolves in two of the cases.
A den with pups was also documented in extreme north-central North
Dakota near the Canadian border in 1994. From 1999-2003, 16 wolf
sightings/depredation incidents in North Dakota were reported to USDA--
APHIS--Wildlife Services, and 9 of these incidents were verified.
Additionally, one North Dakota wolf sighting was confirmed in early
2004, and two wolf depredation incidents were verified north of
Garrison in late 2005. USDA--APHIS--Wildlife Services also confirmed a
wolf sighting along the Minnesota border near Gary, South Dakota, in
1996, and a trapper with the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks
Department sighted a lone wolf in the western Black Hills in 2002.
Several other unconfirmed sightings have been reported from these
States, including two reports in South Dakota in 2003. Wolves killed in
North and South Dakota are most often shot by hunters after being
mistaken for coyotes, or were killed by vehicles. The 2001 mortality in
South Dakota and one of the 2003 mortalities in North Dakota were
caused by M-44 devices that had been legally set in response to
complaints about coyotes.
In and around the core recovery areas in the Midwest, a continuing
increase in wolf mortalities from vehicle collisions, both in actual
numbers and as a percent of total diagnosed mortalities, is expected as
wolves continue their colonization of areas with more human
developments and a denser network of roads and vehicle traffic. In
addition, the growing wolf populations in Wisconsin and Michigan are
producing greater numbers of dispersing individuals each year, and this
also will contribute to increasing numbers of wolf-vehicle collisions.
This increase would be unaffected by a removal of WGL DPS wolves from
the protections of the Act.
In those areas of the WGL DPS that are beyond the areas currently
occupied by wolf packs in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP, we expect
that human-caused wolf mortality in the form of vehicle collisions,
shooting, and trapping have been removing all, or nearly all, the
wolves that disperse into these areas. We expect this to continue after
Federal delisting. Road densities are high in these areas, with
numerous interstate highways and other freeways and high-speed
thoroughfares that are extremely hazardous to wolves attempting to move
across them. Shooting and trapping of wolves also is likely to continue
as a threat to wolves in these areas for several reasons. Especially
outside of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP, hunters will not expect to
encounter wolves, and may easily mistake them for coyotes from a
distance, resulting in unintentional shootings.
It is important to note that, despite the difficulty in measuring
the extent of illegal killing of wolves, all sources of wolf mortality,
including legal (e.g., depredation control) and illegal human-caused
mortality, have not been of sufficient magnitude to stop the continuing
growth of the wolf population in Wisconsin and Michigan, nor to cause a
wolf population decline in Minnesota. This indicates that total gray
wolf mortality does not threaten the continued viability of the wolf
population in these three States, or in the WGL DPS.
Predation summary--The high reproductive potential of wolves allows
wolf populations to withstand relatively high mortality rates,
including human-caused mortality. The principle of compensatory
mortality is believed to occur in wolf populations. This means that
human-caused mortality is not simply added to ``natural'' mortality,
but rather replaces a portion of it. For example, some of the wolves
that are killed during depredation control actions would have otherwise
died during that year from disease, intraspecific strife, or
starvation. Thus, the addition of intentional killing of wolves to a
wolf population will reduce the mortality rates from other causes on
the population. Based on 19 studies by other wolf researchers, Fuller
et al. (2003, pp. 182-186) concludes that human-caused mortality can
replace about 70 percent of other forms of mortality.
Fuller et al. (2003, p. 182 Table 6.8) has summarized the work of
various researchers in estimating mortality rates, especially human
harvest, that would result in wolf population stability or decline.
They provide a number of human-caused and total mortality rate
estimates and the observed population effects in wolf populations in
the United States and Canada. While variability is apparent, in
general, wolf populations increased if their total average annual
mortality was 30 percent or less, and populations decreased if their
total average annual mortality was 40 percent or more. Four of the
cited studies showed wolf population stability or increases with human-
caused mortality rates of 24 to 30 percent. The clear conclusion is
that a wolf population with high pup productivity--the normal situation
in a wolf population--can
[[Page 15103]]
withstand levels of overall and of human-caused mortality without
suffering a long-term decline in numbers.
The wolf populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan will
stop growing when they have saturated the suitable habitat and are
curtailed in less suitable areas by natural mortality (disease,
starvation, and intraspecific aggression), depredation management,
incidental mortality (e.g., road kill), illegal killing, and other
means. At that time, we should expect to see population declines in
some years followed by short-term increases in other years, resulting
from fluctuations in birth and mortality rates. Adequate wolf
monitoring programs, however, as described in the Michigan, Wisconsin,
and Minnesota wolf management plans are likely to identify high
mortality rates and/or low birth rates that warrant corrective action
by the management agencies. The goals of all three State wolf
management plans are to maintain wolf populations well above the
numbers recommended in the Federal Eastern Recovery Plan to ensure
long-term viable wolf populations. The State management plans recommend
a minimum wolf population of 1,600 in Minnesota, 350 in Wisconsin, and
200 in Michigan.
Despite human-caused mortalities of wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin,
and Michigan, these wolf populations have continued to increase in both
numbers and range. If wolves in the WGL DPS are delisted, as long as
other mortality factors do not increase significantly and monitoring is
adequate to document, and if necessary counteract, the effects of
excessive human-caused mortality should that occur, the Minnesota-
Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population will not decline to nonviable levels
in the foreseeable future as a result of human-caused killing or other
forms of predation either within the core wolf populations or in all
other parts of the DPS. Therefore, we conclude that predation,
including all forms of human-caused mortality, will not be a sufficient
future threat to cause the WGL DPS gray wolves to be in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future in all or a significant portion of
the range within the WGL DPS
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
For the reasons described in the following section, the Service has
determined that over a significant portion of the WGL DPS range, there
are adequate regulatory mechanisms to ensure that this population of
gray wolves is neither threatened nor endangered.
Regulatory Mechanisms in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
State Wolf Management Planning
During the 2000 legislative session, the Minnesota Legislature
passed wolf management provisions addressing wolf protection, taking of
wolves, and directing MN DNR to prepare a wolf management plan. The MN
DNR revised a 1999 draft wolf management plan to reflect the
legislative action of 2000, and completed the Minnesota Wolf Management
Plan (MN Plan) in early 2001 (MN DNR 2001, pp. 8-9).
The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board approved the Wisconsin Wolf
Management Plan in October 1999 (WI Plan). In 2004 and 2005 the
Wisconsin Wolf Science Advisory Committee and the Wisconsin Wolf
Stakeholders group reviewed the 1999 Plan, and the Science Advisory
Committee subsequently developed updates and recommended modifications
to the 1999 Plan. The WI DNR presented the Plan updates and
modifications to the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board on June 28,
2006, and the NRB approved them at that time, with the understanding
that some numbers would be updated and an additional reference document
would be added (Holtz in litt. 2006). The updates were completed and
received final NRB approval on November 28, 2006 (WI DNR 2006a, p. 1).
In late 1997, the Michigan Wolf Recovery and Management Plan (MI
Plan) was completed and received the necessary State approvals.
However, it is primarily focused on wolf recovery, rather than long-
term management of a large wolf population and the conflicts that
result as a consequence of successful wolf restoration. In 2006 the MI
DNR convened a Michigan Wolf Management Roundtable committee
(Roundtable) to provide guiding principles to the DNR on changes and
revisions to the 1997 Plan and to guide management of Michigan wolves
and wolf-related issues following Federal delisting of the species. The
MI DNR will rely heavily on those guiding principles as it drafts a new
wolf management plan. The Roundtable is composed of representatives
from 20 Michigan stakeholder interests in wolf recovery and management,
and its membership is roughly equal in numbers from the UP and the LP.
During 2006, the Roundtable provided its ``Recommended Guiding
Principles for Wolf Management in Michigan'' to the DNR in November
(Michigan Wolf Management Roundtable 2006. p. 2). The first public
draft of the revised MI Plan is expected to be available for public
review and comment in March 2007, and the plan should be completed in
late 2007 (Hogrefe in litt. 2006). See The Michigan Wolf Management
Plan section below for a detailed description of the efforts of the
Roundtable.
The Minnesota Wolf Management Plan
The Minnesota Plan is based, in part, on the recommendations of a
State wolf management roundtable (MN DNR 2001, Appendix V) and on a
State wolf management law enacted in 2000 (MN DNR 2001, Appendix I).
This law and the Minnesota Game and Fish Laws constitute the basis of
the State's authority to manage wolves. The Plan's stated goal is ``to
ensure the long-term survival of wolves in Minnesota while addressing
wolf-human conflicts that inevitably result when wolves and people live
in the same vicinity'' (MN DNR 2001, p. 2). It establishes a minimum
goal of 1,600 wolves in the State. Key components of the plan are
population monitoring and management, management of wolf depredation of
domestic animals, management of wolf prey, enforcement of laws
regulating take of wolves, public education, and increased staffing to
accomplish these actions. Following delisting, Minnesota DNR's
management of wolves would differ from their current management while
listed as threatened under the Act. Most of these differences deal with
the control of wolves that attack or threaten domestic animals.
The Minnesota Plan divides the State into two wolf management
zones--Zones A and B (see Figure 2 below). Zone A corresponds to
Federal Wolf Management Zones 1 through 4 (approximately 30,000 sq mi
(48,000 sq km) in northeastern Minnesota) in the Service's Eastern
Recovery Plan, whereas Zone B constitutes zone 5 in the Eastern
Recovery Plan (MN DNR 2001, pp. 19-20 and Appendix III; USFWS 1992, p.
72). Within Zone A, wolves would receive strong protection by the
State, unless they were involved in attacks on domestic animals. The
rules governing the take of wolves to protect domestic animals in Zone
B would be less protective than in Zone A.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 15104]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02AP09.001
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
The MN DNR plans to allow wolf numbers and distribution to
naturally expand, with no maximum population goal, and if any winter
population estimate is below 1,600 wolves, it would take actions to
``assure recovery'' to 1,600 wolves (MN DNR 2001 p. 19). The MN DNR
will continue to monitor wolves in Minnesota to determine whether such
intervention is necessary. The MN DNR will conduct a statewide
population survey in the first and fifth years after delisting and at
subsequent five-year intervals. In addition to these statewide
population surveys, MN DNR annually reviews data on depredation
incident frequency and locations provided by Wildlife Services and
winter track survey indices (see Erb 2005) to help ascertain annual
trends in wolf population or range (MN DNR 2001, p. 18-19).
Minnesota (MN DNR 2001, pp. 21-24, 27-28) plans to reduce or
control illegal mortality of wolves through education, increased
enforcement of the State's wolf laws and regulations, by discouraging
new road access in some areas, and by maintaining a depredation control
program that includes compensation for livestock losses. The MN DNR
plans to use a variety of methods to encourage and support education of
the public about the effects of wolves on livestock, wild ungulate
populations, and human activities and the history and ecology of wolves
in the State (MN DNR 2001, pp. 29-30). These are all measures that have
been in effect for years in Minnesota, although ``increased
enforcement'' of State laws against take of wolves would replace
enforcement of the Act's take prohibitions. Financial compensation for
livestock losses has been increased in recent years to the full market
value of the animal, replacing previous caps of $400 and $750 per
animal (MN DNR 2001, p. 24). We do not expect the State's efforts will
result in the reduction of illegal take of wolves from existing levels,
but we believe these measures will be crucial in ensuring that illegal
mortality does not significantly increase following Federal delisting.
The likelihood of illegal take increases in relation to road
density and human population density, but changing attitudes towards
wolves may allow them to survive in areas where road and human
densities were previously thought to be too high (Fuller et al. 2003,
p. 181). The MN DNR does not plan to reduce current levels of road
access, but would encourage managers
[[Page 15105]]
of land areas large enough to sustain one or more wolf packs to ``be
cautious about adding new road access that could exceed a density of
one mile of road per square mile of land, without considering the
potential effect on wolves'' (MN DNR 2001, pp. 27-28).
Under Minnesota law, the illegal killing of a wolf is a gross
misdemeanor and is punishable by a maximum fine of $3,000 and
imprisonment for up to one year. The restitution value of an illegally
killed wolf is $2,000 (MN DNR 2001, p.29). The MN DNR acknowledges that
increased enforcement of the State's wolf laws and regulations would be
dependent on increases in staff and resources, additional cross-
deputization of tribal law enforcement officers, and continued
cooperation with Federal law enforcement officers. They specifically
propose after delisting to add three Conservation Officers
``strategically located within current gray wolf range in Minnesota''
whose priority duty would be to implement the gray wolf management plan
(MN DNR 2001, pp. 29, 32).
Minnesota DNR will consider wolf population management measures,
including public hunting and trapping seasons and other methods, in the
future. However, State law and the Minnesota Plan state that such
consideration will occur no sooner than five years after Federal
delisting, and there would be opportunity for full public comment on
such possible changes at that time (Minnesota Statutes 97B.645 Subdiv.
9, see MN DNR 2001 Appendix 1, p. 6; MN DNR 2001, p. 20) The Minnesota
Plan requires that these population management measures have to be
implemented in such a way to maintain a statewide late-winter wolf
population of at least 1,600 animals (MN DNR 2001, pp. 19-20), well
above the Federal Recovery Plan's 1250-1400 for the State (USFWS 1992,
p. 28).
Depredation Control in Minnesota
While federally-protected as a threatened species in Minnesota
(since their 1978 reclassification), wolves that have attacked domestic
animals have been killed by designated government employees under the
authority of a special regulation (50 CFR 17.40(d)) under section 4(d)
of the Act. However, no control of depredating wolves was allowed in
Federal Wolf Management Zone 1, comprising about 4,500 sq mi (7,200 sq
km) in extreme northeastern Minnesota (USFWS 1992, p. 72). In Federal
Wolf Management Zones 2 through 5, employees or agents of the Service
(including USDA-APHIS--Wildlife Services) have taken wolves in response
to depredations of domestic animals within one-half mile of the
depredation site. Young-of-the-year captured on or before August 1 must
be released. The regulations that allow for this take (50 CFR
17.40(d)(2)(i)(B)(4)) do not specify a maximum duration for depredation
control, but Wildlife Services personnel have followed internal
guidelines under which they trap for no more than 10-15 days, except at
sites with repeated or chronic depredation, where they may trap for up
to 30 days (Paul pers. comm. 2004).
During the period from 1980-2005, the Federal Minnesota wolf
depredation control program euthanized from 20 (in 1982) to 216 (in
1997) gray wolves annually. Annual averages (and percentage of
statewide population) were 30 (2.2 percent) wolves killed from 1980 to
1984, 49 (3.0 percent) from 1985 to 1989, 115 (6.0 percent) from 1990
to 1994, and 152 (6.7 percent) from 1995 to 1999. During 2000-05 an
average of 128 wolves (4.2 percent of the wolf population, based on the
2003-2004 statewide estimate) were killed under the program annually.
Since 1980, the lowest annual percentage of Minnesota wolves killed
under this program was 1.5 percent in 1982; the highest percentage was
9.4 in 1997 (Paul 2004, pp. 2-7; 2006, p. 1).
This level of wolf removal for depredation control has not
interfered with wolf recovery in Minnesota, although it may have slowed
the increase in wolf numbers in the State, especially since the late-
1980s, and may be contributing to the possibly stabilized Minnesota
wolf population suggested by the 2003-04 estimate (see additional
information in Minnesota Recovery). Minnesota wolf numbers grew at an
average annual rate of nearly 4 percent between 1989 and 1998 while the
depredation control program was taking its highest percentages of
wolves (Paul 2004, pp. 2-7).
Under a Minnesota statute, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture
(MDA) compensates livestock owners for full market value of livestock
that wolves have killed or severely injured. A university extension
agent or conservation officer must confirm that wolves were responsible
for the depredation. The agent or officer also evaluates the livestock
operation for conformance to a set of Best Management Practices (BMPs)
designed to minimize wolf depredation and provides operators with an
itemized list of any deficiencies relative to the BMPs (MN DNR 2001, p.
24). The Minnesota statute also requires MDA to periodically update its
BMPs to incorporate new practices that it finds would reduce wolf
depredation (Minnesota Statutes 2005, Section 3.737, subdivision 5).
Post-Delisting Depredation Control in Minnesota
Following Federal delisting, depredation control will be authorized
under Minnesota State law and conducted in conformance with the
Minnesota Wolf Management Plan (MN DNR 2001). The Minnesota Plan
divides the State into Wolf Management Zones A and B. Zone A is
composed of Federal Wolf Management Zones 1-4, covering 30,728 sq mi
(49,452 sq km), approximately the northeastern third of the State. Zone
B is identical to the current Federal Wolf Management Zone 5, and
contains the 54,603 sq mi (87,875 sq km.) that make up the rest of the
State (MN DNR 2001, pp. 19-20 and Appendix III; USFWS 1992, p. 72). The
statewide survey conducted during the winter of 2003-04 estimated that
there were approximately 2,570 wolves in Zone A and 450 in Zone B (Erb
in litt. 2005). As discussed in Recovery Criteria, the Federal planning
goal is 1251-1400 wolves for Zones 1-4 and no wolves in Zone 5 (USFWS
1992, p. 28).
In Zone A wolf depredation control is limited to situations of (1)
immediate threat and (2) following verified loss of domestic animals.
In this zone, if DNR verifies that a wolf destroyed any livestock,
domestic animal, or pet, and if the owner requests wolf control be
implemented, trained and certified predator controllers may take wolves
within a one-mile radius of the depredation site (depredation control
area) for up to 60 days. In contrast, in Zone B, predator controllers
may take wolves for up to 214 days after MN DNR opens a depredation
control area, depending on the time of year. Under State law, the DNR
may open a control area in Zone B anytime within five years of a
verified depredation loss upon request of the landowner, thereby
providing more of a preventative approach than is allowed in Zone A, in
order to head off repeat depredation incidents (MN DNR 2001, p. 22).
State law and the Minnesota Plan will also allow for private wolf
depredation control throughout the State. Persons may shoot or destroy
a gray wolf that poses ``an immediate threat'' to their livestock,
guard animals, or domestic animals on lands that they own, lease, or
occupy. Immediate threat is defined as ``in the act of stalking,
attacking, or killing.'' This does not include trapping because traps
cannot be placed in a manner such that they trap only wolves in the act
of stalking, attacking, or killing. Owners of domestic pets may also
kill wolves posing an immediate
[[Page 15106]]
threat to pets under their supervision on lands that they do not own or
lease, although such actions are subject to local ordinances, trespass
law, and other applicable restrictions. The MN DNR will investigate any
private taking of wolves in Zone A (MN DNR 2001, p. 23).
To protect their domestic animals in Zone B, individuals do not
have to wait for an immediate threat or a depredation incident in order
to take wolves. At anytime in Zone B, persons who own, lease, or manage
lands may shoot wolves on those lands to protect livestock, domestic
animals, or pets. They may also employ a predator controller to trap a
gray wolf on their land or within one mile of their land (with
permission of the landowner) to protect their livestock, domestic
animals, or pets (MN DNR 2001, p. 23-24).
The Minnesota Plan will also allow persons to harass wolves
anywhere in the State within 500 yards of ``people, buildings, dogs,
livestock, or other domestic pets or animals''. Harassment may not
include physical injury to a wolf.
Depredation control will be allowed throughout Zone A, which
includes an area (Federal Wolf Management Zone 1) where such control
has not been permitted under the Act's protection. Depredation in Zone
1, however, has been limited to 3 to 6 reported incidents per year,
mostly of wolves killing dogs (Paul pers. comm. 2004), although some
dog kills in this zone probably go unreported. There are few livestock
in Zone 1; therefore, the number of verified future depredation
incidents in that Zone is expected to be low, resulting in a
correspondingly low number of depredating wolves being killed there
after delisting.
The final change in Zone A is the ability for owners/lessees to
respond to situations of immediate threat by shooting wolves in the act
of stalking, attacking, or killing livestock or other domestic animals.
We believe this is not likely to result in the killing of many
additional wolves, as opportunities to shoot wolves ``in the act'' will
likely be few and difficult to successfully accomplish, a belief shared
by the most experienced wolf depredation agent in the lower 48 States
(Paul in litt. 2006, p. 5). It is also possible that illegal killing of
wolves in Minnesota will decrease, because the expanded options for
legal control of problem wolves may lead to an increase in public
tolerance for wolves (Paul in litt. 2006, p. 5).
Within Zone B, State law and the Minnesota Plan provide broad
authority to landowners and land managers to shoot wolves at any time
to protect their livestock, pets, or other domestic animals on land
owned, leased, or managed by the individual. Such takings can occur in
the absence of wolf attacks on the domestic animals. Thus, the
estimated 450 wolves in Zone B could be subject to substantial
reduction in numbers, and at the extreme, wolves could be eliminated
from Zone B. However, there is no way to reasonably evaluate in advance
the extent to which residents of Zone B will use this new authority,
nor how vulnerable Zone B wolves will be. Thus, any estimate of future
wolf numbers in Zone B would be highly speculative at this time. The
limitation of this broad take authority to Zone B is fully consistent
with the Federal Recovery Plan's advice that wolves should be restored
to the rest of Minnesota but not to Zone B (Federal Zone 5) because
that area ``is not suitable for wolves'' (USFWS 1992, p. 20). The
Federal Recovery Plan envisioned that the Minnesota numerical recovery
goal would be achieved solely in Zone A (Federal Zones 1-4) (USFWS
1992, p. 28), and that has occurred. Wolves outside of Zone A are not
necessary to the establishment and long-term viability of a self-
sustaining wolf population in the State, and therefore there is no need
to establish or maintain a wolf population in Zone B. Therefore, there
is no need to maintain significant protection for wolves in Zone B in
order to maintain a Minnesota wolf population that continues to satisfy
the Federal recovery goals after Federal delisting.
This expansion of depredation control activities will not threaten
the continued conservation of wolves in the State or the long-term
viability of the wolf population in Zone A, the significant part of
wolf range in Minnesota. Significant changes in wolf depredation
control under State management will primarily be restricted to Zone B,
which is outside of the area necessary for wolf recovery (USFWS 1992,
pp. 20, 28). Furthermore, wolves may still persist in Zone B despite
the likely increased take there. The Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team
concluded that the changes in wolf management in the State's Zone A
would be ``minor'' and would not likely result in ``significant change
in overall wolf numbers in Zone A.'' They found that, despite an
expansion of the individual depredation control areas and an extension
of the control period to 60 days, depredation control will remain
``very localized'' in Zone A. The requirement that such depredation
control activities be conducted only in response to verified wolf
depredation in Zone A played a key role in the team's evaluation
(Peterson in litt. 2001).
The proposed changes in the control of depredating wolves in
Minnesota under State management emphasize the need for post-delisting
monitoring. Minnesota will continue to monitor wolf populations
throughout the State and will also monitor all depredation control
activities in Zone A (MN DNR 2001, p. 18). These and other activities
contained in their plan will be essential in meeting their population
goal of a minimum statewide winter population of 1,600 wolves, which
exceeds the 1992 Federal Recovery Plan's criteria of 1,251 to 1,400
wolves (USFWS 1992, p. 28).
The Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan
Both the Wisconsin and Michigan Wolf Management Plans are designed
to manage and ensure the existence of wolf populations in the States as
if they are isolated populations and are not dependent upon immigration
of wolves from an adjacent State or Canada. We support this approach
and believe it provides strong assurances that the gray wolf in both
States will remain a viable component of the WGL DPS for the
foreseeable future.
The WI Plan allows for differing levels of protection and
management within four separate management zones (see figure 3). The
Northern Forest Zone (Zone 1) and the Central Forest Zone (Zone 2) now
contain most of the wolf population, with less than 5 percent of the
Wisconsin wolves in Zones 3 and 4 (Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 27-29).
Zones 1 and 2 contain all the larger unfragmented areas of suitable
habitat (see Wolf Range Ownership and Protection, above), so most of
the State's wolf packs will continue to inhabit those parts of
Wisconsin for the foreseeable future. The varying levels of protection
provided across these zones are fully consistent with our determination
of the SPR in Wisconsin. The inclusion of all primary and secondary
habitat in Zones 1 and 2, and the lack of suitable habitat in Zones 3
and 4 (Wydeven et al. 1999, pp. 46-49), indicate that Zones 1 and 2
constitute the SPR in Wisconsin and preclude the need for substantial
wolf protection outside these zones.
At the time the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan was completed, it
recommended immediate reclassification from State-endangered to State-
threatened status, because Wisconsin's wolf population had already
exceeded its reclassification criterion of 80 wolves for 3 years. That
State reclassification occurred in 1999,
[[Page 15107]]
after the population exceeded that level for 5 years. The Wisconsin
Plan further recommends the State manage for a gray wolf population of
350 wolves outside of Native American reservations, and specifies that
the species should be delisted by the State once the population reaches
250 animals outside of reservations. The species was proposed for State
delisting in late 2003, and the State delisting process was completed
in 2004. Upon State delisting, the species was classified as a
``protected nongame species,'' a designation that continues State
prohibitions on sport hunting and trapping of the species (Wydeven and
Jurewicz 2005, p. 1; WI DNR 2006b, p. 71). The Wisconsin Plan includes
criteria that would trigger State relisting to threatened (a decline to
fewer than 250 wolves for 3 years) or endangered status (a decline to
fewer than 80 wolves for 1 year). The Wisconsin Plan will be reviewed
annually by the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee and will be reviewed
by the public every 5 years.
The WI Plan was updated during 2004-06 to reflect current wolf
numbers, additional knowledge, and issues that have arisen since its
1999 completion. This update is in the form of text changes, revisions
to two appendices, and the addition of a new appendix to the 1999 plan,
rather than as a major revision to the plan. Several components of the
plan that are key to our delisting evaluation are unchanged. The State
wolf management goal of 350 animals and the boundaries of the four wolf
management zones remain the same as in the 1999 Plan. The updated 2006
Plan continues access management on public lands and the protection of
active den sites. However, protection of pack rendezvous sites is no
longer considered to be needed in areas where wolves have become well
established, due to the transient nature of these sites and the larger
wolf population. The updated Plan states that rendezvous sites may need
protection in areas where wolf colonization is still underway or where
pup survival is extremely poor, such as in northeastern Wisconsin (WI
DNR 2006a, p. 17). The guidelines for the wolf depredation control
program did not undergo significant alteration during the update
process. The only substantive change to depredation control practices
is to expand the area of depredation control trapping in Zones 1 and 2
to 1 mi (1.6 km) outward from the depredation site, replacing the
previous 0.5 mi (0.8 km) radius trapping zone (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 3-4).
An important component of the WI Plan is the annual monitoring of
wolf populations by radio collars and winter track surveys in order to
provide comparable annual data to assess population size and growth for
at least 5 years after Federal delisting. This monitoring will include
health monitoring of captured wolves and necropsies of dead wolves that
are found. Wolf scat will be collected and analyzed to monitor for
canine viruses and parasites. Health monitoring will be part of the
capture protocol for all studies that involve the live capture of
Wisconsin wolves (WI DNR 2006a, p. 14).
Cooperative habitat management will be promoted with public and
private landowners to maintain existing road densities in Zones 1 and
2, protect wolf dispersal corridors, and manage forests for deer and
beaver (WI DNR 1999, pp. 4, 22-23; 2006a, pp. 15-17). Furthermore, in
Zone 1, a year-around prohibition on tree harvest within 330 feet of
den sites, and seasonal restrictions to reduce disturbance within one-
half mile of dens, will be DNR policy on public lands and will be
encouraged on private lands (WI DNR 1999, p. 23; 2006a, p. 17).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 15108]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02AP09.002
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
The 1999 WI Plan contains, and the 2006 update retains, other
recommendations that will provide protection to assist in maintenance
of a viable wolf population in the State: (1) Continue the protection
of the species as a ``protected wild animal'' with penalties similar to
those for unlawfully killing large game species (fines of $1,000-2,000,
loss of hunting privileges for 3-5 years, and a possible 6-month jail
sentence), (2) maintain closure zones where coyotes cannot be shot
during deer hunting season in Zone 1, (3) legally protect wolf dens
under the Wisconsin Administrative Code, (4) require State permits to
possess a wolf or wolf-dog hybrid, and (5) establish a restitution
value to be levied in addition to fines and other penalties for wolves
that are illegally killed (WI DNR 1999, pp. 21, 27-28, 30-31; 2006a,
pp. 3-4).
The 2006 update of the WI Plan continues to emphasize the need for
public education efforts that focus on living with a recovered wolf
population, ways to manage wolves and wolf-human conflicts, and the
ecosystem role of wolves. The Plan continues the State reimbursement
for depredation losses (including dogs and missing calves), citizen
stakeholder involvement in the wolf management program, and
coordination with the Tribes in wolf management and investigation of
illegal killings (WI DNR 1999, pp. 24, 28-29; 2006a, pp. 22-23).
Given the decline and ultimate termination in Federal funding for
wolf monitoring in the future, Wisconsin and Michigan DNRs are seeking
an effective, yet cost-efficient, method for detecting wolf population
changes to replace the current labor-intensive and expensive monitoring
protocols. Both DNRs have considered implementing a ``Minnesota-type''
wolf survey. Such methodology is less expensive for larger wolf
populations than the intensive radio monitoring/track survey methods
currently used by the two States, and if the wolf population continues
to grow there will be increased need to develop and implement a less
expensive method. However, each State conducted independent field
testing of the Minnesota method several years ago and found that method
to be unsuitable for both States' lower wolf population
[[Page 15109]]
density and uneven pack distribution. In both States the application of
that method resulted in an overestimate of wolf abundance, possibly due
to the more patchy distribution of wolves and packs in these States and
the difficulty in accurately delineating occupied wolf range in areas
where wolf pack density is relatively low in comparison to Minnesota
and where agricultural lands are interspersed with forested areas
(Wiedenhoeft 2005, pp. 11-12; Beyer in litt. 2006b).
Both States remain interested in developing accurate but less
costly alternate survey methods. WI DNR might test other methods
following Federal delisting, but the State will not replace its
traditional radio tracking/snow tracking surveys during the five year
post-delisting monitoring period (Wydeven in litt. 2006b). The 2006
update to the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan has not changed the WI
DNR's commitment to annual wolf population monitoring in a manner that
ensures accurate and comparable data (WI DNR 1999, pp. 19-20), and we
are confident that adequate annual monitoring will continue for the
foreseeable future.
Depredation Control in Wisconsin
The rapidly expanding Wisconsin wolf population has resulted in
increased need for depredation control. From 1979 through 1989, there
were only five cases (an average of 0.4 per year) of verified wolf
depredations in Wisconsin. Between 1990 and 1997, there were 27
verified depredation incidents in the State (an average of 3.4 per
year), and 82 incidents (an average of 16.4 per year) occurred from
1998-2002. Depredation incidents increased to 23 cases (including 50
domestic animals killed and 4 injured) in 2003, and to 35 cases (53
domestic animals killed, 3 injured, and 6 missing) in 2004 (Wydeven and
Wiedenhoeft 2004a, pp. 2-3, 7-8 Table 3; Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 7).
In 2005, depredation grew to 45 cases, with 53 domestic animals killed
and 11 injured (Wydeven et al. 2006b, p. 7). The number of farms
experiencing wolf depredations on livestock averaged 2.8 annually
(range 0 to 8) during the 1990s, but jumped to an average of 14.0 per
year during 2000-2005 (WI DNR 2006a, p. 19). During those five years an
annual upward trend was evident, increasing from 10 in 2002, to 14 in
2003, to 22 in 2004, and to 25 in 2005 (WI DNR 2006a, p. 34).
A significant portion of depredation incidents in Wisconsin involve
attacks on dogs engaged in bear hunting activities or dogs being
trained in the field for hunting. In almost all cases, these have been
hunting dogs that were being used for, or being trained for, hunting
bears and bobcats at the time they were attacked. It is believed that
the dogs entered the territory of a wolf pack and may have been close
to a den, rendezvous site, or feeding location, thus triggering an
attack by wolves defending their territory or pups. The frequency of
attacks on hunting dogs has increased as the State's wolf population
has grown. In 2004, 13 dogs involved in bear hunting or training were
killed by wolves and 2 dogs not involved in hunting/training were
killed. These incidents were believed to involve 7 different wolf
packs, or 6 percent of the 108 packs in Wisconsin in the winter of
2003-2004. Preliminary data from 2006 through the middle of October
show a continuation of increased wolf attacks on bear hunting dogs,
with 20 killed and 5 injured by 8 separate wolf packs, 7 percent of the
winter 2005-2006 packs. (http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/mammals/wolf/dogdepred.htm, accessed Nov. 21, 2006). While Wisconsin
DNR compensates dog owners for mortalities and injuries to their dogs,
DNR takes no action against the depredating pack unless the attack was
on a dog that was leashed, confined, or under the owner's control on
the owner's land. Instead, the DNR issues press releases to warn bear
hunters and bear dog trainers of the areas where wolf packs have been
attacking bear dogs (WI DNR 2005, p. 4) and provides maps and advice to
hunters on the DNR Web site (see http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/mammals/wolf/dogdepred.htm).
Post-Delisting Depredation Control in Wisconsin
Following Federal delisting, wolf depredation control in Wisconsin
will be carried out according to the 2006 Updated Wisconsin Wolf
Management Plan (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 19-23), Wisconsin Guidelines for
Conducting Depredation Control on Wolves (Wisconsin DNR 2005) which are
being revised to conform to the 2006 Updated Plan, and any Tribal wolf
management plans or guidelines that may be developed in the future for
reservations in occupied wolf range. The 2006 updates have not
significantly changed the 1999 State Plan, and the State wolf
management goal of 350 wolves outside of Indian reservations (WI DNR
2006a, p. 3) is unchanged. Verification of wolf depredation incidents
will continue to be conducted by USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, working
under a cooperative agreement with WI DNR, or at the request of a
Tribe, depending on the location of the suspected depredation incident.
If determined to be a confirmed or probable depredation by a wolf or
wolves, one or more of several options will be implemented to address
the depredation problem. These options include technical assistance,
loss compensation to landowners, translocation or euthanizing problem
wolves, and private landowner control of problem wolves in some
circumstances (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 3-4, 20-22).
Technical assistance, consisting of advice or recommendations to
prevent or reduce further wolf conflicts, will be provided. This may
also include providing to the landowner various forms of non-injurious
behavior modification materials, such as flashing lights, noise makers,
temporary fencing, and fladry. Monetary compensation is also provided
for all verified and probable losses of domestic animals and for a
portion of documented missing calves (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22-23).
The WI DNR compensates livestock and pet owners for confirmed
losses to depredating wolves. The compensation is made at full market
value of the animal (up to a limit of $2500 for hunting dogs and pets)
and can include veterinarian fees for the treatment of injured animals
(WI DNR 2006c 12.54). Compensation costs have been funded from the
endangered resources tax check-off and sales of the endangered
resources license plates. Current Wisconsin law requires the
continuation of the compensation payment for wolf depredation
regardless of Federal listing or delisting of the species (WI DNR 2006c
12.50). In recent years annual depredation compensation payments have
ranged from $18,630 to nearly $110,000 (WI DNR 2006a, p. 22-23, 29).
For depredation incidents in Wisconsin Zones 1 through 3, where all
wolf packs currently reside, wolves may be trapped by Wildlife Services
or WI DNR personnel and, if feasible, they are translocated and
released at a point distant from the depredation site. If wolves are
captured adjacent to an Indian reservation or a large block of public
land the animals may be translocated locally to that area. As noted
above, long-distance translocating of depredating wolves has become
increasingly difficult in Wisconsin and is likely to be used
infrequently in the future as long as the off-reservation wolf
population is above 350 animals. In most wolf depredation cases where
technical assistance and non-lethal methods of behavior modification
are judged to be ineffective, wolves will be shot or trapped and
euthanized by Wildlife Services or DNR personnel.
[[Page 15110]]
Trapping and euthanizing will be conducted within a 1 mi (1.6 km)
radius of the depredation in Zones 1 and 2, and within a 5 mi (8 km)
radius in Zone 3. There is no distance limitation for depredation
control trapping in Zone 4, and all wolves trapped in Zone 4 will be
euthanized, rather than translocated (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22-23).
Following Federal delisting, Wisconsin landowners who have had a
verified wolf depredation will be able to obtain limited-duration
permits from WI DNR to kill a limited number of depredating wolves on
land they own or lease. In addition, landowners and lessees of land
statewide will be allowed to kill a wolf without obtaining a permit
``in the act of killing, wounding, or biting a domestic animal,'' and
the incident must be reported to a conservation warden within 24 hours
(WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22-23).
The updated Wisconsin Plan also envisions the possibility of
intensive control management actions in sub-zones of the larger wolf
management zones, but such actions, and the triggering events for them,
have yet to be determined (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22-23). These actions
would be considered on a case-by-case basis to address specific
problems, and would likely be carried out only in areas that lack
suitable habitat, have extensive agricultural lands with little forest
interspersion, in urban or suburban settings, and only when the State
wolf population is well above the management goal of 350 wolves in late
winter surveys. The use of intensive population management in small
areas will be adapted as experience is gained with implementing and
evaluating localized control actions (Wydeven pers. comm. 2006).
We have evaluated future lethal depredation control based upon
verified depredation incidents over the last decade and the impacts of
the implementation of similar lethal control of depredating wolves
under 50 CFR 17.40(d) for Minnesota, 17.40(o) for Wisconsin and
Michigan, and section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act for Wisconsin and
Michigan. Under those authorities, WI DNR and Wildlife Services trapped
and euthanized 17 wolves in 2003, 24 in 2004, 32 (including several
possible hybrids) in 2005, and 18 in 2006 (WI DNR 2006a, p. 32).
(Although these lethal control authorities applied to Wisconsin and
Michigan DNRs for only a portion of 2003 (April through December) and
2005 (all of January for both States; April 1 and April 19, for
Wisconsin and Michigan respectively, through September 13), they
covered nearly all of the verified wolf depredations during those
years, and thus provide a reasonable measure of annual lethal
depredation control. Lethal control authority only occurred for about 4
months in 2006.) For 2003, 2004, and 2005 this represents 5.1 percent,
6.4 percent, 7.4 percent (including the several possible wolf-dog
hybrids), respectively, of the late winter population of Wisconsin
wolves during the previous winter. Note that some of the wolves
euthanized after August 1 were young-of-the-year who were not present
during the late winter survey, so the cited percentages are
overestimates. This level of lethal depredation control was followed by
a wolf population increase of 11 percent from 2003 to 2004, 17 percent
from 2004 to 2005, and 7 percent from 2005 to 2006 (Wydeven and
Jurewicz 2005, p.5; Wydeven et al 2006a, p. 10). This provides strong
evidence that this form and magnitude of depredation control will not
adversely impact the viability of the Wisconsin wolf population. The
locations of depredation incidents provide additional evidence that
lethal control will not be an adverse impact on the State's wolf
population. Most livestock depredations are caused by packs near the
northern forest--farm land interface. Few depredations occur in core
wolf range and in large blocks of public land. Thus, lethal depredation
control actions will not impact most of the Wisconsin wolf population
(WI DNR 2006a, p. 30).
One substantive change to lethal control that likely will result
from Federal delisting is the ability of a small number of private
landowners, whose farms have a history of recurring wolf depredation,
to obtain DNR permits to kill depredating wolves (WI DNR 2006a, p. 23).
We estimate that up to 3 wolves from each of 5 to 10 farms may be
killed annually under these permits in the several years immediately
after delisting. Because the late-winter 2005-06 Wisconsin wolf
population was approaching 500 animals, the death of these 5 to 30
additional wolves--only 1 to 6 percent of the State wolves--would not
affect the viability of the population. Another substantive change may
be potential proactive trapping or ``intensive control'' of wolves in
limited areas as described above. While it is not possible to estimate
the number of wolves that might be killed via these actions, we are
confident that they will not impact the long-term viability of the
Wisconsin wolf population, because they will be carried out only if the
State's late-winter wolf population exceeds 350 animals.
The State's current guidelines for conducting depredation control
actions say that no control trapping will be conducted on wolves that
kill ``dogs that are free-roaming, roaming at large, hunting, or
training on public lands, and all other lands except land owned or
leased by the dog owner'' (Wisconsin DNR 2005, p, 4). Because of these
State-imposed limitations, we believe that lethal control of wolves
depredating on hunting dogs will be rare, and therefore will not be a
significant additional source of mortality in Wisconsin.
Lethal control of wolves that attack captive deer is included in
the WI DNR depredation control program, because farm-raised deer are
considered to be livestock under Wisconsin law (WI DNR 2005, p. 4;
2006c, 12.52). However, Wisconsin regulations for deer farms fencing
have been strengthened, and it is unlikely that more than an occasional
wolf will need to be killed to end wolf depredations inside deer farms
in the foreseeable future. Claims for wolf depredation compensation are
rejected if the claimant is not in compliance with regulations
regarding farm-raised deer fencing or livestock carcass disposal
(Wisconsin Statutes 90.20 & 90.21, WI DNR 2006c 12.54).
Data from verified wolf depredations in recent years indicate that
depredation on livestock is likely to increase as long as the Wisconsin
wolf population increases in numbers and range. Most large areas of
forest land and public lands are included in Wisconsin Wolf Management
Zones 1 and 2, and they have already been colonized by wolves.
Therefore, new areas likely to be colonized by wolves in the future
will be in Zones 3 and 4, where they will be exposed to much higher
densities of farms, livestock, and residences. During the period from
July 2004 through June 2005, 29 percent (8 of 28) of farms experiencing
wolf depredation were in Zone 3, yet only 4 percent of the State wolf
population occurs in this zone (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005, p. 3).
Further expansion of wolves into Zone 3 would likely lead to an
increase in depredation incidents and an increase in lethal control
actions against Zone 3 wolves. However, these Zone 3 mortalities will
have no impact on wolf population viability in Wisconsin because of the
much larger wolf populations in Zones 1 and 2.
For the foreseeable future, the wolf population in Zones 1 and 2
will continue to greatly exceed the Federal recovery goal of 200 late
winter wolves for an isolated population and 100 wolves for a
subpopulation connected to the larger Minnesota population, regardless
of the extent of wolf mortality from all causes in Zones 3 and 4.
Ongoing annual wolf population monitoring by WI DNR will provide
[[Page 15111]]
timely and accurate data to evaluate the effects of wolf management
under the Wisconsin Plan.
The possibility of a public harvest of wolves is acknowledged in
the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan and in plan update drafts (WI DNR
1999, Appendix D; 2006c, p. 23). However, the question of whether a
public harvest will be initiated and the details of such a harvest are
far from resolved. Public attitudes toward a wolf population in excess
of 350 would have to be fully evaluated, as would the impacts from
other mortalities, before a public harvest could be initiated.
Establishing a public harvest would be preceded by extensive public
input, including public hearing, and would require legislative
authorization and approval by the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board.
Because of the steps that must precede a public harvest of wolves and
the uncertainty regarding the possibility of, and the details of, any
such program, it is not possible to evaluate the potential impacts of
the public harvest of wolves. Therefore, we consider public harvest of
Wisconsin wolves to be highly speculative at this time. The Service
will closely monitor any steps taken by States and/or Tribes within the
WGL DPS to establish any public harvest of gray wolves during our post-
delisting monitoring program. The fact that the Wisconsin Plan calls
for State relisting of the wolf as a threatened species if the
population falls to fewer than 250 for 3 years provides a strong
assurance that any future public harvest is not likely to threaten the
persistence of the population (WI DNR 1999, pp. 15-17). Based on wolf
population data, the current Wisconsin Plan and the 2006 updates, we
believe that any public harvest plan would continue to maintain the
State wolf population well above the recovery goal of 200 wolves in
late winter.
Michigan Wolf Management Plan
The 1997 Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and Management Plan (MI Plan)
(MI DNR 1997) describes the wolf recovery goals and management actions
needed to achieve a viable wolf population in the UP of Michigan. It
does not address the potential need for wolf recovery or management in
the Lower Peninsula, nor wolf management within Isle Royale National
Park (where the wolf population is fully protected by the National Park
Service). Necessary wolf management actions detailed in the Michigan
Plan include public education and outreach activities, annual wolf
population and health monitoring, research, depredation control, and
habitat management. As described above, MI DNR currently is in the
process of revising its plan to enable more effective management of a
recovered and expanding wolf population. The revision is expected to be
completed in late 2007.
As with the WI Plan, the MI DNR has chosen to manage the State's
wolves as though they are an isolated population that receives no
genetic or demographic benefits from immigrating wolves. Therefore,
although we do not know if the revised Michigan Plan will contain any
long-term minimum numerical goal for wolves in the UP or NLP, as a
result of written commitments from the MI DNR, as discussed below, we
are confident that the State plan will have a goal of maintaining a
wolf population that is large enough so as to be viable for the
foreseeable future and will not have to be listed as threatened or
endangered under either State or Federal law (Moritz in litt. 2006;
Koch in litt. 2006a). The MI DNR has assured us that ``the new revised
Plan will underscore commitments to wolf management already made in the
1997 plan.'' (Koch in litt. 2006b). We strongly support this approach,
as it provides assurance that a viable wolf population will remain in
the UP regardless of the future fate of wolves in Wisconsin or Ontario.
Until the MI Plan revision is completed, the 1997 Michigan Plan
will remain in effect, as supplemented by additional guidance developed
since 1997 to deal with aspects of wolf management and recovery not
adequately covered in the 1997 Plan, such as ``Guidelines for
Management and Lethal Control of Wolves Following Confirmed Depredation
Events'' (MI DNR 2005a).
The 1997 Michigan Plan identifies wolf population monitoring as a
priority activity (MI DNR 1997, pp. 21-22). As discussed previously,
the size of the wolf population is determined annually by extensive
radio and snow tracking surveys. Recently the Michigan DNR also
conducted a field evaluation of a less expensive ``Minnesota-type''
wolf survey. However, similar to Wisconsin DNR's experience, the
evaluation concluded that the method overestimated wolf numbers, and is
not suitable for use on the State's wolf population as it currently is
distributed (Beyer in litt. 2006b).
The MI DNR remains interested in developing accurate but less
costly alternate survey methods, and in the winter of 2006-2007 is
planning to implement a sampling approach to increase the efficiency of
the survey based on an analysis by Potvin et al. (2005, p. 1668). The
UP will be stratified into three sampling areas, and within each
stratum the DNR will intensively survey roughly 40 to 50 percent of the
wolf habitat area annually. Computer simulations have shown that such a
geographically stratified monitoring program will produce unbiased and
precise estimates of the total wolf population which can be
statistically compared to estimates derived from the previous method to
detect significant changes in the UP wolf population (Beyer in litt
2006b, see attachment by Drummer; Lederle in litt. 2006).
The 1997 Michigan Plan identifies 800 wolves as the estimated
biological carrying capacity of suitable areas in the UP (MI DNR 1997,
p. 17). ``Carrying capacity'' is the number of animals that an area is
able to support over the long term; for wolves, it is primarily based
on the availability of prey animals and competition from other wolf
packs. Under the 1997 Michigan Plan, wolves in the State will be
considered recovered when a sustainable population of at least 200
wolves is maintained for 5 consecutive years. The UP has had more than
200 wolves since the winter of 1999-2000. Therefore, Michigan
reclassified wolves from endangered to threatened in June 2002, and the
gray wolf became eligible for State delisting under the Michigan Plan's
criteria in 2004. In Michigan, however, State delisting cannot occur
until after Federal delisting; therefore we expect State delisting to
be initiated in the near future. During the State delisting process,
Michigan intends to amend its Wildlife Conservation Order to grant
``protected animal'' status to the gray wolf. That status would
``prohibit take, establish penalties, and restitution for violations of
the Order, and detail conditions under which lethal depredation control
measures could be implemented'' (Humphries in litt. 2004). Population
management, except for depredation control, is not addressed in the
1997 Michigan Plan beyond statements that the wolf population may need
to be controlled by lethal means at some future time.
Similar to the Wisconsin Plan, the 1997 Michigan Plan recommends
high levels of protection for wolf den and rendezvous sites, whether on
public or private land. The Plan recommends that most land uses be
prohibited at all times within 330 feet (100 meters) of active sites.
Seasonal restrictions (March through July) should be enforced within
0.5 mi (0.8 km) of these sites, to prevent high-disturbance activities,
such as logging, from disrupting pup-rearing activities. These
restrictions should remain in effect even after State delisting occurs
(MI DNR 1997, pp. 26-
[[Page 15112]]
27), but they may be modified by the revision of the 1997 Plan, which
is expected to be completed in late 2007.
The 1997 Michigan Plan calls for re-evaluation of the plan at 5-
year intervals. The MI DNR initiated this re-evaluation process in
2001, with the appointment of a committee to evaluate wolf recovery and
management. As a result of that review, MI DNR concluded that a
revision of the 1997 Plan is needed, and a more formal review,
including extensive stakeholder input, was recently initiated.
Recognizing that wolf recovery has been achieved in Michigan,
additional scientific knowledge has been gained, and new social issues
have arisen since the 1997 Plan was drafted, the DNR intends the
revised plan to be more of a wolf management document than a recovery
plan. The DNR convened a Michigan Wolf Management Roundtable to assist
in this endeavor. The Roundtable is a diverse group of 20 citizens
drawn from organizations spanning the spectrum of those interested in,
and impacted by, wolf recovery and management in Michigan, including
Tribal entities and organizations focused on agriculture, hunting/
trapping, the environment, animal protection, law enforcement and
public safety, and tourism.
To help the Roundtable produce guiding principles that are based on
the best biological and sociological data available, the MI DNR
developed a ``Review of Social and Biological Science Relevant to Wolf
Management in Michigan'' (Beyer et al. 2006). The MI DNR instructed the
Roundtable to provide strategic guidance for the DNR's use in
subsequent development of an operational wolf management plan. The
Roundtable was asked to review the 1997 wolf management goal, to set
priorities for management issues, and to recommend strategic goals or
policies the DNR should use in addressing the management issues. The
Roundtable was not asked to provide input regarding specific methods to
achieve wolf management goals and objectives. The DNR's instructions
specified the ``wolf management working goal'' currently is ``to
establish and maintain a population of gray wolves in the Upper
Peninsula at a level that (1) assures wolf population sustainability,
(2) is consistent with available wolf habitat, and (3) is compatible
with human land-use practices'' (Moritz in litt 2006, attachment pp. 1-
2).
The Roundtable has provided this guidance to MI DNR in the form of
a series of ``guiding principles'' that were developed by member
consensus over a period of 10 days of meetings over a 5-month period.
The Roundtable prefaced their guidance by stating that wolf management
should have a goal of maintaining ``acceptable levels of positive and
negative [wolf-human] interactions while ensuring the long-term
viability of a wolf population'' (Michigan Wolf Management Roundtable
2006, p. 5). Because the factors that influence the levels of wolf-
human interactions vary across geographic scales and over time, the
Roundtable felt that setting numerical goals for large geographical
areas would be unwise. Instead, the Roundtable believes that local and
case-by-case management would be better able to enhance opportunities
for positive interactions and reduce negative interactions. Therefore,
in place of recommending a numerical goal for the Michigan wolf
population, the Roundtable provided a series of general guiding
principles for the DNR to use in wolf population management (Michigan
Wolf Management Roundtable 2006, pp. 6-7):
Strategic management goals should be based on positive and
negative wolf impacts, rather than on wolf numbers, and should consider
genetic diversity, population sustainability, ecological and social
benefits, impacts on wildlife and their habitats, human safety, and
limiting wolf depredation on domestic animals.
Wolf-human conflicts are best resolved at the individual
wolf or pack level, with broader scale wolf population management
considered only when excessive wolf numbers are determined to be the
cause of significant conflict.
Wolf management should be ``adaptive management'' and
should include evaluation of management practices.
Michigan wolves will need to be killed on a case-by-case
basis to resolve conflicts, and hunters can be used for such management
in the future.
Natural expansion of wolves to the NLP should be
accompanied by education efforts to enhance public tolerance of that
expansion.
The Roundtable provided a series of guiding principles that
specifically deal with wolf-related conflicts in order to minimize such
conflicts and provide relief when they occur, with the goal of ensuring
long-term viability of the wolf population (Michigan Wolf Management
Roundtable 2006, pp. 7-9).
Lethal control is an accepted option, but more emphasis is
needed on the development and use of non-lethal methods. The Roundtable
does not recommend the use of lethal measures as a preventative
approach where conflicts do not yet exist.
Attacks on dogs trespassing into a pack territory are
predictable and normal wolf behavior, and the primary responsibility
for reducing the attacks lies with the dog owner. Lethal control of the
pack should not be used unless non-lethal methods are ineffective and
the attacks become chronic.
Compensation for livestock losses should be tied to the
use of best management practices to decrease wolf-livestock conflicts.
An incremental approach by MI DNR to resolve wolf-livestock conflicts
should involve technical support, non-lethal methods, and lethal
control, and should be implemented in a manner that reflects the
severity and frequency of the attacks.
Livestock owners should be allowed, without a permit, to
kill wolves in the act of attacking livestock on private property.
Lethal take permits should be available to landowners if non-lethal
methods are ineffective following verified wolf depredations. Abuses of
these permits should be referred for prosecution.
While recognizing that public hunting or trapping of wolves is a
valid management tool to reduce wolf-related conflicts under specific
conditions, the Roundtable was unable to come to a consensus position
on conducting a wolf hunting or trapping program in the absence of a
need to reduce the wolf population to address identified conflicts.
Developing guiding principles regarding such a public harvest of wolves
was not possible due to the significantly different and deeply held
fundamental values of various Roundtable members (Michigan Wolf
Management Roundtable 2006, p. 10).
Guiding principles also were provided by the Roundtable to stress
the importance of continuing and enhancing information, education, and
research components of wolf management and to include information in
the management plan regarding the cultural and spiritual significance
of the wolf to Native Americans. The Roundtable provided additional
guiding principles that support a prohibition on the private possession
of wolves without a permit, express concern that wolf-dog hybrids will
have negative effects on the State's wild wolf population, and
encourage annual review by a State wolf advisory council and plan
updates at 5-year intervals.
Because the Michigan plan revision process will not be completed
until late in 2007, we cannot evaluate the goals, strategies, or
activities that it will contain. However, MI DNR has long been an
innovative leader, not a reluctant follower, in wolf recovery
[[Page 15113]]
efforts, exemplified by its initiation of the nation's first attempt to
reintroduce wild wolves to vacant historical wolf habitat in 1974
(Weise et al. 1975). MI DNR's history of leadership in wolf recovery,
its repeated written commitments to ensure the continued viability of a
Michigan wolf population above a level that would trigger State or
Federal listing as threatened or endangered, along with the protective
``Guiding Principles'' from the Michigan Wolf Management Roundtable,
lead us to conclude that both the current Michigan Plan, and the
revised plan to be developed using the guidance of the Roundtable, will
provide adequate regulatory mechanisms for Michigan wolves. The DNR's
goal remains to ``ensure the wolf population remains viable and above a
level that would require either Federal or State reclassification as a
threatened or endangered species'' (Moritz in litt. 2006) and upon
Federal delisting to ``conduct management to ensure the persistence of
a viable wolf population in Michigan, and thus preclude the need for
its reclassification as threatened or endangered under State or Federal
law'' (Koch in litt. 2006a).
Depredation Control in Michigan
Data from Michigan show a general increase in confirmed wolf
depredations on livestock: 3 in 1998, 1 in 1999, 5 in 2000, 3 in 2001,
5 in 2002, 13 in 2003, 11 in 2004, and 5 in 2005. These livestock
depredations occurred at 34 different UP farms; nearly three-quarters
of the depredations were on cattle, with the rest on sheep, poultry and
captive cervids ( Beyer et al. 2006, p. 85).
Michigan has not experienced as high a level of attacks on dogs by
wolves as Wisconsin, although a slight increase in such attacks has
occurred over the last decade. The number of dogs killed in the State
was one in 1996, two in 1999, three in 2001, four in 2002, eight in
2003, 4 in 2004, and 2 in 2005; seven additional dogs were injured in
wolf attacks during that same period (Beyer et al. 2006, p. 93).
Similar to Wisconsin, MI DNR has guidelines for its depredation control
program, stating that lethal control will not be used when wolves kill
dogs that are free-roaming, hunting, or training on public lands.
Lethal control of wolves, however, would be considered if wolves have
killed confined pets and remain in the area where more pets are being
held (MI DNR 2005a, p. 6).
During the several years that lethal control of depredating wolves
had been conducted in Michigan, there is no evidence of resulting
adverse impacts to the maintenance of a viable wolf population in the
UP. Four, six, two, and seven wolves, respectively, were euthanized in
2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 (Beyer et al. 2006, p. 88; Roell in litt.
2006c, p. 1). This represents 1.2 percent, 1.7 percent, 0.5 percent,
and 1.6 percent, respectively, of the UP's late winter population of
wolves during the previous winter. Following this level of lethal
depredation control, the UP wolf population increased 12 percent from
2003 to 2004, 13 percent from 2004 to 2005, and 7 percent from 2005 to
2006, demonstrating that the wolf population continues to increase at a
healthy rate (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6; MI DNR 2006a).
Post-Delisting Depredation Control in Michigan
Following Federal delisting, wolf depredation control in Michigan
would be carried out according to the 1997 Michigan Wolf Recovery and
Management Plan (MI DNR 1997), the revised Michigan management plan
when completed, and any Tribal wolf management plans that may be
developed in the future for reservations in occupied wolf range. Until
such time as MI DNR adopts changes to wolf depredation control
measures, the following management practices will be used following the
effective date of Federal delisting.
To provide depredation control guidance when lethal control is an
option, MI DNR has developed detailed instructions for incident
investigation and response (MI DNR 2005a). Verification of wolf
depredation incidents will be conducted by MI DNR or USDA-APHIS-
Wildlife Services personnel (working under a cooperative agreement with
MI DNR or at the request of a Tribe, depending on the location) who
have been trained in depredation investigation techniques. The MI DNR
specifies that the verification process will use the investigative
techniques that have been developed and successfully used in Minnesota
by Wildlife Services (MI DNR 2005a, Append. B, pp. 9-10). Following
verification, one or more of several options will be implemented to
address the depredation problem. Technical assistance, consisting of
advice or recommendations to reduce wolf conflicts, will be provided.
Technical assistance may also include providing to the landowner
various forms of non-injurious behavior modification materials, such as
flashing lights, noise makers, temporary fencing, and fladry.
Trapping and translocating depredating wolves has been used in the
past, resulting in the translocation of 23 UP wolves during 1998-2003
(Beyer et al. 2006, p. 88), and it may be used in the future, but as
with Wisconsin, suitable relocation sites are becoming rarer, and there
is local opposition to the release of translocated depredators.
Furthermore, none of the past translocated depredators have remained
near their release sites, making this a questionable method to end the
depredation behaviors of these wolves (MI DNR 2005a, pp. 3-4).
Lethal control of depredating wolves is likely to be the most
common future response in situations when improved livestock husbandry
and wolf behavior modification techniques (e.g., flashing lights,
noise-making devices) are judged to be inadequate. As wolf numbers
continue to increase on the UP, the number of verified depredations
will also increase, and will probably do so at a rate that exceeds the
rate of wolf population increase. This will occur as wolves
increasingly disperse into and occupy areas of the UP with more
livestock and more human residences, leading to additional exposure to
domestic animals. In a recent application for a lethal take permit
under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, MI DNR requested authority to
euthanize up to 10 percent of the late-winter wolf population annually
(MI DNR 2005b, p. 1). However, based on 2003-2005 depredation data, it
is likely that significantly less than 10 percent lethal control will
be needed over the next several years.
The Michigan Wolf Management Roundtable has provided
recommendations to guide management of various conflicts caused by wolf
recovery, including depredation on livestock and pets, human safety,
and public concerns regarding wolf impacts on other wildlife. We view
the Roundtable's depredation and conflict control recommendations to be
conservative, in that they recommend non-lethal depredation management
whenever possible, oppose preventative wolf removal where problems have
not yet occurred, encourage incentives for best management practices
that decrease wolf-livestock practices without impacting wolves, and
support closely monitored and enforced take by landowners of wolves
``in the act of livestock depredation'' or under limited permits if
depredation is confirmed and non-lethal methods are determined to be
ineffective. Based on these guiding principles for the revised MI Plan,
the current MI Plan, and stated goals for maintaining wolf populations
at or above recovery goals, the Service believes any wolf management
changes will not be implemented in a manner
[[Page 15114]]
that results in significant reductions in Michigan wolf populations. At
this time, MI DNR remains committed to ensuring a viable wolf
population above a level that would trigger Federal relisting as either
threatened or endangered in the future (Koch in litt. 2006a), and we do
not see any indication from their Plan revision efforts that the DNR is
departing from that commitment.
Similar to Wisconsin, Michigan livestock owners are compensated
when they lose livestock as a result of a confirmed wolf depredation.
Currently there are two complementary compensation programs in
Michigan, one funded by the MI DNR and implemented by Michigan
Department of Agriculture (MI DA) and another set up through donations
(from Defenders of Wildlife and private citizens) and administered by
the International Wolf Center (IWC), a non-profit organization. From
the inception of the program to 2000, MI DA has paid 90 percent of full
market value of depredated livestock value at the time of loss. The IWC
account was used to pay the remaining 10 percent from 2000 to 2002 when
MI DA began paying 100 percent of the full market value of depredated
livestock. The IWC account continues to be used to pay the difference
between value at time of loss and the full fall market value for
depredated young of the year livestock, and together the two funds have
provided nearly $20,000 in livestock loss compensation through 2005
(Beyer et al. 2006, p. 86). Neither of these programs provide
compensation for pets or for veterinary costs to treat wolf-inflicted
livestock injuries. The MI DNR plans to continue cooperating with MI DA
and other organizations to maintain the wolf depredation compensation
program (Pat Lederle pers. comm. 2004).
The complete text of the Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf
plans, as well as our summaries of those plans, can be found on our Web
site (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above).
Regulatory Mechanisms in Other States and Tribal Areas Within the WGL
DPS
North Dakota and South Dakota
North Dakota lacks a State endangered species law or regulations.
Any gray wolves in the State currently are classified as furbearers,
with a closed season. North Dakota Game and Fish Department is unlikely
to change the species' State classification immediately following
Federal delisting. Wolves are included in the State's July 2004 list of
100 Species of Conservation Concern as a ``Level 3'' species. Level 3
species are those ``having a moderate level of conservation priority,
but are believed to be peripheral or do not breed in North Dakota.''
Placement on this list gives species greater access to conservation
funding, but does not afford any additional regulatory or legislative
protection (Bicknell in litt. 2005).
Currently any wolves that may be in South Dakota are not State
listed as threatened or endangered, nor is there a hunting or trapping
season for them. Upon the effective date of Federal delisting gray
wolves in eastern South Dakota will fall under general protections
afforded all State wildlife. These protections require specific
provisions--seasons and regulations--be established prior to initiating
any form of legal take. Thus, the State could choose to implement a
hunting, or trapping season for gray wolves east of the Missouri River;
however, absent some definitive action to establish a season, wolves
would remain protected. Following Federal delisting, any verified
depredating wolves east of the Missouri will likely be trapped and
killed by the USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services program (Larson in litt.
2005). Non-depredating federally-delisted wolves in North and South
Dakota will continue to receive protection by the States' wildlife
protection statutes unless specific action is taken to open a hunting
or trapping season or otherwise remove existing protections.
Post-Delisting Depredation Control in North and South Dakota
Since 1993, five incidents of verified wolf depredation have
occurred in North Dakota, with one in September 2003 and two more in
December 2005. There have been no verified wolf depredations in South
Dakota in recent decades. Following Federal delisting we assume that
lethal control of a small number of depredating wolves will occur in
one or both of these States. Lethal control of depredating wolves may
have adverse impacts on the ability of wolves to occupy any small areas
of suitable or marginally suitable habitat that may exist in the
States. However, lethal control of depredating wolves in these two
States will have no adverse affects on the long-term viability of wolf
populations in the WGL DPS as a whole, because the existence of a wolf
or a wolf population in the Dakotas will not make a meaningful
contribution to the maintenance of the current viable, self-sustaining,
and representative metapopulation of wolves in the WGL DPS.
Other States in the Western Great Lakes DPS
This delisted DPS includes the portion of Iowa that is north of
Interstate Highway 80, which is approximately 60 percent of the State.
The Iowa Natural Resource Commission currently lists gray wolves as
furbearers, with a closed season (Howell in litt. 2005). If the State
retains this listing following Federal delisting of this DPS, wolves
dispersing into northern Iowa will be protected by State law.
The portion of Illinois that is north of Interstate Highway 80,
less than one-fifth of the State, is included in this DPS, and is part
of the geographic area where wolves are now delisted and removed from
Federal protection. Gray wolves are currently protected in Illinois as
a threatened species under the Illinois Endangered Species Protection
Act (520 ILCS 10). Thus, following this Federal delisting, wolves
dispersing into northern Illinois will continue to be protected from
human take by State law.
The extreme northern portions of Indiana and northwestern Ohio are
included within this delisted DPS, and any wolves that are found in
this area are no longer federally protected under the Act. The State of
Ohio classifies the gray wolf as ``extirpated,'' and there are no plans
to reintroduce or recover the species in the State. The species lacks
State protection, but State action is likely to apply some form of
protection if wolves begin to disperse into the State (Caldwell in
litt. 2005). Indiana DNR lists the gray wolf as extirpated in the
State, and the species would receive no State protection under this
classification following this Federal delisting. The only means to
provide State protection would be to list them as State-endangered, but
that is not likely to occur unless wolves become resident in Indiana
(Johnson in litt. 2005, in litt. 2006). Thus, federally delisted wolves
that might disperse into Indiana and Ohio would lack State protection
there, unless these two States take specific action to provide new
protections.
Because the portions of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio within
the WGL DPS do not contain suitable habitat or currently established
packs, depredation control in these States will not have any
significant impact on the continued viability of the WGL DPS wolf
populations.
Tribal Management and Protection of Gray Wolves
Native American tribes and multi-tribal organizations have
indicated to the Service that they will continue to
[[Page 15115]]
conserve wolves on most, and probably all, Native American reservations
in the core recovery areas of the WGL DPS. The wolf retains great
cultural significance and traditional value to many Tribes and their
members (additional discussion is found in Factor E), and to retain and
strengthen cultural connections, many tribes oppose unnecessary killing
of wolves on reservations and on ceded lands, even following Federal
delisting (Hunt in litt. 1998; Schrage in litt. 1998a; Schlender in
litt. 1998). Some Native Americans view wolves as competitors for deer
and moose, whereas others are interested in harvesting wolves as
furbearers (Schrage in litt. 1998a). Many tribes intend to sustainably
manage their natural resources, wolves among them, to ensure that they
are available to their descendants. Traditional natural resource
harvest practices, however, often include only a minimum amount of
regulation by the Tribal government (Hunt in litt. 1998).
Although the Tribes with wolves that visit or reside on their
reservations do not yet have management plans specific to the gray
wolf, several Tribes have informed us that they have no plans or
intentions to allow commercial or recreational hunting or trapping of
the species on their lands after Federal delisting. The Service has
recently provided the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians
(Michigan) with grant funding to develop a gray wolf monitoring and
management plan. The Service has also awarded a grant to the Ho-Chunk
Nation to identify wolf habitat on reservation lands.
As a result of many past contacts with, and previous written
comments from, the Midwestern Tribes and their off-reservation natural
resource management agencies--the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission (GLIFWC), the 1854 Authority, and the Chippewa Ottawa Treaty
Authority--it is clear that their predominant sentiment is strong
support for the continued protection of wolves at a level that ensures
that viable wolf populations remain on reservations and throughout the
treaty-ceded lands surrounding the reservations. While several Tribes
stated that their members may be interested in killing small numbers of
wolves for spiritual or other purposes, this would be carried out in a
manner that would not impact reservation or ceded territory wolf
populations.
The Tribal Council of the Leech Lake Band of Minnesota Ojibwe
(Council) approved a resolution that describes the sport and
recreational harvest of gray wolves as an inappropriate use of the
animal. That resolution supports limited harvest of wolves to be used
for traditional or spiritual uses by enrolled Tribal members if the
harvest is done in a respectful manner and would not negatively affect
the wolf population. The Council is revising the Reservation
Conservation Code to allow Tribal members to harvest some wolves after
Federal delisting (Googgleye, Jr. in litt. 2004). In 2005, the Leech
Lake Reservation was home to an estimated 75 gray wolves, the largest
population of wolves on a Native American reservation in the 48
conterminous States (Mortensen pers. comm. 2006; White in litt. 2003).
The Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians (Minnesota) has indicated
that it is likely to develop a wolf management plan that will be very
similar in scope and content to the plan developed by the MN DNR. The
Band's position on wolf management is ``wolf preservation through
effective management,'' and the Band is confident that wolves will
continue to thrive on their lands (Bedeau in litt. 1998). The
Reservation currently has nine packs with an estimated 15-30 wolves
within its boundaries (Huseby pers. comm. 2006).
The Fond du Lac Band (Minnesota) believes that the ``well being of
the wolf is intimately connected to the well being of the Chippewa
People'' (Schrage in litt. 2003). In 1998, the Band passed a resolution
opposing Federal delisting and any other measure that would permit
trapping, hunting, or poisoning of the gray wolf (Schrage in litt.
1998b, in litt. 2003). If this prohibition is rescinded, the Band's
Resource Management Division will coordinate with State and Federal
agencies to ensure that any wolf hunting or trapping would be
``conducted in a biologically sustainable manner'' (Schrage in litt.
2003).
The Red Cliff Band (Wisconsin) has strongly opposed State and
Federal delisting of the gray wolf. Current Tribal law protects gray
wolves from harvest, although harvest for ceremonial purposes would
likely be permitted after Federal delisting (Symbal in litt. 2003).
The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (Michigan) will continue to list
the gray wolf as a protected animal under the Tribal Code following
Federal delisting, with hunting and trapping prohibited (Mike Donofrio
pers. comm. 1998). Furthermore, the Keweenaw Bay Community plans to
develop a Protected Animal Ordinance that will address gray wolves
(Donofrio in litt. 2003).
While we have not received any written comments from the Menominee
Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, the Tribe has shown a great deal of interest
in wolf recovery and protection in recent years. In 2002, the Tribe
offered their Reservation lands as a site for translocating seven
depredating wolves that had been trapped by WI DNR and Wildlife
Services. Tribal natural resources staff participated in the soft
release of the wolves on the Reservation and helped with the subsequent
radio-tracking of the wolves. Although by early 2005 the last of these
wolves died on the reservation, the tribal conservation department
continued to monitor another pair that had moved onto the Reservation,
as well as other wolves near the reservation (Wydeven in litt. 2006a).
When that pair produced pups in 2006, but the adult female was killed,
Reservation biologists and staff worked diligently with the WI DNR and
the Wildlife Science Center (Forest Lake, Minnesota) to raise the pups
in captivity in the hope that they could later be released to the care
of the adult male. However, the adult male died prior to pup release,
and they have been moved back to the Wildlife Science Center where they
will likely remain in captivity (Pioneer Press 2006).
Several Midwestern tribes (e.g., the Bad River Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa
Indians) have expressed concern that Federal delisting will result in
increased mortality of gray wolves on reservation lands, in the areas
immediately surrounding the reservations, and in lands ceded by treaty
to the Federal Government by the Tribes (Kiogama and Chingwa in litt.
2000). At the request of the Bad River Tribe of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians, we are currently working with their Natural Resource
Department and WI DNR to develop a wolf management agreement for lands
adjacent to the Bad River Reservation. The Tribe's goal is to reduce
the threats to reservation wolf packs when they are temporarily off the
reservation. Other Tribes have expressed interest in such an agreement.
If this and similar agreements are implemented, they will provide
additional protection to certain wolf packs in the midwestern U.S.
The GLIFWC has stated its intent to work closely with the States to
cooperatively manage wolves in the ceded territories in the core areas,
and will not develop a separate wolf management plan (Schlender in
litt. 1998). Furthermore, the Voigt Intertribal Task Force of GLIFWC
has expressed its support for strong protections for the wolf, stating
`` [delisting] hinges on whether wolves are sufficiently restored and
will be sufficiently protected to
[[Page 15116]]
ensure a healthy and abundant future for our brother and ourselves''
(Schlender in litt. 2004).
According to the 1854 Authority, ``attitudes toward wolf management
in the 1854 Ceded Territory run the gamut from a desire to see total
protection to unlimited harvest opportunity.'' However, the 1854
Authority would not ``implement a harvest system that would have any
long-term negative impacts to wolf populations'' (Edwards in litt.
2003). In comments submitted for our 2004 delisting proposal for a
larger Eastern DPS of the gray wolf, the 1854 Authority stated that the
Authority does not have a wolf management plan for the 1854 Ceded
Territory, but is ``confident that under the control of state and
tribal management, wolves will continue to exist at a self-sustaining
level in the 1854 Ceded Territory. Sustainable populations of wolves,
their prey and other resources within the 1854 Ceded Territory are
goals to which the 1854 Authority remains committed. As such, we intend
to work with the State of Minnesota and other tribes to ensure
successful state and tribal management of healthy wolf populations in
the 1854 Ceded Territory'' (Myers in litt. 2004).
While there are few written Tribal protections currently in place
for gray wolves, the highly protective and reverential attitudes that
have been expressed by Tribal authorities and members have assured us
that any post-delisting harvest of reservation wolves would be very
limited and would not adversely impact the delisted wolf populations.
Furthermore, any off-reservation harvest of wolves by Tribal members in
the ceded territories would be limited to a portion of the harvestable
surplus at some future time. Such a harvestable surplus would be
determined and monitored jointly by State and Tribal biologists, and
would be conducted in coordination with the Service and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, as is being successfully done for the ceded territory
harvest of inland and Great Lakes fish, deer, bear, moose, and
furbearers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Therefore, we
conclude that any future Native American take of delisted wolves will
not significantly impact the viability of the wolf population, either
locally or across the WGL DPS.
Federal Lands
The five national forests with resident wolves (Superior, Chippewa,
Chequamegon-Nicolet, Hiawatha, and Ottawa National Forests) in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan are all operating in conformance
with standards and guidelines in their management plans that follow the
1992 Recovery Plan's recommendations for the Eastern Timber Wolf (USDA
FS 2004a, chapter 2, p. 31; USDA FS 2004b, chapter 2, p. 28; USDA FS
2004c, chapter 2, p. 19; USDA FS 2006a, chapter 2, p. 17; USDA FS
2006b, chapter 2, pp. 28-29). Delisting is not expected to lead to an
immediate change in these standards and guidelines; in fact, the
Regional Forester for U.S. Forest Service Region 9 is expected to
maintain the classification of the gray wolf as a Regional Forester
Sensitive Species for at least 5 years after Federal delisting (Moore
in litt. 2003). Under these standards and guidelines, a relatively high
prey base will be maintained, and road densities will be limited to
current levels or decreased. For example, on the Chequamegon-Nicolet
National Forest in Wisconsin, the standards and guidelines specifically
include the protection of den sites and key rendezvous sites, and
management of road densities in existing and potential wolf habitat
(USDA 2004c, Chap. 2, p. 19). The trapping of depredating wolves would
likely be allowed on national forest lands under the guidelines and
conditions specified in the respective State wolf management plans.
However, there are relatively few livestock raised within the
boundaries of national forests in the upper midwest, so wolf
depredation and lethal control of wolves is neither likely to be a
frequent occurrence, nor constitute a significant mortality factor, for
the WGL DPS. Similarly, in keeping with the practice for other state-
managed game species, any public hunting or trapping season for wolves
that might be opened in the future by the States would likely include
hunting and trapping within the national forests (Lindquist in litt.
2005; Williamson in litt. 2005; Piehler in litt. 2005; Evans in litt.
2005). The continuation of current national forest management practices
will be important in ensuring the long-term viability of gray wolf
populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Gray wolves regularly use four units of the National Park System in
the WGL DPS and may occasionally use three or four other units.
Although the National Park Service (NPS) has participated in the
development of some of the State wolf management plans in this area,
NPS is not bound by States' plans. Instead, the NPS Organic Act and the
NPS Management Policy on Wildlife generally require the agency to
conserve natural and cultural resources and the wildlife present within
the parks. National Park Service management policies require that
native species be protected against harvest, removal, destruction,
harassment, or harm through human action, although certain parks may
allow some harvest in accordance with state management plans.
Management emphasis in National Parks after delisting will continue to
minimize the human impacts on wolf populations. Thus, because of their
responsibility to preserve all native wildlife, units of the National
Park System are often the most protective of wildlife. In the case of
the gray wolf, the NPS Organic Act and NPS policies will continue to
provide protection following Federal delisting.
Management and protection of wolves in Voyageurs National Park,
along Minnesota's northern border is not likely to change after
delisting. The park's management policies require that ``native animals
will be protected against harvest, removal, destruction, harassment, or
harm through human action.'' No population targets for wolves will be
established for the NP (Holbeck in litt. 2005). To reduce human
disturbance, temporary closures around wolf denning and rendezvous
sites will be enacted whenever they are discovered in the park. Sport
hunting is already prohibited on park lands, regardless of what may be
allowed beyond park boundaries (West in litt. 2004). A radio telemetry
study conducted between 1987-91 of wolves living in and adjacent to the
park found that all mortality inside the park was due to natural causes
(e.g., killing by other wolves or starvation), whereas the majority
(60-80 percent) of mortality outside the park was human-induced (e.g.,
shooting and trapping) (Gogan et al. 2004, p. 22). If there is a need
to control depredating wolves outside the park, which seems unlikely
due to the current absence of agricultural activities adjacent to the
park, the park would work with the State to conduct control activities
where necessary (West in litt. 2004).
The wolf population in Isle Royale National Park is described above
(see Michigan Recovery). The NPS has indicated that it will continue to
closely monitor and study these wolves. This wolf population is very
small and isolated from the other WGL DPS gray wolf populations; as
described above, it is not considered to be significant to the recovery
or long-term viability of the gray wolf (USFWS 1992, p. 28).
Two other units of the National Park System, Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore and St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, are
regularly used by wolves. Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is a
[[Page 15117]]
narrow strip of land along Michigan's Lake Superior shoreline. Lone
wolves periodically use, but do not appear to be year-round residents
of, the Lakeshore. If denning occurs after delisting, the Lakeshore
would protect denning and rendezvous sites at least as strictly as the
Michigan Plan recommends (Gustin in litt. 2003). Harvesting wolves on
the Lakeshore may be allowed (i.e., if the Michigan DNR allows for
harvest in the State), but trapping is not allowed. The St. Croix
National Scenic Riverway, in Wisconsin and Minnesota, is also a mostly
linear ownership. At least 18 wolves from 6 packs use the Riverway. The
Riverway is likely to limit public access to denning and rendezvous
sites and to follow other management and protective practices outlined
in the respective State wolf management plans, although trapping is not
allowed on NPS lands except possibly by Native Americans (Maercklein in
litt. 2003).
Gray wolves occurring on NWRs in the WGL DPS will be monitored, and
refuge habitat management will maintain the current prey base for them
for a minimum of 5 years after delisting. Trapping or hunting by
government trappers for depredation control will not be authorized on
NWRs. Because of the relatively small size of these NWRs, however, most
or all of these packs and individual wolves also spend significant
amounts of time off of these NWRs.
Gray wolves also occupy the Fort McCoy military installation in
Wisconsin. In 2003, one pack containing five adult wolves occupied a
territory that included the majority of the installation; in 2004 and
2006, the installation had one pack with two adults; in 2005 there was
a single pack with 4 wolves. Management and protection of wolves on the
installation will not change significantly after Federal and/or State
delisting. Den and rendezvous sites would continue to be protected,
hunting seasons for other species (i.e. coyote) would be closed during
the gun-deer season, and current surveys would continue, if resources
are available. Fort McCoy has no plans to allow a public harvest of
wolves on the installation (Nobles in litt. 2004; Wydeven et al. 2005a,
p. 25; 2006a, p. 25).
At least one pair of wolves produced pups on Camp Ripley Army
National Guard Training Facility in Minnesota since 1994. This military
base currently hosts two packs that have the majority of their
territories within the base boundaries. The population of the two packs
generally ranges between 10 and 20 animals. Currently three wolves in
each pack are being radio-tracked. There have been no significant
conflicts with military training or with the permit-only public deer
hunting program there, and no new conflicts are expected following
delisting (Brian Dirks pers. comm. 2006).
The protection afforded to resident and transient wolves, their den
and rendezvous sites, and their prey by five national forests, four
National Parks, two military facilities, and numerous National Wildlife
Refuges in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan would further ensure the
conservation of wolves in the three States after delisting. In
addition, wolves that disperse to other units of the National Refuge
System or the National Park System within the WGL DPS will also receive
the protection afforded by these Federal agencies.
In summary, following this Federal delisting of the WGL DPS of gray
wolves, there will be varying State and Tribal classifications and
protections provided to wolves. The wolf management plans currently in
place for Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan will be more than
sufficient to retain viable wolf populations in each State that are
above the Federal recovery criteria for wolf metapopulation subunits,
and even for three completely isolated wolf populations. These State
plans provide a very high level of assurance that wolf populations in
these three States will not decline to nonviable levels in the
foreseeable future. Furthermore, the 2006 Update to the Wisconsin Wolf
Management Plan (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 3-4) demonstrates the State's
commitment by retaining the previous management goal of 350 wolves, and
it did not weaken any significant component of the original 1999 Plan.
Similarly, current work on revising the Michigan wolf plan is being
conducted in a manner that will maintain the State's commitments to
maintain viable wolf populations after this Federal delisting. While
these State plans recognize there may be a need to control or even
reduce wolf populations at some future time, none of the plans include
a public harvest of wolves.
Federally delisted wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
will continue to receive protection from general human persecution by
State laws and regulations. Michigan has met the criteria established
in their management plan for State delisting and, subsequent to Federal
delisting, intends to amend the Wildlife Conservation Order to grant
``protected animal'' status to the gray wolf. That status would
``prohibit take, establish penalties and restitution for violations of
the Order, and detail conditions under which lethal depredation control
measures could be implemented'' (Humphries in litt. 2004). Following
Federal delisting, Wisconsin will fully implement a ``protected wild
animal'' for the species, including protections that provide for fines
of $1,000 to $2,000 for unlawful hunting. Minnesota DNR will consider
population management measures, including public hunting and trapping,
but this will not occur sooner than 5 years after Federal delisting and
will maintain a wolf population of at least 1600 animals (MN DNR 2001,
p. 2). In the meantime, wolves in Zone A could only be legally taken in
Minnesota for depredation management or public safety, and Minnesota
plans to increase its capability to enforce laws against take of wolves
(MN DNR 2001, pp. 3-4).
Except for the very small portions of Indiana and Ohio, WGL DPS
wolves are likely to remain protected by various state designations for
the immediate future. States within the boundaries of the DPS either
currently have mechanisms in place to kill depredating wolves (North
Dakota and South Dakota) or can be expected to develop mechanisms
following this Federal delisting of the DPS, in order to deal with
wolf-livestock conflicts in areas where wolf protection is no longer
required by the Act. Because these States constitute only about one-
third of the land area within the DPS, and contain virtually no
suitable habitat of sufficient size to host viable gray wolf
populations, it is clear that even complete protection for gray wolves
in these areas would neither provide significant benefits to wolf
recovery in the DPS, nor to the long-term viability of the recovered
populations that currently reside in the DPS. Therefore, although
current and potential future regulatory mechanisms may allow the
killing of gray wolves in these six States, these threats, and the area
in which they will be manifest, will not impact the recovered wolf
populations in the DPS now or in the foreseeable future.
Finally, although to our knowledge no Tribes have completed wolf
management plans at this time, based on communications with Tribes and
Tribal organizations, federally delisted wolves are very likely to be
adequately protected on Tribal lands. Furthermore, the numerical
recovery criteria in the Federal Recovery Plan would be achieved and
maintained (based on the population and range of off-reservation
wolves) even without Tribal protection of wolves on reservation lands.
In addition, on the basis of information received from other Federal
land management agencies in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, we
expect National Forests, units of the National
[[Page 15118]]
Park System, military bases, and National Wildlife Refuges will provide
protections to gray wolves after delisting that will match, and in some
will cases exceed, the protections provided by State wolf management
plans and State protective regulations.
Therefore, we conclude that the regulatory mechanisms that will be
in place subsequent to Federal delisting will preclude threats
sufficient to cause the WGL DPS gray wolves to be in danger of
extinction in the foreseeable future in all or a significant portion of
the range within the WGL DPS.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Taking of Wolves by Native Americans for Religious, Spiritual, or
Traditional Cultural Purposes
As noted elsewhere in this final rule, the wolf has great
significance to many Native Americans in the Western Great Lakes area,
especially to Wolf Clan members, and has a central role in their
creation stories. The wolf, Ma''ingan, is viewed as a brother to the
Anishinaabe people, and their fates are believed to be closely linked.
Ma''ingan is a key element in many of their beliefs, traditions, and
ceremonies, and wolf pack systems are used as a model for Anishinaabe
families and communities. We are not aware of any takings of wolves in
the Midwest for use in these traditions or ceremonies while the wolf
has been listed as a threatened or endangered species. While wolves
have been listed as threatened in Minnesota, we have instructed
Wildlife Services to provide, upon request, gray wolf pelts and other
parts from wolves killed during depredation control actions to Tribes
in order to partially serve these traditional needs.
Some Tribal representatives, as well as the GLIFWC, have indicated
that following delisting there is likely to be interest in the taking
of small numbers of wolves for traditional ceremonies (King in litt.
2003; White in litt. 2003). This take could occur on reservation lands
where it could be closely regulated by a Tribe to ensure that it does
not affect the viability of the reservation wolf population. Such
takings might also occur on off-reservation treaty lands on which
certain Tribes retained hunting, fishing, and gathering rights when the
land was ceded to the Federal Government in the 19th Century. Native
American taking of wolves from ceded lands would be limited to a
specified portion of a harvestable surplus of wolves that is
established by the States in coordination with the Tribes, consistent
with past Federal court rulings on treaty rights. Such taking will not
occur until such time as a harvestable surplus has been documented
based on biological data, and regulations and monitoring have been
established by the States and Tribes to ensure a harvest can be carried
out in a manner that ensures the continued viability of the wolf
population in that State. Previous court rulings have ensured that
Native American treaty harvest of fish or wildlife species have not
risked endangering the resource.
If requested by the Tribes, multitribal natural resource agencies,
and/or the States, the Service or other appropriate Federal agencies
will work with these parties to help determine if a harvestable surplus
exists, and if so, to assist in devising reasonable and appropriate
methods and levels of harvest for delisted wolves for traditional
cultural purposes.
We conclude that small number of wolves that may be taken by Native
Americans will not be a threat sufficient to cause the WGL DPS gray
wolves to be in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future in all
or a significant portion of the range within the WGL DPS.
Public Attitudes Toward the Gray Wolf
An important determinant of the long-term status of gray wolf
populations in the United States will be human attitudes toward this
large predator. These attitudes are based on the conflicts between
human activities and wolves, concern with the danger the species may
pose to humans, its symbolic representation of wilderness, the economic
effect of livestock losses, the emotions regarding the threat to pets,
the perceived competition with hunters for deer and moose, the
conviction that the species should never be a target of sport hunting
or trapping, wolf traditions of Native American tribes, and other
factors.
We have seen indications of a change in public attitudes toward the
wolf over the last few decades. Public attitude surveys in Minnesota
and Michigan (Kellert 1985, pp. 157-163; 1990, pp. 100-102; 1999, pp.
400-403), as well as the citizen input into the wolf management plans
of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, have indicated strong public
support for wolf recovery if the adverse impacts on recreational
activities and livestock producers can be minimized (MI DNR 1997, pp.
13-14, 50-56; MN DNR 1998, p. 2; WI DNR 1999, pp. 51-55; WI DNR 2006c,
pp. 9-11). However, more recent surveys of Michigan residents may show
that attitudes are changing now that the wolf recovery has succeeded
and long-term wolf management is required. Although the majority of
Michigan residents still support wolf recovery efforts, UP residents'
support for wolf recovery has declined substantially since the 1990
Kellert survey (Mertig 2004, p. 37). At the same time, respondents from
across the State have increased their support for killing individual
problem wolves; support for lethal control of problem wolves ranges
from 70 percent in the Southern Lower Peninsula to 85 percent in the UP
(Mertig 2004, p. 40). In Wisconsin, a number of recent surveys, when
taken together, provide strong evidence of support for a Wisconsin wolf
population of 250-350 wolves or more (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003;
Schanning and Vazquez 2005; Naughton et al. 2005 unpublished report; WI
DNR 2006a, p. 9).
Once this delisting is in effect, States and tribes will have
increased flexibility to deal with wolf human conflicts, including the
use of lethal control of problems wolves, as specified in their current
wolf management plans. It is unclear whether such flexibility of wolf
control will affect public attitudes towards wolves (i.e., diminish
opposition to the local presence of wolves), due to the strong
influence of other factors.
The Minnesota DNR recognizes that to maintain public support for
wolf conservation it must work to ensure that people are well informed
about wolves and wolf management in the State. Therefore, MN DNR plans
to provide ``timely and accurate information about wolves to the
public, to support and facilitate wolf education programs, and to
encourage wolf ecotourism,'' among other activities (MN DNR 2001, p.
29-30). Similarly, the Wisconsin and Michigan wolf management plans
emphasize the need for long-term cooperative efforts with private
educational and environmental groups to develop and distribute
educational and informational materials and programs for public use (MI
DNR 1997, p. 20; WI DNR 1999, pp. 26-27). We fully expect organizations
such as the International Wolf Center (Ely, MN), the Timber Wolf
Alliance (Ashland, WI), Timber Wolf Information Network (Waupaca, WI),
the Wildlife Science Center (Forest Lake, MN), and other organizations
to continue to provide educational materials and experiences with
wolves far into the future, regardless of the Federal status of wolves.
In summary, we conclude that there is evidence showing strong
public support for current wolf population levels in the
[[Page 15119]]
WGL DPS, especially if problem wolves, and to a lesser extent wolf
numbers, are controlled. This support is a key component in our
assessment of threats to the WGL DPS. Notwithstanding a small but
significant societal segment who is opposed to the current level of
wolf recovery and which may resort to illegal actions if problem wolves
and the overall wolf population is not adequately managed, we believe
that delisting while public support for wolves is still strong,
followed by more intensive management of wolf populations by the
States, is the best way to reduce the level of threat caused by human-
induced mortality. We conclude that public attitudes towards wolves now
and in the foreseeable future will not be threats sufficient to cause
the WGL DPS gray wolves to be in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future in all or a significant portion of the range within
the WGL DPS.
Summary of Our Five-Factor Analysis of Potential Threats
As required by the Act, we considered the five potential threat
factors to assess whether wolves are threatened or endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of their range in the WGL DPS
and, therefore, whether the WGL DPS should be listed as threatened or
endangered. While wolves historically occurred over most of the DPS,
large portions of this area are no longer significant, and the wolf
population in the WGL DPS will remain centered in Minnesota, Michigan,
and Wisconsin.
While we recognize that gray wolves in the WGL DPS do not occupy
all portions of their historical range, including some disjunct but
potentially suitable areas with low road and human density and a
healthy prey base within the WGL DPS, wolves in this DPS no longer meet
the definition of a threatened or endangered species. Although there
may be historical habitat within the DPS that remains unoccupied, many
of these areas are no longer suitable. None of these historical areas
are significant portions of the range of the WGL DPS.
We have based our determinations on the current status of, and
future threats likely to be faced by, existing wolf populations within
the WGL DPS in the foreseeable future.
The number of wolves in the WGL DPS greatly exceeds the recovery
criteria (USFWS 1992, p. 24-26) for (1) a secure wolf population in
Minnesota, and (2) a second population of 100 wolves for 5 successive
years. Based on the criteria set by the Eastern Wolf Recovery Team in
1992 and reaffirmed in 1997 and 1998 (Peterson in litt. 1997, in litt.
1998), and endorsed by the peer reviewers, the DPS contains sufficient
wolf numbers and distribution to ensure their long-term survival within
the DPS. The maintenance and expansion of the Minnesota wolf population
has maximized the preservation of the genetic diversity that remained
in the WGL DPS when its wolves were first protected in 1974.
Furthermore, the Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population has even exceeded
the numerical recovery criterion for a completely isolated population.
Therefore, even if this two-State population was to become totally
isolated and wolf immigration from Minnesota and Ontario completely
ceased, it would still remain a viable wolf population for the
foreseeable future, as defined by the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, p. 25-
26). Finally, the wolf populations in Wisconsin and Michigan each have
separately exceeded 200 animals for 8 and 7 years respectively, so if
they each somehow were to become isolated, they are already above
viable population levels, and each State has committed to manage its
wolf population at or above viable population levels. The wolf's
numeric and distributional recovery criteria in the WGL DPS clearly
have been exceeded in both magnitude and duration. The wolf's recovery
in numbers and distribution in the WGL DPS, together with the status of
the remaining threats, indicates that the WGL DPS of the gray wolf is
not in danger of extinction, nor likely to become an endangered
species, within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
Post-delisting wolf protection, management, and population and
health monitoring by the States, Tribes, and Federal land management
agencies--especially in Minnesota Zone A, Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2, and
across the UP of Michigan, which constitute the significant portion of
the species' range--will ensure the continuation of viable wolf
populations above the Federal recovery criteria for the foreseeable
future. Post-delisting threats to wolves in Zone B in Minnesota, Zones
3 and 4 in Wisconsin, and in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan--all areas
that are not significant portions of the range of the WGL DPS--will be
more substantial, and may preclude the establishment of wolf packs in
most or all of these areas in Wisconsin and Michigan. Similarly, the
lack of sufficient areas of suitable habitat in those parts of North
Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio that are within
the WGL DPS are expected to preclude the establishment of viable
populations in these areas, although dispersing wolves and packs may
temporarily occur in some of these areas. However, these areas are not
SPR and wolf numbers in these areas will have no impact on the
continued viability of the recovered WGL DPS. Reasonably foreseeable
threats to wolves in all parts of the WGL DPS are not likely to
threaten wolf population viability in the WGL DPS in the foreseeable
future.
In summary, we find that the threat of habitat destruction or
degradation or a reduction in the range of the gray wolf; utilization
by humans; disease, parasites, or predatory actions by other animals or
humans; regulatory measures by State, Tribal, and Federal agencies; or
other threats will not individually or in combination be likely to
cause the WGL DPS of the gray wolf to be in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future in all or a significant portion of the species'
range. Ongoing effects of recovery efforts over the past decade, which
resulted in a significant expansion of the occupied range of wolves in
the WGL DPS, in conjunction with future State, Tribal, and Federal
agency wolf management across that occupied range, will be adequate to
ensure the conservation of the SPR of the WGL DPS. These activities
will maintain an adequate prey base, preserve denning and rendezvous
sites and dispersal corridors, monitor disease, restrict human take,
and keep wolf populations well above the numerical recovery criteria
established in the Federal Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf
(USFWS 1992, pp. 25-28).
After a thorough review of all available information and an
evaluation of the previous five factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, as well as consideration of the definitions of ``threatened''
and ``endangered'' contained in the Act and the reasons for delisting
as specified in 50 CFR 424.11(d), we conclude that removing the WGL DPS
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is
appropriate. Gray wolves have recovered in the WGL DPS as a result of
the reduction of threats as described in the analysis of the five
categories of threats.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices.
[[Page 15120]]
Recognition through listing encourages and results in conservation
actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups, and
individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be
carried out for all listed species. The final rule removes these
Federal conservation measures for all gray wolves within the WGL DPS.
Effects of the Rule
This rule removes the protections of the Act for the WGL DPS by
removing the wolves in that DPS from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, we also
identify the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) DPS and remove the gray
wolves in that DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,
except for the gray wolves in Wyoming, a significant portion of the NRM
DPS range, which will continue to be listed as an experimental
population. As the Service is taking these regulatory actions with
respect to the WGL DPS and the NRM DPS at the same time, this final
rule includes regulatory revisions under Sec. 17.11(h) that reflect
the removal of the protections of the Act for both the WGL DPS and most
of the NRM DPS, and reflect that gray wolves in Wyoming, a significant
portion of the NRM DPS range, continue to be listed as an experimental
population. However, only that portion of the revised gray wolf listing
in Sec. 17.11(h) that pertains to the WGL DPS is attributable to this
final rule.
The separate experimental population listing in portions of
Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas continues unchanged.
This final rule removes the special regulations under section 4(d)
of the Act for wolves in Minnesota. These regulations currently are
found at 50 CFR 17.40(d).
Critical habitat was designated for the gray wolf in 1978 (43 FR
9607, March 9, 1978). That rule (codified at 50 CFR 17.95(a))
identifies Isle Royale National Park, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf
management zones 1, 2, and 3, as delineated in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(1), as
critical habitat. Wolf management zones 1, 2, and 3 comprise
approximately 25,500 sq km (9,845 sq mi) in northeastern and north-
central Minnesota. This final rule removes the designation of critical
habitat for gray wolves in Minnesota and on Isle Royale, Michigan.
This notice does not apply to the listing or protection of the red
wolf (C. rufus). Furthermore, the remaining protections of the gray
wolf under the Act do not extend to gray wolf-dog hybrids.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in the 1988 reauthorization,
requires us to implement a system, in cooperation with the States, to
monitor for not less than 5 years the status of all species that have
recovered and been removed from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). The purpose of this post-
delisting monitoring (PDM) is to verify that a species delisted due to
recovery remains secure from risk of extinction after it no longer has
the protections of the Act. To do this, PDM generally focuses on
evaluating (1) demographic characteristics of the species, (2) threats
to the species, and (3) implementation of legal and/or management
commitments that have been identified as important in reducing threats
to the species or maintaining threats at sufficiently low levels. We
are to make prompt use of the emergency listing authorities under
section 4(b)(7) of the Act to prevent a significant risk to the well-
being of any recovered species. Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly
requires cooperation with the States in development and implementation
of PDM programs, but we remain responsible for compliance with section
4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of PDM.
We also will seek active participation of other entities that are
expected to assume responsibilities for the species' conservation,
after delisting.
We are developing a PDM plan for the gray wolves in the WGL DPS
with the assistance of the Eastern Gray Wolf Recovery Team. Once
completed, we will make that document available on our Web site (See
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). At this time, we anticipate
the PDM program will be a continuation of State monitoring activities
similar to those which have been conducted by Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan DNRs in recent years. These States comprise the core recovery
areas within the DPS, and therefore the numerical recovery criteria in
the Recovery Plan apply only to them. These activities will include
both population monitoring and health monitoring of individual wolves.
During the PDM period, the Service and the Recovery Team will conduct a
review of the monitoring data and program. We will consider various
relevant factors (including but not limited to mortality rates,
population changes and rates of change, disease occurrence, range
expansion or contraction) to determine if the population of gray wolves
within the DPS warrants expanded monitoring, additional research,
consideration for relisting as threatened or endangered, or emergency
listing.
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan DNRs have monitored wolves for
several decades with significant assistance from numerous partners,
including the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, USDA-APHIS-
Wildlife Services, Tribal natural resource agencies, and the Service.
To maximize comparability of future PDM data with data obtained before
delisting, all three State DNRs have committed to continue their
previous wolf population monitoring methodology, or will make changes
to that methodology only if those changes will not reduce the
comparability of pre- and post-delisting data.
In addition to monitoring wolf population numbers and trends, the
PDM will evaluate post-delisting threats, in particular human-caused
mortality, disease, and implementation of legal and management
commitments. If at any time during the monitoring period we detect a
substantial downward change in the populations or an increase in
threats to the degree that population viability may be threatened, we
will evaluate and change (intensify, extend, and/or otherwise improve)
the monitoring methods, if appropriate, and/or consider relisting the
WGL DPS, if warranted.
This monitoring program will extend for 5 years beyond the
effective delisting date of the DPS. At the end of the 5-year period we
and the Recovery Team will conduct another review and post the results
on our Web site. In addition to the above considerations, the review
will determine whether the PDM program should be terminated or
extended.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that an Environmental Assessment or an
Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Paperwork Reduction Act
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part
1320 implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
[[Page 15121]]
The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) define a collection of
information as the obtaining of information by or for an agency by
means of identical questions posed to, or identical reporting,
recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements imposed on, 10 or more
persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ``ten or more
persons'' refers to the persons to whom a collection of information is
addressed by the agency within any 12-month period. For purposes of
this definition, employees of the Federal Government are not included.
The Service may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
This rule does not include any collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. As proposed
under the Post-delisting Monitoring section above, gray wolf
populations in the Western Great Lakes DPS will be monitored by the
States of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in accordance with their
gray wolf State management plans. There may also be additional
voluntary monitoring activities conducted by a small number of tribes
in these three States. We do not anticipate a need to request data or
other information from 10 or more persons during any 12-month period to
satisfy monitoring information needs. If it becomes necessary to
collect standardized information from 10 or more non-Federal
individuals, groups, or organizations per year, we will first obtain
information collection approval from OMB.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As this final rule is
not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or
use, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we
have coordinated the proposed rule and this final rule with the
affected Tribes. Throughout several years of development of earlier
related rules and the proposed rule, we have endeavored to consult with
Native American tribes and Native American organizations in order to
both (1) provide them with a complete understanding of the proposed
changes, and (2) to understand their concerns with those changes. We
have fully considered their comments during the development of this
final rule. If requested, we will conduct additional consultations with
Native American tribes and multitribal organizations subsequent to this
final rule in order to facilitate the transition to State and tribal
management of gray wolves within the WGL DPS.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this document is
available upon request from the Ft. Snelling, Minnesota, Regional
Office and is posted on our Web site (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above).
Author
The primary author of this final rule is Laura J. Ragan, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota, Regional Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above). The majority of this final
rule is based on the February 8, 2007 final rule for which the primary
author was Ronald L. Refsnider, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft.
Snelling, Minnesota, Regional Office).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Public Law 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise
noted.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Wolf, gray'' under
``MAMMALS'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read
as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 15122]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate population
------------------------------------------------------ Historic range where endangered or Status When listed Critical Special
Common name Scientific name threatened habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Wolf, gray...................... Canis lupus........ Holarctic......... U.S.A., conterminous E 1, 6, 13, N/A N/A
(lower 48) States, 15, 35
except: (1) Where
listed as an
experimental
population below; (2)
Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Michigan, eastern
North Dakota (that
portion north and east
of the Missouri River
upstream to Lake
Sakakawea and east of
the centerline of
Highway 83 from Lake
Sakakawea to the
Canadian border),
eastern South Dakota
(that portion north
and east of the
Missouri River),
northern Iowa,
northern Illinois, and
northern Indiana
(those portions of IA,
IL, and IN north of
the centerline of
Interstate Highway
80), and northwestern
Ohio (that portion
north of the
centerline of
Interstate Highway 80
and west of the Maumee
River at Toledo); (3)
MT, ID, WY (however,
see experimental
population designation
below), eastern WA
(that portion of WA
east of the centerline
of Highway 97 and
Highway 17 north of
Mesa and that portion
of WA east of the
centerline of Highway
395 south of Mesa),
eastern OR (portion of
OR east of the
centerline of Highway
395 and Highway 78
north of Burns
Junction and that
portion of OR east of
the centerline of
Highway 95 south of
Burns Junction), and
north central UT (that
portion of UT east of
the centerline of
Highway 84 and north
of Highway 80). Mexico.
......do........................ ......do........... ......do.......... U.S.A. (portions of AZ, XN 631 N/A 17.84(k)
NM, and TX--see Sec. 17.84(i).
17.84(k)).
Wolf, gray [Northern Rocky Canis lupus........ U.S.A. (MT, ID, U.S.A. (WY--see Sec. XN 561, 562 N/A 17.84(n).
Mountain DPS]. WY, eastern WA, 17.84(i) and Sec.
eastern OR, and 17.84(n)).
north central UT).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15123]]
Sec. 17.40 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.40 by removing and reserving paragraph (d).
Sec. 17.95 [Amended]
0
4. Amend Sec. 17.95(a) by removing the critical habitat entry for
``Gray Wolf (Canis lupus).''
Dated: March 10, 2009.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E9-5981 Filed 4-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P