[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 14, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55730-55735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22752]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2010-0062; 92220-1113-0000-C6]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
Petitions To Delist the Gray Wolf in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, 
and the Western Great Lakes

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day 
finding on petitions to remove (delist) the gray wolf in the western 
Great Lakes from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List) 
established under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 
Based on our review, we find that the petitions present substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that removing the gray 
wolf in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan from the List may be 
warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are 
initiating a review of the status of the species to determine if 
delisting in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan is warranted. To ensure 
that this status review is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific 
and commercial data and other information regarding the gray wolf in 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Based on the status review, we will 
issue a 12-month finding on the petitions, which will address whether 
any of the petitioned actions are warranted, as provided in section 
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request 
that we receive information on or before November 15, 2010. Please note 
that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES 
section, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 
12:00 Midnight, Eastern Standard Time on this date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In 
the box that reads ``Enter Keyword or ID,'' enter the Docket number for 
this finding, which is [FWS-R3-ES-2010-0062]. Check the box that reads 
``Open for Comment/Submission,'' and then click the Search button. You 
should then see an icon that reads ``Submit a Comment.'' Please ensure 
that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your 
comment.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R3-ES-2010-0062, Division of Policy and Directives 
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. We will post all information we receive 
on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post 
any personal information you provide us (see the Request for 
Information section below for more details).
    After the date specified in DATES, you must submit information 
directly to the Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section below). Please note that we might not be able to address or 
incorporate information that we receive after the above requested date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Ragan, Endangered Species 
Listing Coordinator, Midwest Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, 55111, by telephone 
(612-713-5350), or by facsimile (612-713-5292). If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Information

    When we make a finding that a petition to remove (delist) a species 
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife presents 
substantial information that the petitioned action may be warranted, we 
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species 
(status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the 
best available scientific and commercial information, we request 
information on the gray wolf in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan from 
governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific 
community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek 
information on:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat or both.
    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a delisting 
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which 
are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    (3) Current or planned activities in the western Great Lakes region 
and their possible impacts on the wolf and its habitat;
    (4) Information concerning the adequacy of the recovery criteria 
described in the 1992 Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf;
    (5) The extent and adequacy of Federal, State, and tribal 
protection and management that would be provided to the wolf in the 
western Great Lakes region as a delisted species;
    (6) Whether gray wolves in Minnesota alone; or in Minnesota and 
Wisconsin combined; or in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan combined 
constitute distinct population segments or entities that which may be 
removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the 
Act; and
    (7) Information or data regarding the taxonomy of wolves in the 
western Great Lakes region.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action 
under consideration without providing supporting information, although 
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any 
species is an endangered or

[[Page 55731]]

threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your information concerning this status review by 
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit 
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the 
Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying 
information, you may request at the top of your document that we 
withhold this personal identifying information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will 
post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Information and supporting documentation that we received and used 
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal 
business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Regional 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires 
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or 
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We 
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, 
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information 
otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we 
are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition 
and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information 
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day 
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a 
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition 
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial 
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to 
promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently 
summarize in our 12-month finding.

Petition History

    On March 15, 2010, we received a petition from the Minnesota 
Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) requesting that the gray wolf 
in Minnesota be removed from the lists of endangered or threatened 
species under the Act. In an April 16, 2010, letter to the MNDNR, we 
responded that we received the petition and provided an explanation of 
the petition process. On April 26, 2010, we received a petition from 
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WIDNR) requesting that 
the gray wolf in Minnesota and Wisconsin be removed from the lists of 
endangered or threatened species under the Act. In a May 14, 2010 
letter, to the WIDNR, we responded that we received the petition and 
provided an explanation of the petition process. On April 26, 2010, we 
received a petition from the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, representing 
five other organizations, requesting that gray wolves in the Great 
Lakes area be removed from the lists of endangered or threatened 
species under the Act. In a May 28, 2010, letter to the U.S. 
Sportsmen's Alliance, we responded that we received the petition and 
provided an explanation of the petition process. On June 17, 2010, we 
received a petition from Safari Club International, Safari Club 
International Foundation and the National Rifle Association of America 
requesting that wolves of the western Great Lakes be removed from the 
list of endangered and threatened species. In a June 30, 2010, letter 
to the Safari Club International we responded that we received the 
petition and provided an explanation of the petition process.
    All of the petitions clearly identified themselves as such and 
included the requisite identification information from the petitioner, 
as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the four 
petitions.

Previous Federal Actions

    The eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus lycaon) was listed as 
endangered in Minnesota and Michigan, and the northern Rocky Mountain 
wolf (C. l. irremotus) was listed as endangered in Montana and Wyoming 
in the first list of species that were protected under the 1973 Act, 
published in May 1974 (USDI 1974). A third gray wolf subspecies, the 
Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi), was listed as endangered on April 28, 
1976, (41 FR 17736) with its known range given as ``Mexico, USA 
(Arizona, New Mexico, Texas).'' On June 14, 1976, (41 FR 240624) the 
subspecies C. l. monstrabilis was listed as endangered (under the 
misleading common name ``Gray wolf''), and its range was described as 
``Texas, New Mexico, Mexico.''
    On March 9, 1978, we published a rule (43 FR 9607) relisting the 
gray wolf at the species level (Canis lupus) as endangered throughout 
the conterminous 48 States and Mexico, except for Minnesota, where the 
gray wolf was reclassified to threatened. In addition, critical habitat 
was designated in that rulemaking. In 50 CFR 17.95(a), we describe Isle 
Royale National Park, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf management zones 1, 
2, and 3 (delineated in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(1)) as critical habitat. At 
that time we also developed special regulations under section 4(d) of 
the Act for managing wolves in Minnesota. The depredation control 
portion of the special regulation was later modified (50 FR 50792; 
December 12, 1985); these special regulations are found in 50 CFR 
17.40(d)(2).
    On April 1, 2003, we published a final rule revising the listing 
status of the gray wolf across most of the conterminous United States 
(68 FR 15804). Within that rule, we identified three 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. The 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 
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. Secretary, U.S. Dep't 
of the Interior, 354 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D.Or. 2005); National Wildlife 
Fed'n v. Norton, 386 F.Supp.2d 553 (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

[[Page 55732]]

reclassification). The courts also invalidated the associated special 
regulations.
    On March 27, 2006, we published a proposal (71 FR 15266-15305) to 
identify a Western Great Lakes (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, four 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, on September 29, 
2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia remanded and 
vacated the February 8, 2007, 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 Act 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 could 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, 579 F. Supp. 2d 7 
(D.D.C. 2008).
    On December 11, 2008, we published a final rule reinstating 
protections for the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes and northern 
Rocky Mountains pursuant to court-orders (73 FR 75356).
    On April 2, 2009, we published a final rule identifying the western 
Great Lakes populations of gray wolves as a DPS, revising the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing the DPS from that list, 
removing designated critical habitat for the gray wolf in Minnesota and 
Michigan, and removing special regulations for the gray wolf in 
Minnesota (74 FR 15070). That final rule addressed the narrow issue 
objectionable to the court and was otherwise substantially the same as 
the 2007 vacated rule. We did not seek additional public comment on the 
2009 final rule.
    On June 15, 2009, five parties filed a complaint against the 
Department and the Service alleging that we violated the Endangered 
Species Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Court's 
Remand Order by publishing the 2009 final rule. The Humane Society, et 
al. v. Salazar, 09-cv-1092 (D.D.C. 2009). On that same day, the 
plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary injunction alleging that 
we violated the notice and comment requirement of the APA, the 
Endangered Species Act's requirement that we consider the best 
available science, and the court's remand order by publishing the 2009 
final rule. We conceded that we erred by publishing the 2009 final rule 
without providing for notice and comment as required by APA (5 U.S.C. 
553). On July 2, 2009, a settlement agreement between the parties was 
signed by the court, remanding and vacating the 2009 final rule.
    On September 16, 2009, we published a final rule reinstating 
protections for the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes pursuant to 
the settlement agreement and court-order (74 FR 47483).

Species Information

    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), also available on 
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/.

Defining a Species Under the Act

    Section 3(16) of the Act defines ``species'' to include ``any 
species or subspecies of fish and wildlife or plants, and any distinct 
vertebrate population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when 
mature'' (16 U.S.C. 1532 (16)). Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
424.02 provide further guidance for determining whether a particular 
taxon or population is a species or subspecies for the purposes of the 
Act: ``The Secretary shall rely on standard taxonomic distinctions and 
the biological expertise of the Department and the scientific community 
concerning the relevant taxonomic group'' (50 CFR 424.11).
    To interpret and implement the distinct vertebrate population 
segment (DPS) provisions of the Act and Congressional guidance, the 
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (now the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Fisheries), published the 
Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population 
Segments (DPS Policy) in the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 
FR 4722). Under the DPS Policy, three elements are considered in the 
decision regarding the establishment and classification of a population 
of a vertebrate species as a possible DPS. Similarly, these three 
elements are applied for additions to and removals from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. These elements are: (1) 
The discreteness of a population in relation to the remainder of the 
species to which it belongs, (2) the significance of the population 
segment to the species to which it belongs, and, if these first two 
criteria are met, (3) the population segment's conservation status in 
relation to the Act's standards for listing, delisting, or 
reclassification.

Discreteness

    Under our DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species 
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following 
two 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 (61 FR 4722).

Significance

    If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of 
the conditions described in the Service's DPS policy, its biological 
and ecological significance will be considered in light of 
congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used 
``sparingly'' while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity 
(see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session). In making this 
determination, we consider available scientific evidence of the 
discrete population segment's importance to the taxon to which it 
belongs. Since precise circumstances are likely to vary considerably 
from case to case, the DPS policy does not describe all the classes of 
information that might be used in determining the biological and 
ecological importance of a discrete

[[Page 55733]]

population. However, the DPS policy describes four possible classes of 
information that provide evidence of a discrete population segment's 
biological and ecological importance to the taxon to which it belongs. 
As specified in the DPS policy, this consideration of the population 
segment's significance may include, but is not limited to, the 
following:
    (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological 
setting unusual or unique to the taxon;
    (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would 
result in a significant gap in the range of a 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; or
    (4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly 
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
    A population segment needs to satisfy only one of these conditions 
to be considered significant. Furthermore, other information may be 
used as appropriate to provide evidence for significance.

Information Provided in the Petitions Regarding the ``Species'' 
Requested for Delisting

Wolves in Minnesota
    The petition from the Minnesota DNR requests removing the 
``Minnesota wolf species'' from the protections of the Act. The 
petition presents the following information.
    In 1978, the Service issued a final rule reclassifying ``the gray 
wolf in the United States and Mexico'' and determining critical habitat 
for the species of gray wolf in Michigan and Minnesota (43 FR 9607). 
The rule stated, ``(t)he reclassification is considered to accurately 
express the current status of the gray wolf, based solely on an 
evaluation of the best available biological data.''
    As stated in Minnesota's March 15, 2010, petition, the Service in 
1978 issued a final rule that listed the gray wolf population in 
Minnesota as threatened and treated the gray wolf in Minnesota as 
another ``species'' separate from the gray wolf species that was listed 
as endangered in the other conterminous 48 States and Mexico (43 FR 
9607, March 9, 1978). The 1978 final rule states, ``as defined in 
section 3 of the Act, the term ``species'' includes any subspecies of 
fish or wildlife or plants and any other group of fish or wildlife of 
the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that 
interbreed when mature. For purposes of this rulemaking, the gray wolf 
(Canis lupus) group in Mexico and the 48 coterminous States of the 
United States, other than Minnesota, is being considered as one 
`species', and the gray wolf group in Minnesota is being considered as 
another `species.' '' (43 FR 9610).
    The 1978 rule stated that this determination was ``based solely on 
an evaluation of the best available biological data.* * * The only 
major population of the gray wolf remaining anywhere in the 48 
conterminous States is in northern Minnesota.'' Id. at 9607 & 9610-11.
Wolves in Minnesota and Wisconsin
    The petition from the Wisconsin DNR requests removing the 
``Minnesota wolf species,'' which occurs in Minnesota and Wisconsin, 
from the protections of the Act. The petition presents the following 
information.
    Gray wolves moved from Minnesota to Wisconsin and Michigan, and are 
now established in those states. Minnesota gray wolves settled into 
eastern Pine County along the border with Wisconsin in 1974-1975 (Mech 
and Nowak 1981, pp. 408-409) and soon spread eastward into Wisconsin. 
Movements of wolves from Minnesota into Wisconsin and Michigan 
continued to be documented into the 1990s (Mech et al. 1995; Wydeven 
1994). More recent genetic analysis also demonstrates that the wolves 
currently in Wisconsin and Michigan are genetically similar to wolves 
in Minnesota (Wheeldon 2009; Fain et al. 2010).
Wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
    The petition from the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance requests removing 
gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan from the protections 
of the Act. In the alternative, they request removing gray wolves 
within the somewhat broader boundaries of the Western Great Lakes 
Distinct Population Segment (DPS), as identified in the 2007 and 2009 
final rules (72 FR 6052, February 8, 2007; 74 FR 15070, April 2, 2009) 
that were later vacated. The petition references information provided 
in the petitions from Minnesota and Wisconsin and in the 2007 and 2009 
final rules.
    We find that the four petitions provide substantial information 
that the wolf in Minnesota alone; in Minnesota and Wisconsin combined; 
in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; and in the western Great Lakes 
area, may be considered as a ``species'' under the Act. In the 12-month 
finding, we will fully analyze whether gray wolves in those areas 
constitute ``species'' under the Act, and whether they are a threatened 
species or endangered species under the Act.

Evaluation of Information for This Finding

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species 
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an 
endangered species or threatened species due to one or more of the five 
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    We must consider these same five factors in delisting a species. We 
may remove a threatened species or endangered species from the Act's 
protections according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available 
scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither 
endangered nor threatened for the following reasons:
    (1) The species is extinct;
    (2) The species has recovered and is no longer endangered or 
threatened; or
    (3) The original scientific data used at the time the species was 
classified were in error.
    In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information 
regarding the reduction of threats to the gray wolf in Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, Michigan, and the western Great Lakes area as a whole as 
presented in the petitions and other information available in our 
files, is substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action 
may be warranted.
    We reviewed the relevant five factors extensively in previous 
delisting decisions for the gray wolf in an area previously identified 
as the WGL DPS, which includes Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (71 
FR 15266, March 27, 2006; 74 FR 15070, April 2, 2009). Our files have 
no information to indicate there has been a significant change since 
those previous analyses in how these factors affect wolves in the 
western Great Lakes area. We find that the information provided in the 
petition, as

[[Page 55734]]

well as other information in our files, presents substantial scientific 
or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted in light of one or more of the five factors described in 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
    A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range: The wolf population in the western 
Great Lakes area currently occupies all suitable habitat identified for 
recovery in this area in the 1978 and 1992 Recovery Plans and most of 
the potentially suitable habitat in the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, 
and Michigan. 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.
    B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes: 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 wolf populations in 
the western Great Lakes area 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, public harvest may also serve as a management 
tool, so it is discussed in Factor D. Taking wolves for scientific or 
educational purposes in the western Great Lakes area may not be 
regulated or closely monitored in the future, but the threat to wolves 
in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan will not be significant to the 
long-term viability of the wolf population in the western Great Lakes 
area. The potential limited commercial and recreational harvest that 
may occur will be regulated by State or Tribal conservation agencies 
and is discussed under Factor D.
    C. Disease or Predation: 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 Upper Peninsula and in Wisconsin over the 
last 12 years, and it is recognized as a continuing issue. Despite 
these and other diseases and parasites, the overall trend for wolf 
populations in the Western Great Lakes area 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.
    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 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 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 consistent with or above the 
objectives in the Federal Eastern Timberwolf 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. 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.
    D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms: 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, 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. While these State plans recognize there may 
be a need to control or even reduce wolf

[[Page 55735]]

populations at some future time, none of the plans include a public 
harvest of wolves.
    Wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan would continue to 
receive protection from general human persecution by State laws and 
regulations. Michigan met the criteria established in their management 
plan for State delisting and in April 2009 removed gray wolves from the 
State's threatened and endangered species list and amended the Wildlife 
Conservation Order to grant ``protected animal'' status to the gray 
wolf in the State (Roell 2009, pers. comm.). That status ``prohibit[s] 
take, establish[es] penalties and restitution for violations of the 
Order, and detail[s] conditions under which lethal depredation control 
measures could be implemented'' (Humphries in litt. 2004). Since 2004 
wolves have been listed as a ``protected wild animal'' by the WI DNR, 
allowing no lethal take unless special authorization is requested from 
the WI DNR (Wydeven et al. 2009c). Following Federal delisting, 
Wisconsin will fully implement that ``protected wild animal'' status 
for the species, including protections that provide for fines of $1,000 
to $2,000 for unlawful hunting. Minnesota DNR will consider population 
management measures, including public hunting and trapping, but this 
will not occur sooner than 5 years after a 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 be legally taken in 
Minnesota only for depredation management or public safety (MN DNR 
2001, pp. 3-4). Since the wolf management plan was completed in 2001, 
MN DNR has fully staffed its conservation officer corps in the State's 
wolf range (Stark 2009a, pers. comm.).
    Additionally, 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. In addition, on the basis of 
information received from other Federal land management agencies in 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, we expect National Forests, units 
of the National Park System, military bases, and National Wildlife 
Refuges will provide protections to gray wolves after delisting that 
will match, and in some cases will exceed, the protections provided by 
State wolf management plans and State protective regulations.
    E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence: The information contained within the petitions and our files 
conclude that other natural or manmade factors may not be threats 
sufficient to cause the wolves in the western Great Lakes area to 
warrant listing; this includes taking of wolves by Native Americans for 
religious, spiritual, or traditional cultural purposes, public 
attitudes toward the gray wolf, and coyote hybridization. If requested 
by the Tribes, multitribal natural resource agencies, or the States, 
the Service or other appropriate Federal agencies will work with these 
parties to help determine if a harvestable surplus exists, and if so, 
to assist in devising reasonable and appropriate methods and levels of 
harvest for delisted wolves for traditional cultural purposes. We 
conclude that the small number of wolves that may be taken by Native 
Americans will not be a significant threat to the viability of the 
population.

Finding

    On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 
Act, we have determined that the petitions present substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that delisting the gray 
wolf in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, or the western Great Lakes area 
as a whole may be warranted. This finding is based on information 
provided under all five factors.
    Because we have found that the petitions present substantial 
information indicating that delisting the gray wolf in Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, Michigan, or the western Great Lakes area as a whole may be 
warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether 
delisting the gray wolf in those States and the surrounding region 
under the Act is warranted.
    The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding 
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard 
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned 
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status 
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether 
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough 
status review of the species, which is conducted following a 
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 
12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-
day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a 
warranted finding.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Midwest Regional 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Midwest Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: August 19, 2010.
Wendi Weber,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-22752 Filed 9-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P