[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9648-9687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04420]



[[Page 9647]]

Vol. 84

Friday,

No. 51

March 15, 2019

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf 
(Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 
Proposed Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 9648]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097; FXES11130900000C2-189-FF09E32000]
RIN 1018-BD60


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray 
Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), 
have evaluated the classification status of gray wolves (Canis lupus) 
currently listed in the contiguous United States and Mexico under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our 
evaluation, we propose to remove the gray wolf from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We propose this action because the 
best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the 
currently listed entities do not meet the definitions of a threatened 
species or endangered species under the Act due to recovery. The effect 
of this rulemaking action would be to remove the gray wolf from the 
Act's protections. This proposed rule does not have any effect on the 
separate listing of the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) as 
endangered under the Act.

DATES: Comment submission: We will accept comments received or 
postmarked on or before May 14, 2019.
    Public hearings: We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 
April 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-
2018-0097, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click 
on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the 
left side of the screen under the Document Type heading, click on the 
Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment 
by clicking on the blue ``Comment Now!'' box. If your comments will fit 
in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our comment review 
procedures. If you attach your comments as a separate document, our 
preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple 
comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet 
in Microsoft Excel.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097; U.S. Fish & 
Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 
Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Public Comments below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Morgan, Chief, Branch of Delisting 
and Foreign Species, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Headquarters Office, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, 
VA 22041-3803; telephone (703) 358-2444. Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay 
Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine that 
a species is no longer threatened or endangered throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, we must publish in the Federal 
Register a proposed rule to remove the species from the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants in title 50 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). We also must make a 
final determination on our proposal within 1 year thereafter. Removing 
a species from the List (``delisting'' it) can only be completed by 
issuing a rule.
    This document proposes delisting gray wolves in the lower 48 United 
States and Mexico. This proposed rule assesses the best available 
information regarding the status of and threats to the species, and 
replaces our June 13, 2013, proposed rule to delist the gray wolf in 
the lower 48 United States and Mexico (78 FR 35664). This proposed rule 
does not have any effect on the separate listing of the Mexican wolf as 
endangered under the Act (80 FR 2487, January 16, 2015).
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we determine whether a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any one or more 
of five factors or the cumulative effects thereof: (A) The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. We have determined that the gray 
wolf in the lower 48 United States and Mexico (except the Mexican wolf 
subspecies) no longer meets the definition of an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act.
    Peer review. We will seek comments from independent specialists to 
ensure that our designation is based on scientifically sound data, 
assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer reviewers to 
comment on our listing proposal. Because we will consider all comments 
and information received during the comment period, our final 
determination may differ from this proposal.

Information Requested

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from the public, concerned Tribal and 
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. Comments should be as 
specific as possible.
    As this proposal replaces our June 13, 2013, proposal to delist 
gray wolves in the lower 48 United States and Mexico (78 FR 35663), we 
ask that any comments previously submitted that are relevant to the 
status of wolves currently listed in the contiguous United States and 
Mexico, as analyzed in this rule, be resubmitted at this time. Comments 
must be submitted during the comment period for this proposed rule to 
be considered.
    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.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not meet the standard of 
best available scientific and commercial data. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is 
threatened or endangered must be made ``solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available.''

[[Page 9649]]

    You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods 
listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the 
methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including your personal identifying information--
will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a 
hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may 
request at the top of your document that we withhold this 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.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097, or by appointment, during normal business 
hours at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding scientific data and interpretations contained in this 
proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our 
decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analyses. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment during the 
public comment period on our proposed action; these comments will be 
available along with other public comments in the docket for this 
proposed rule.
    We will consider all comments and information we receive during 
this comment period during our preparation of the final determination. 
Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal.

Table of Contents

Previous Federal Actions
General Background
    The 1978 Reclassification
    National Wolf Strategy
Approach for this Proposed Rule
    The Entities Addressed in this Rule
    How We Address the C. lupus Entities in this Rule
    How We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties in this Rule
    Summary of Our Approach
Species Information
    Biology and Ecology
    Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America
    Range and Population Trends Prior to 1978 Reclassification
    Historical Range of the Gray Wolf Entity
    Historical Abundance of the Gray Wolf Entity
    Historical Trends in Range and Abundance for the Gray Wolf 
Entity
    Distribution, and Abundance of the Gray Wolf Entity at the Time 
of the 1978 Reclassification
    Current Distribution and Abundance of the Gray Wolf Entity
Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery Implementation
    Recovery Criteria
    Recovery Progress
Historical Context of Our Analysis
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
    Human-caused Mortality
    Effects on Wolf Social Structure
    The Role of Public Attitudes
    Human-caused Mortality Summary
    Habitat and Prey Availability
    Great Lakes Area: Suitable Habitat
    Great Lakes Area: Prey Availability
    West Coast States: Suitable Habitat
    West Coast States: Prey Availability
    Habitat and Prey Availability Summary
    Disease and Parasites
    Effects of Climate Change
    Cumulative Effects
Post-delisting Management
    State Management
    Post-delisting Management in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
    The Minnesota Wolf Management Plan
    Depredation Control in Minnesota
    Post-delisting Depredation Control in Minnesota
    Post-delisting Regulated Harvest in Minnesota
    The Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan
    Depredation Control in Wisconsin
    Post-delisting Depredation Control in Wisconsin
    Post-delisting Regulated Harvest in Wisconsin
    The Michigan Wolf Management Plan
    Depredation Control in Michigan
    Post-delisting Depredation Control in Michigan
    Post-delisting Regulated Harvest in Michigan
    Post-delisting Management in the West Coast States
    The Oregon Wolf Management Plan
    The Washington Wolf Management Plan
    The California Wolf Management Plan
    Tribal Management and Conservation of Wolves
    Management on Federal Lands
    Great Lakes Area
    West Coast States
    Summary of Post-delisting Management
Determination of Species Status
    Summary and Conclusion of Our Analysis
    Determination of Status Throughout All of its Range
    Determination of Status Throughout a Significant Portion of its 
Range
    Proposed Determination
Effects of This Rule
Post-delisting Monitoring
Required Determinations
    Clarity of This Proposed Rule
    National Environmental Policy Act
    Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

Previous Federal Actions

    Gray wolves were originally listed as subspecies or as regional 
populations of subspecies in the contiguous United States and Mexico. 
Early listings were under legislative predecessors of the Act--the 
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and the Endangered Species 
Conservation Act of 1969. Later listings were under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973. The Federal Register citations for all the 
rulemaking actions described in the following paragraphs are provided 
in table 1, below.
    In 1978, we published a rule reclassifying the gray wolf as an 
endangered population at the taxonomic species level (C. lupus) 
throughout the contiguous United States and Mexico, except for the 
Minnesota gray wolf population, which was classified as threatened 
(table 1). At that time, we considered the gray wolves in Minnesota to 
be a listable entity under the Act, and we considered gray wolves in 
Mexico and the 48 contiguous United States other than Minnesota to be 
another listable entity (43 FR 9607 and 9610, respectively, March 9, 
1978). The earlier subspecies listings thus were subsumed into the 
listings for the gray wolf in Minnesota and the gray wolf in the rest 
of the contiguous United States and Mexico.
    The 1978 reclassification was undertaken to ``most conveniently'' 
address changes in our understanding of gray wolf taxonomy and protect 
all gray wolves in the lower 48 United States. In addition, we sought 
to clarify that the gray wolf was only listed south of the Canadian 
border.
    The 1978 reclassification rule stipulated that ``biological 
subspecies would continue to be maintained and dealt with as separate 
entities'' (43 FR 9609), and offered ``the firmest assurance that [the 
Service] will continue to recognize valid biological subspecies for 
purposes of its research and conservation programs'' (43 FR 9610). 
Accordingly, we implemented three gray wolf recovery programs in three 
regions of the country--the northern Rocky Mountains, the southwestern 
United States, and the eastern United States--to establish and 
prioritize recovery criteria and actions appropriate to the unique 
local circumstances of the gray wolf (table 1). Recovery in two of 
these regions (northern Rocky Mountains and southwestern United States) 
required reintroduction of gray wolves in experimental populations 
(table 1),

[[Page 9650]]

while recovery in the third (eastern United States) relied on natural 
recolonization and population growth.
    Between 2003 and 2015, we published several rules revising the 1978 
contiguous United States and Mexico listings for C. lupus in an attempt 
to acknowledge taxonomy, comport with current policy and practices, and 
to recognize the biological recovery of gray wolves in the northern 
Rocky Mountains (NRM) and western Great Lakes (WGL) populations. 
Previous rules were challenged and subsequently invalidated or vacated 
by various courts based, in part, on their determinations that our 
distinct population segment (DPS) designations were legally flawed 
(table 1).
    Of particular relevance to this proposed rule is our 2011 final 
rule, in which we recognized the expansion of the Minnesota wolf 
population by revising the entity to include all or portions of six 
surrounding States, identified the expanded population as the western 
Great Lakes DPS (WGL DPS), and revised the listings to remove the WGL 
DPS from the List due to recovery. Also in 2011, we published a final 
rule that implemented Section 1713 of Public Law 112-10, reinstating 
our 2009 delisting rule for the NRM DPS and, with the exception of 
Wyoming, removed gray wolves in that DPS from the List. In 2012, we 
finalized a rule removing gray wolves in Wyoming from the List. 
Subsequently, in 2013, we published a proposed rule to delist C. lupus 
in the remaining listed portions of the United States and Mexico 
outside of the delisted NRM and WGL DPSs, and keep Mexican wolf listed 
as an endangered subspecies, C. l. baileyi (table 1).
    However, in 2014 the United States District Court for the District 
of Columbia vacated the final rule at 76 FR 81666 (December 28, 2011) 
that removed protections of the Act from the gray wolf in the western 
Great Lakes (table 1). The court's action was based, in part, on its 
conclusion that the Act does not allow the Service to use its authority 
to identify DPSs as ``species'' to remove the protections for part of 
an already listed species. The U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling 
in 2017 that the Service had the authority to designate a DPS from a 
larger listed entity and delist it in the same rule (table 1). That 
court nonetheless upheld the District Court's vacatur, concluding that 
the Service failed to reasonably analyze or consider two significant 
aspects of the rule: The impacts of partial delisting and historical 
range loss on the remainder of the listed entity.
    Our 2012 decision to delist gray wolves in Wyoming was also vacated 
by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Because the 
2013 proposal to delist the remaining listed portions of the gray wolf 
in the United States and Mexico relied in part on two subsequently 
vacated final rules, the 2011 WGL DPS rule as well as our 2012 rule 
delisting gray wolves in Wyoming, in 2015 we only finalized the portion 
of the rule listing the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies (table 
1). In 2017, the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's decision 
and reinstated the delisting of gray wolves in Wyoming. Thus, wolves 
are currently delisted in the entire northern Rocky Mountains area 
(figure 1).
    As a result of the above actions, the C. lupus listings in 50 CFR 
17.11 currently include: (1) C. lupus in Minnesota listed as 
threatened, and (2) C. lupus in all or portions of 44 U.S. States and 
Mexico, listed as endangered (figure 1). In the United States, this 
includes: all of Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, 
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, West 
Virginia, and Wisconsin; and portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, 
Utah, and Washington (figure 1).
    For additional information on these Federal actions and their 
associated litigation history refer to the relevant associated rules or 
the Previous Federal Actions sections of our recent gray wolf actions 
(see table 1).

Table 1--Key Federal Regulatory Actions Under the Act and Predecessor Legislation 1 Pertaining to Gray Wolf and,
                         Where Applicable, Outcomes of Court Challenges to These Actions
    [E = Endangered Species, T = Threatened Species, DPS = Distinct Population Segment, NRM = Northern Rocky
                                      Mountains, WGL = Western Great Lakes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Federal
            Entity                     Year of action           Type of action      Register        Litigation
                                                                                    citation         history
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. l. lycaon.................  1967 \1\......................  List...........  32 FR 4001,      ...............
                                                                                 March 11, 1967.
C. l. irremotus..............  1973 \1\......................  List...........  38 FR 14678,     ...............
                                                                                 June 4, 1973.
C. l. lycaon.................  1974..........................  List...........  39 FR 1171,      ...............
                                                                                 January 4,
                                                                                 1974.
C. l. irremotus..............  1974..........................  List...........  39 FR 1171,      ...............
                                                                                 January 4,
                                                                                 1974.
C. l. baileyi................  1976..........................  List (E).......  41 FR 17736,     ...............
                                                                                 April 28, 1976.
C. l. monstrabilis \2\.......  1976..........................  List (E).......  41 FR 24064,     ...............
                                                                                 June 14, 1976.
C. lupus in lower 48 U.S.      1978..........................  Reclassify (E).  43 FR 9607,      ...............
 (except Minnesota) & Mexico.                                                    March 9, 1978
                                                                                 \3\.
C. lupus in Minnesota........  1978..........................  Reclassify (T).  43 FR 9607,      ...............
                                                                                 March 9, 1978
                                                                                 \3\.
C. lupus.....................  1978 (revised 1992)...........  Recovery Plan    n.a............  ...............
                                                                for Eastern
                                                                Timber Wolf
                                                                (eastern gray
                                                                wolf).
C. lupus.....................  1980 (revised 1987)...........  Recovery Plan    n.a............  ...............
                                                                for NRM Gray
                                                                Wolf.
C. lupus.....................  1982 (revised 2017)...........  Recovery Plan    n.a............  ...............
                                                                for Mexican
                                                                Gray Wolf (C.
                                                                l. baileyi).
C. lupus.....................  1994..........................  Establish        59 FR 60266,     ...............
                                                                experimental     November 22,
                                                                population       1994.
                                                                (southeastern
                                                                Idaho,
                                                                southern
                                                                Montana, and
                                                                Wyoming).
C. lupus.....................  1994..........................  Establish        59 FR 60252,     ...............
                                                                experimental     November 22,
                                                                population       1994.
                                                                (central Idaho
                                                                & southwest
                                                                Montana).
C. lupus.....................  1998..........................  Establish        63 FR 1752,      ...............
                                                                experimental     January 12,
                                                                population       1998.
                                                                (Arizona & New
                                                                Mexico).

[[Page 9651]]

 
C. lupus DPSs:...............  2003..........................  Designate DPS &  68 FR 15804,     Rule vacated
--Eastern DPS................                                   classify/        April 1, 2003.   (Defenders of
--Western DPS................                                   reclassify as:.                   Wildlife v.
--Southwestern U.S. & Mexico                                   --Eastern DPS                      Norton, 354 F.
 DPS.                                                           (T).                              Supp. 2d 1156
                                                               --Western DPS                      (D. Or. 2005);
                                                                (T).                              National
                                                               --Southwestern                     Wildlife
                                                                U.S. & Mexico                     Federation v.
                                                                DPS (E) Delist                    Norton, 386 F.
                                                                in unoccupied                     Supp. 2d 553
                                                                non-historical                    (D. Vt. 2005))
                                                                range.
C. lupus WGL DPS.............  2007..........................  Designate DPS &  72 FR 6052,      Rule vacated
                                                                delist.          February 8,      (Humane
                                                                                 2007.            Society of the
                                                                                                  United States
                                                                                                  v. Kempthorne,
                                                                                                  579 F. Supp.
                                                                                                  2d 7 (D.D.C.
                                                                                                  2008))
C. lupus NRM DPS.............  2008..........................  Designate DPS &  73 FR 10514,     Rule vacated
                                                                delist.          February 27,     and remanded
                                                                                 2008.            (Defenders of
                                                                                                  Wildlife v.
                                                                                                  Hall, 565 F.
                                                                                                  Supp. 2d 1160
                                                                                                  (D. Mont.
                                                                                                  2008))
C. lupus DPSs:...............  2008..........................  Reinstatement    73 FR 75356,     ...............
--WGL DPS....................                                   of               December 11,
--NRM DPS....................                                   protections--N   2008.
                                                                RM & WGL DPSs.
C. lupus WGL DPS.............  2009..........................  Designate DPS &  74 FR 15070,     Rule vacated
                                                                delist.          April 2, 2009.   (Humane
                                                                                                  Society of the
                                                                                                  United States
                                                                                                  v.  Salazar,
                                                                                                  1:09-CV-1092-P
                                                                                                  LF (D.D.C.
                                                                                                  2009))
C. lupus NRM DPS (except       2009..........................  Designate DPS &  74 FR 15123,     Rule vacated
 Wyoming).                                                      delist (except   April 2, 2009.   (Defenders of
                                                                in Wyoming).                      Wildlife v.
                                                                                                  Salazar, 729
                                                                                                  F. Supp. 2d
                                                                                                  1207 (D. Mont.
                                                                                                  2010))
C. lupus WGL DPS.............  2009..........................  Reinstatement    74 FR 47483,     ...............
                                                                of               September 16,
                                                                protections--W   2009.
                                                                GL.
C. lupus NRM DPS.............  2010..........................  Reinstatement    75 FR 65574,     ...............
                                                                of               October 26,
                                                                protections--N   2010.
                                                                RM DPS.
C. lupus NRM DPS.............  2011..........................  Reissuance of    76 FR 25590,     ...............
                                                                2009 NRM DPS     May 5, 2011.
                                                                delisting rule
                                                                (as required
                                                                by Public Law
                                                                112-10-The
                                                                Department of
                                                                Defense and
                                                                Full-Year
                                                                Continuing
                                                                Appropriations
                                                                Act, 2011).
C. lupus WGL DPS.............  2011..........................  Revise 1978      76 FR 81666,     Rule vacated
                                                                listing,         December 28,     (Humane
                                                                designate DPS    2011.            Society of the
                                                                & delist.                         U.S. v.
                                                                                                  Jewell, 76 F.
                                                                                                  Supp. 3d 69,
                                                                                                  110 (D.D.C.
                                                                                                  2014)) Vacatur
                                                                                                  upheld on
                                                                                                  appeal (Humane
                                                                                                  Society of the
                                                                                                  U.S. v. Zinke,
                                                                                                  865 F.3d 585
                                                                                                  (D.C. Cir.
                                                                                                  2017))
C. lupus in Wyoming..........  2012..........................  Delist in        77 FR 55530,     Rule vacated
                                                                Wyoming.         September 10,    (Defenders of
                                                                                 2012.            Wildlife v.
                                                                                                  Jewell, 68 F.
                                                                                                  Supp. 3d 193
                                                                                                  (D.D.C. 2014)
                                                                                                  Vacatur
                                                                                                  reversed on
                                                                                                  appeal
                                                                                                  (Defenders of
                                                                                                  Wildlife v.
                                                                                                  Zinke, 849
                                                                                                  F.3d 1077
                                                                                                  (D.C. Cir.
                                                                                                  2017))
C. lupus in lower 48 U.S.      2013..........................  Propose delist   78 FR 35664,     ...............
 (except NRM & WGL DPSs) and                                    in lower 48      June 13, 2013.
 Mexico.                                                        U.S. & list C.
                                                                l. baileyi
                                                                (E); status
                                                                review of
                                                                wolves in
                                                                Pacific
                                                                Northwest.
C. l. baileyi................  2015..........................  List E.........  80 FR 2488,      ...............
                                                                                 January 16,
                                                                                 2015.
C. l. baileyi................  2015..........................  Revised 1998 C.  80 FR 2512,      ...............
                                                                lupus            January 16,
                                                                experimental     2015.
                                                                population and
                                                                associated it
                                                                with C. l.
                                                                baileyi
                                                                listing.
C. lupus WGL DPS and C. lupus  2015..........................  Reinstatement    80 FR 9218,      ...............
 in Wyoming.                                                    of               February 20,
                                                                protections--W   2015.
                                                                GL DPS &
                                                                Wyoming.
C. lupus in Wyoming..........  2017..........................  Reinstatement    82 FR 20284,     ...............
                                                                of 2012          May 1, 2017.
                                                                delisting--Wyo
                                                                ming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Action taken under the Endangered Species Preservation predecessor legislation (Endangered Species Act of
  1966, Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969).
\2\ Later subsumed into C. l. baileyi due to taxonomic changes.
\3\ In this rule we also identified critical habitat in Michigan and Minnesota and promulgated special
  regulations under section 4(d) of the Act for operating a wolf- management program in Minnesota. The special
  regulation was later modified (50 FR 50793, December 12, 1985).

BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 9652]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR19.005

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

General Background

The 1978 Reclassification

    When the gray wolf (C. lupus) was reclassified in March 1978 
(replacing multiple subspecies listings with two C. lupus population 
listings as described further in Previous Federal Actions), it had been 
extirpated from much of its historical range in the contiguous United 
States. Although the 1978 reclassification listed two gray wolf 
entities (a threatened population in Minnesota and an endangered 
population throughout the rest of the contiguous United States and 
Mexico), these listings were not predicated upon a formal DPS analysis, 
because the reclassification predated the November 1978 amendments to 
the Act, which revised the definition of ``species'' to include 
distinct population segments of vertebrate fish or wildlife, and our 
1996 DPS Policy.
    As indicated in Previous Federal Actions, the 1978 reclassification 
was employed as an approach of convenience to ensure the gray wolf was 
protected wherever it was found (as described in 47 FR 9607, March 9, 
1978) in the lower 48 States and Mexico, rather than an indication of 
where gray wolves actually existed or where gray wolf recovery would 
occur. Thus, the 1978 reclassification resulted in inclusion of large 
areas of the contiguous United States where gray wolves were 
extirpated, as well as the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United 
States--west to central Texas and Oklahoma--an area that is generally 
accepted not to be within the historical range of C. lupus (Young and 
Goldman 1944, pp. 413-416, 478; Nowak 1995, p. 395, fig. 20). While 
this generalized approach to the listing appropriately protected 
dispersing wolves throughout the historical range of C. lupus in the 
United States and Mexico and facilitated recovery of the northern Rocky 
Mountains and western Great Lakes populations, it also erroneously 
included areas outside the species' historical range and was misread by 
some members of the public as an expression of a larger gray wolf 
recovery effort not required by the Act and never intended by the 
Service. In fact, as discussed below (see National Wolf Strategy), our 
recovery efforts have consistently focused on reestablishing wolf 
populations in specific areas of the country.

National Wolf Strategy

    We first described our national wolf strategy in our May 5, 2011, 
proposed rule to revise the List for the gray wolf in the eastern 
United States (76 FR 26086). This strategy was intended to: (1) Lay out 
a cohesive and coherent approach to addressing wolf conservation needs, 
including protection and management, in accordance with the Act's 
statutory framework; (2) ensure that actions taken for one wolf 
population do not cause unintended consequences for other populations; 
and (3) be explicit about the role of historical range in the 
conservation of extant wolf populations. Included in this strategy is 
the precept that, in order to qualify for any type of listing or 
delisting action, wolf entities must conform to the Act's definition of 
``species,'' whether as taxonomic species or subspecies or as distinct 
population segments.
    Our May 5, 2011, proposed rule states that our strategy focuses on 
conservation of four extant gray wolf entities being considered for

[[Page 9653]]

classification actions: (1) The western Great Lakes population, (2) the 
northern Rocky Mountains population, (3) the southwestern population of 
Mexican wolves, and (4) gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest. All of 
our actions to date are consistent with this focus. As stated above 
(see Previous Federal Actions), we published final rules delisting the 
NRM DPS (except for Wyoming), WGL DPS, and Wyoming portion of the NRM 
DPS in 2011 and 2012, and published a final rule listing the Mexican 
wolf (C. l. baileyi) separately as endangered in 2015. However, as 
indicated in Previous Federal Actions, our 2011 final rule designating 
and delisting the WGL DPS was subsequently vacated.
    In addition to the rules described above, we completed a status 
review for gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest (western Washington and 
western Oregon) in 2013 (table 1). We determined that these wolves are 
not discrete, under our DPS policy, from wolves in the NRM DPS (see 78 
FR 35707-35713) and, therefore, are not a valid listable entity under 
the Act. Wolves in the Pacific Northwest are a mix of individuals 
derived from wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and Canada (or 
both) and represent the expanding fronts of these populations (78 FR 
35707-35713, USFWS 2018, pp. 4, 14-15, 23). Since publication of our 
2013 status review, wolves have also expanded into northern California. 
Wolves in northern California are not discrete from those in the 
Pacific Northwest based on documented movement of wolves between Oregon 
and California (USFWS 2018, pp. 14-15). Therefore, wolves in western 
Washington, western Oregon, and northern California are not a valid DPS 
because they are not discrete from the NRM DPS.

Approach for This Proposed Rule

The Entities Addressed in This Rule

    In this proposed rule, we consider the status of the gray wolf 
within the geographic boundaries of the two currently listed C. lupus 
entities to determine whether these wolves should remain on the List in 
their current status, be reclassified, or be removed from the List. 
These two currently listed entities are: (1) C. lupus in Minnesota, and 
(2) C. lupus in the lower 48 United States and Mexico outside of 
Minnesota, the NRM DPS (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, eastern third of 
Washington and Oregon, and north-central Utah), and the area covered by 
the experimental population area for C. l. baileyi (the designated area 
in which the subspecies is being re-introduced; see 63 FR 1752, January 
12, 1998). These two entities are currently listed as threatened and 
endangered, respectively.
    While our past status reviews have focused on C. lupus DPSs and 
taxonomic units that align with our national wolf strategy (see table 
1), this status review considers the current C. lupus listed entities 
described above. We do this:
    (1) To address the Court of Appeals concerns with our 2011 final 
rule delisting the WGL DPS, specifically, concern pertaining to the 
impacts of partial delisting on the remainder of the already-listed 
species (see Previous Federal Actions);
    (2) To avoid a rulemaking that conflicts with multiple court 
opinions regarding our prior attempts to designate and delist wolf DPSs 
(see table 1); and
    (3) Because, with the exception of C. l. baileyi, which is listed 
separately as endangered wherever found (see Previous Federal Actions), 
the taxonomy of C. lupus is complex, controversial, and unresolved 
(USFWS 2018, pp. 1-4; also see How We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties 
in this Rule, below).

How We Address the C. lupus Entities in This Rule

    The two currently listed gray wolf entities are vestiges of a 40-
year-old action (the 1978 reclassification (see Background)). Our 
knowledge of wolf biology and taxonomy has vastly changed since then. 
Additionally, our previous efforts to revise the listed entities have 
not withstood judicial scrutiny (see Previous Federal Actions). Our 
policies and practices pertaining to listable entities have also 
changed since the 1978 reclassification. As a result, these entities do 
not conform with our current policies and standard practice. 
Specifically: (1) These two entities are not discrete from one another 
under our current policy on vertebrate distinct population segments 
(DPSs) (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996); (2) the listing for the larger 
entity includes areas known to overlap with the range of the separately 
listed gray wolf subspecies C. l. baileyi; and (3) wolves currently 
listed in the western United States are not discrete from the recovered 
Northern Rocky Mountains population, which we removed from the List in 
2009 (table 1).
(1) Lack of Discreteness of the Two C. lupus Listed Entities
    Under the Act we can list a species, subspecies, or vertebrate DPS. 
Neither of the two entities currently on the List represents an entire 
species or subspecies, thus to comply with the statute, these listings 
must be DPSs. Our 1996 DPS policy specifies that a vertebrate 
population must be both discrete and significant to qualify as a DPS 
(61 FR 4722-4725; February 7, 1996). To qualify as ``discrete,'' a 
population must be ``markedly separated from other populations of the 
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or 
behavioral factors'' (61 FR 4725). However, as indicated, the 
populations in these two entities are no longer discrete (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2018, pp. 22-23). Therefore, because it is 
clear that neither entity would qualify as a DPS under our 1996 DPS 
policy (61 FR 4725), we consider the conservation status of the two 
listed wolf entities as one combined entity in this proposed rule. We 
refer to the combined entity simply as ``the gray wolf entity'' 
throughout this proposed rule.
(2) C. l. baileyi listing
    As indicated above (see Previous Federal Actions), in 2015 we 
revised the listing for gray wolf by reclassifying the subspecies C. l. 
baileyi as a separately listed entity with the status of endangered, 
wherever found. Although the rulemaking does not include language 
expressly excluding C. l. baileyi from the previously listed C. lupus 
entity, we indicated in our 2015 final rule listing the subspecies that 
the effect of the regulation was to revise the List by making a 
separate entry for the Mexican wolf (80 FR 2488, 2511, January 16, 
2015). Therefore, because we already assessed the status of, and 
listed, the Mexican wolf separately, we do not consider individuals or 
populations of C. l. baileyi in this proposed rule. In geographical 
terms, we do not consider wolves occurring in Mexico and within the 
experimental population area in this proposed rule. Canis lupus baileyi 
is the only subspecies known to occur in these areas, and we have no 
information suggesting that other gray wolves occur in these areas.
(3) Lack of Discreteness of Western Wolves Within and Outside the Gray 
Wolf Entity
    In the coastal States of the western United States, wolves within 
the gray wolf entity occur in an area comprising western Oregon, 
western Washington, and northern California. These wolves are part of 
the expanding fronts (or edges) of the recovered and delisted wolf 
population in the NRM DPS and wolves crossing into the United States

[[Page 9654]]

from British Columbia, Canada (USFWS 2018, p. 22). While wolves in the 
west coast States may not be discrete from the NRM DPS and wolves in 
British Columbia, Canada, we do not combine wolves in the west coast 
States with those in the NRM DPS and British Columbia, Canada, for the 
purpose of our analysis (as we combined the two currently listed 
entities) because wolves in the NRM DPS and British Columbia, Canada, 
are not currently listed under the Act. Therefore, we do not consider 
wolves occurring in either of these locations in this proposed rule 
except to provide context, where appropriate, in our discussions of 
wolves comprising the gray wolf entity.

How We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties in This Rule

    The taxonomy and evolutionary history of wolves in North America 
are complex and controversial, particularly with respect to the 
taxonomic assignment of wolves in the northeastern United States and 
portions of the Great Lakes region (eastern wolves) (see Taxonomy of 
Gray Wolves in North America). Available information indicates ongoing 
scientific debate and a lack of resolution on the taxonomy of eastern 
wolves. Some scientists consider eastern wolves to be a distinct 
species, C. lycaon; some consider them gray wolves (C. lupus); and some 
consider them the product of hybridization between gray wolves and 
coyotes (USFWS 2018, p. 1). Further, none of these viewpoints is more 
widely accepted by the scientific community.
    For the purposes of this proposed rule, we consider eastern wolves 
to be members of the species C. lupus because there is not clear 
support for a recognizable and independent evolved eastern wolf 
species. Therefore, in our assessment of the status of the gray wolf 
entity, we include eastern wolves and eastern wolf range that occurs 
within the geographical boundaries of the gray wolf entity.
    We note that in our 2013 proposed rule to delist wolves in the 
lower 48 United States and Mexico (table 1), we accepted the 
conclusions of Chambers et al. (2012, entire) on the taxonomy of 
eastern wolves and recognized eastern wolves as the distinct species C. 
lycaon. However, peer reviewers of our 2013 proposed rule indicated 
that Chambers et al. was not universally accepted and our rule did not 
represent the best available science (National Center for Ecological 
Analysis and Synthesis 2014, entire). Also, new information published 
on the topic since publication of our 2013 rule indicates the taxonomy 
of eastern wolves continues to be controversial and unresolved (USFWS 
2018, pp. 1-2). Finally, the uncertainty of the existence of a separate 
species is reflected in the fact that C. lycaon is not recognized by 
authoritative taxonomic organizations such as the American Society of 
Mammalogists or the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature.
    Scientists also disagree on the taxonomic assignment of wolves in 
the southeastern United States generally recognized as ``red wolves.'' 
However, we recognize the red wolf as the species C. rufus, and note 
that it is listed as endangered where found (32 FR 4001, March 11, 
1967). We do not consider red wolves further in this rule, and the red 
wolf listing is not affected by this proposal.

Summary of Our Approach

    In this proposed rule, we assess the status of gray wolves 
occurring within the geographic area outlined by the two currently 
listed gray wolf (C. lupus) entities combined (figure 1), but we do not 
include in our assessment individuals or populations of the Mexican 
gray wolf (C. l. baileyi) (wolves that occur in Mexico and the 
nonessential experimental population area in the southwestern United 
States) as these wolves are separately listed as an endangered 
subspecies (80 FR 2488, January 16, 2015). Further, for the purposes of 
this proposed rule, we consider any eastern wolves within the 
geographic boundaries of the two currently listed gray wolf entities to 
be members of the species C. lupus. As stated previously, this proposed 
rule supersedes the June 13, 2013, proposed rule to delist C. lupus in 
the remaining listed portions of the United States and Mexico outside 
of the delisted NRM and WGL (78 FR 35663).

Species Information

    We provide detailed background information on gray wolves in the 
United States in a separate Gray Wolf Biological Report (see USFWS 
2018, entire). This document can be found along with this proposed rule 
at http://regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-HW-ES-2018-0097 (see 
Supplemental Documents). We summarize relevant information from this 
report below. For additional information, including sources of the 
information presented below, see USFWS (2018, entire) and references 
therein.

Biology and Ecology

    Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the dog family and have 
a broad circumpolar range. They are highly territorial, social animals 
that live and hunt in packs. They are well adapted to traveling fast 
and far in search of food, and catching and eating large mammals. In 
North America they are primarily predators of medium to large mammals, 
including deer, elk, and other species.
    Gray wolves are habitat generalists. They can successfully occupy a 
wide range of habitats and are not dependent on wilderness for their 
survival. An inadequate prey density and a high level of human 
persecution appear to be the only factors that limit habitat 
suitability and gray wolf distribution. Thus, virtually any area that 
has sufficient prey and adequate protection from persecution can be 
suitable habitat for gray wolves.
    Wolf populations are remarkably resilient as long as food supply 
and regulation of human-caused mortality are adequate. In the absence 
of high levels of anthropogenic influences, wolf populations are 
generally believed to be regulated by the distribution and abundance of 
prey on the landscape, though density-dependent, intrinsic mechanisms 
(e.g., social strife, territoriality, disease) may limit populations 
when ungulate densities are high. Where harvest occurs, high levels of 
reproduction and immigration can compensate for high mortality rates. 
Pack social structure is very adaptable--breeding members can be 
quickly replaced from within or outside the pack, and pups can be 
reared by another pack member should their parents die. Consequently, 
wolf populations can rapidly overcome severe disruptions, such as 
pervasive human-caused mortality or disease. Wolf populations can 
increase rapidly after severe declines if the source of mortality is 
reduced. Also, the species' dispersal capabilities allow a wolf 
population to quickly expand and colonize nearby areas, even areas 
separated by broad expanses of unsuitable habitat.

Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America

    The taxonomy of the genus Canis in North America has a complex and 
contentious history, particularly with respect to two generally 
recognized phenotypes (morphological forms) that occur in eastern North 
America: The ``red wolf'' and ``eastern wolf.'' As indicated above (see 
How We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties in this Rule), we continue to 
recognize the red wolf as the species C. rufus and do not discuss the 
taxonomy of the species further in this rule (for more information, see 
our 2018 Red Wolf Species Status Assessment). We discuss the eastern 
wolf further below.

[[Page 9655]]

    The ``eastern wolf'' has been the source of perhaps the most 
significant disagreement on North American canid taxonomy among 
scientists. The ``eastern wolf'' has been variously described as a 
species, a subspecies of gray wolf, an ecotype of gray wolf, or the 
product of hybridization between gray wolves and coyotes. Hybridization 
is widely recognized to have played, and to continue to play, an 
important role among ``eastern wolves,'' with varying views on the role 
of hybridization between ``eastern wolves'' and coyotes, ``eastern 
wolves'' and gray wolves, and gray wolves and coyotes. Minnesota 
appears to be the western edge of a hybrid zone between western gray 
wolves and eastern wolves--wolves in western Minnesota appear to be 
gray wolves both morphologically and genetically while wolves in 
eastern Minnesota and much of the Great Lakes area appear to be 
``eastern wolf,'' introgressed with western gray wolf to varying 
degrees.
    No controversy exists regarding the number of wolf species in 
western North America--all are widely recognized as gray wolves (C. 
lupus). However, the science pertaining to gray wolf subspecies 
designations, unique evolutionary lineages, ecotypes, and admixture of 
formerly isolated populations continues to develop and remains 
unresolved. Even so, genetic studies indicate that wolves in Washington 
include individuals from the northern Rocky Mountains, individuals from 
British Columbia, and individuals of mixed ancestry. Wolves currently 
occupying Oregon and California are derived from dispersers from the 
northern Rocky Mountains.

Range and Population Trends Prior to 1978 Reclassification

Historical Range of the Gray Wolf Entity
    We view the historical range to be the range of gray wolves within 
the gray wolf entity at the time of European settlement. We determined 
that this timeframe is appropriate because it precedes the major 
changes in range in response to excessive human-caused mortality (USFWS 
2018, pp. 7-11).
    At the time of the 1978 reclassification, the historical range of 
the gray wolf was generally believed to include most of North America 
and, consequently, most of the gray wolf entity. In the lower 48 United 
States, they were reportedly absent from parts of California, the arid 
deserts and mountaintops of the western United States, and parts of the 
eastern United States. However, some authorities question the species' 
historical absence in parts of California. In addition, long-held 
differences of opinion exist among scientists regarding the precise 
boundary of the gray wolf's historical range in the eastern United 
States. Some believe the range of gray wolves extended as far south as 
southern Georgia while others believe it did not extend into the 
southeast at all. The southeastern and mid-Atlantic States are 
generally recognized as being within the historical range of the red 
wolf, but it is not known how much range overlap historically occurred 
between these two species. Because of the various scientific positions 
on gray wolf species and range, the historical extent of gray wolf 
range for much of the gray wolf entity in the eastern United States 
remains uncertain.
    Based on our review of the best available information, we view the 
historical range of the gray wolf within the gray wolf entity to follow 
that presented in Nowak (1995) and depicted in figure 2. This includes 
all areas within the gray wolf entity except western California, a 
small portion of southwestern Arizona, and the southeastern United 
States (see figure 2 and USFWS 2018, pp. 7-11).
    While some authorities question the absence of gray wolves in parts 
of California, limited preserved physical evidence of wolves in 
California exists. Therefore, we rely on early reports of wolves in the 
State that describe the species as occurring in the northern and Sierra 
Mountain regions of California. Further, while recognizing that the 
extent of overlap of C. rufus and C. lupus ranges is unknown, because 
the southeastern United States are generally recognized as within the 
range of C. rufus, we consider it to be generally outside the range of 
C. lupus. However, we acknowledge that the historical range of C. lupus 
is uncertain and the topic of continued debate among scientists.
Historical Abundance of the Gray Wolf Entity
    Historical abundance of gray wolves within the gray wolf entity is 
largely unknown. Based on the reports of European settlers, gray wolves 
were common in much of the West. While historical (at the time of 
European settlement) estimates are notoriously difficult to verify, one 
study estimates that hundreds of thousands of wolves occurred in the 
western United States and Mexico. In the Great Lakes area, there were 
an estimated 4,000 to 8,000 in Minnesota, 3,000 to 5,000 in Wisconsin, 
and fewer than 6,000 in Michigan. No estimates are available for 
historical abundance in the Northeast.
Historical Trends in Range and Abundance for the Gray Wolf Entity
    Gray wolf range and numbers throughout the gray wolf entity 
declined significantly during the 19th and 20th centuries as a result 
of killing of wolves by humans through poisoning, unregulated trapping 
and shooting, and government-funded wolf-extermination efforts. By the 
time subspecies were first listed under the Act in 1974 (table 1), the 
gray wolf had been eliminated from most of its historical range within 
the lower 48 United States, including within most of the gray wolf 
entity.

Distribution, and Abundance of the Gray Wolf Entity at the Time of the 
1978 Reclassification

    By the time gray wolf subspecies were listed under the Act in 1974 
(table 1), the species occurred in only a small fraction of its 
historical range. Aside from a few scattered individuals, wolves 
occurred in only two places within the gray wolf entity (and the entire 
lower 48 United States). A population persisted in northeastern 
Minnesota, and a small, isolated group of about 40 wolves occurred on 
Isle Royale, Michigan. The Minnesota wolf population was the only major 
U.S. population in existence outside Alaska at this time and numbered 
about 1,000 individuals. While the Minnesota population was small 
compared to historical numbers and range within the lower 48 United 
States, it had not undergone a significant decline since about 1900. By 
1978, when several gray wolf subspecies were consolidated into a single 
lower 48 United States/Mexico listing and a separate Minnesota listing 
under the Act, the gray wolf population in Minnesota had increased to 
an estimated 1,235 wolves in 138 packs (in the winter of 1978-79) and 
had an estimated range of 14,038 square miles (mi\2\) (36,500 square 
kilometers (km\2\)) (figure 2). Although it was suspected that wolves 
inhabited Wisconsin at this time, it was not until 1979 that wolf 
presence was confirmed in the State.

Current Distribution and Abundance of the Gray Wolf Entity

    The vast majority of wolves within the gray wolf entity now exist 
as a large, stable or growing metapopulation (partially isolated set of 
subpopulations) of more than 4,400 individuals that is broadly 
distributed across the northern portions of three States in the Great 
Lakes area. This metapopulation is also connected, via documented 
dispersals, to the large and expansive population of about 12,000-
14,000 wolves in eastern Canada. As a result, gray wolves in the

[[Page 9656]]

Great Lakes area do not function as an isolated metapopulation of 4,400 
individuals across three States, but rather as part of a much larger 
metapopulation that spans across three States of the United States and 
two Provinces of Canada.
    In addition to the metapopulation in the Great Lakes area, as of 
2017, three breeding pairs and four packs with no documented 
reproduction occur within the gray wolf entity in Oregon, Washington, 
and California. These wolves originated from large populations of 
approximately 15,000 wolves in western Canada and about 1,700 wolves in 
the northern Rocky Mountains. Effective dispersal has been documented 
among California, Oregon, and Washington as well as between these 
States and other northern Rocky Mountains States and Canada. Thus, 
wolves in the Pacific coast States are an extension of the 
metapopulation of wolves in western Canada and the northern Rocky 
Mountains.
    Finally, a number of lone long-distance dispersing wolves have been 
documented outside core populations of the Great Lakes area and western 
United States since the early 2000s. Confirmed records of individual 
wolves have been reported from North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, 
Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Nebraska, and Kansas. 
The total number of confirmed records in each of these States, since 
the early 2000s, ranges from one in Nevada to at least 27 in North 
Dakota, with the latter also having an additional 45 probable but 
unverified reports.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR19.006

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery Implementation

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. Recovery plans are non-
regulatory documents that identify site-specific management actions 
that may be necessary to achieve conservation and survival of the 
species. They also identify objective, measurable criteria (recovery 
criteria) which, when met, would result in a determination that the 
species should be removed from the List. Methods for monitoring 
recovery progress may also be included in recovery plans.
    The Act does not describe recovery in terms of the proportion of 
historical range that must be occupied by a species, nor does it ever 
allude to restoration throughout the entire historical range as a 
conservation purpose. In fact, the Act itself does not contain the 
phrase ``historical range.'' Thus, the Act does not require us to 
restore the gray wolf (or any other species) to all of its historical 
range or any specific percentage of currently suitable habitat. For 
some species, expansion of their distribution or abundance may be 
necessary to achieve recovery, but the amount of expansion is driven by 
a species' biological needs affecting viability (ability to sustain

[[Page 9657]]

populations in the wild over time) and sustainability, not by an 
arbitrary percent of a species' historical range or currently suitable 
habitat. Many other species may be recovered in portions of their 
historical range or currently suitable habitat by removing or 
addressing the threats to their continued existence. And some species 
may be recovered by a combination of range expansion and threats 
reduction. There is no uniform definition for recovery and how recovery 
must be achieved.
    As indicated in Previous Federal Actions, following our 1978 
reclassification, we drafted recovery plans and implemented recovery 
programs for gray wolves in three regions of the contiguous United 
States (table 1). Wolves in one of these regions--C. l. baileyi, in the 
southwestern United States and Mexico--were recently listed separately 
as an endangered subspecies and are not considered in this rule (see 
Approach for this Proposed Rule). Wolves in another of these regions--
the northern Rocky Mountains--have recovered and were delisted (table 
1). We discuss recovery of wolves in the third region--the eastern 
United States--as it relates to the status of the gray wolf entity, 
below. We did not develop a recovery plan for wolves in the U.S. west 
coast States because we did not identify this area as necessary to the 
recovery of the species following our 1978 reclassification. We have 
not since developed a recovery plan for these wolves because we 
determined in our 2013 status review that they are biologically part of 
(although outside the legal boundary of) an already recovered and 
delisted population (see National Wolf Strategy).

Recovery Criteria

    There are many paths to accomplish recovery of a species, and 
recovery may be achieved without all recovery criteria being fully met. 
We use recovery criteria in concert with evidence that threats have 
been minimized sufficiently and populations have achieved long-term 
viability to determine when a species can be reclassified from 
endangered to threatened or delisted. Recovery of a species is a 
dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, 
fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan. Recovery plans, 
including recovery criteria, are subject to change based upon new 
information and are revised accordingly and when practicable. In a 
similar sense, implementation of planned actions is subject to changing 
information and availability of resources. We have taken these 
considerations into account in the following discussion.
    The 1978 Recovery Plan (hereafter Recovery Plan) and the 1992 
Revised Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (hereafter Revised 
Recovery Plan) were developed to guide recovery of the eastern timber 
wolf subspecies. Those recovery plans contain the same two recovery 
criteria, which are meant to indicate when recovery of the eastern 
timber wolf throughout its historical range in the eastern United 
States has been achieved. The first recovery criterion states that the 
survival of the wolf in Minnesota must be assured. We, and the Eastern 
Timber Wolf Recovery Team (Peterson in litt. 1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b), 
have concluded that this recovery criterion remains valid. It addresses 
a need for reasonable assurances that future State, tribal, and Federal 
wolf management and protection will maintain a viable recovered 
population of wolves within the borders of Minnesota for the 
foreseeable future.
    Although the recovery criteria identified in the Recovery Plan 
predate identification of the conservation biology principles of 
representation (conserving the adaptive genetic diversity of a taxon), 
resiliency (ability to withstand demographic and environmental 
variation), and redundancy (sufficient populations to provide a margin 
of safety), those principles were incorporated into the recovery 
criteria. The Recovery Team insisted that the remnant Minnesota wolf 
population be maintained and protected to achieve wolf recovery in the 
eastern United States. Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf population is 
vital in terms of representation because these wolves include both 
western gray wolves and wolves that are admixtures of western gray 
wolves and eastern wolves. In other words, they contain the genetic 
components of both western gray wolves and eastern wolves. The 
successful growth of the remnant Minnesota population has maintained 
and maximized the representation of that genetic diversity among wolves 
in the Great Lakes area.
    Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf population is also vital in terms 
of resiliency. Although the Revised Recovery Plan did not establish a 
specific numerical criterion for the Minnesota wolf population, it did 
identify, for planning purposes only, a population goal of 1,251-1,400 
animals for that Minnesota population (USFWS 1992, p. 28). A population 
of this size not only increases the likelihood of maintaining its 
genetic diversity over the long term, but also reduces the adverse 
impacts of unpredictable demographic and environmental events. 
Furthermore, the Revised Recovery Plan recommends a wolf population 
that is spread across about 40 percent of Minnesota (Zones 1 through 4) 
(USFWS 1992, p. 28), adding a geographic component to the resiliency of 
the Minnesota wolf population.
    The second recovery criterion in the Recovery Plan states that at 
least one viable wolf population should be reestablished within the 
historical range of the eastern timber wolf outside of Minnesota and 
Isle Royale, Michigan (USFWS 1992, pp. 24-26). The reestablished 
population enhances both the resiliency and redundancy of the Great 
Lakes metapopulation.
    The Recovery Plan provides two options for reestablishing this 
second population. If it is an isolated population, that is, located 
more than 100 miles (mi) (160 kilometers (km)) from the Minnesota wolf 
population, the second population should consist of at least 200 wolves 
for at least 5 years, based upon late-winter population estimates, to 
be considered viable. Late-winter estimates are made at a time when 
most winter mortality has already occurred and before the birth of 
pups, thus, the count is made at the annual low point of the 
population. Alternatively, if the second population is located within 
100 mi (160 km) of a self-sustaining wolf population (for example, the 
Minnesota wolf population), it should be maintained at a minimum of 100 
wolves for at least 5 years, based on late-winter population estimates, 
to be considered viable. A nearby second population would be considered 
viable at a smaller size because it would be geographically close 
enough to exchange wolves with the Minnesota population (that is, they 
would function as a metapopulation), thereby bolstering the smaller 
second population both genetically and numerically.
    The original Recovery Plan did not specify where in the eastern 
United States the second population should be reestablished. Therefore, 
the second population could have been established anywhere within the 
triangular Minnesota-Maine-Florida area covered by the Recovery Plan 
and the Revised Recovery Plan, except on Isle Royale (Michigan) or 
within Minnesota. The Revised Recovery Plan identified potential gray 
wolf reestablishment areas in northern Wisconsin, the Upper Peninsula 
of Michigan, the Adirondack Forest Preserve of New York, a small area 
in eastern Maine, and a larger area of northwestern Maine and adjacent 
northern New Hampshire (USFWS

[[Page 9658]]

1992, pp. 56-58). Neither the 1978 nor the 1992 recovery criteria 
suggest that the establishment of gray wolves throughout all or most of 
what was thought to be its historical range in the eastern United 
States, or to all of the identified potential reestablishment areas, is 
necessary to achieve recovery under the Act.
    In 1998, the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team clarified the 
application of the recovery criterion for the second population to the 
wolf population that had developed in northern Wisconsin and the 
adjacent Upper Peninsula of Michigan. This second population is less 
than 100 mi (160 km) from the Minnesota wolf population. The Recovery 
Team recommended that the numerical recovery criterion for the 
Wisconsin-Michigan population be considered met when 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 first and last surveys (Peterson in litt. 1998).

Recovery Progress

    Wolves in the Great Lakes area greatly exceed the recovery criteria 
(USFWS 1992, pp. 24-26) for (1) a secure wolf population in Minnesota, 
and (2) a second population outside Minnesota and Isle Royale 
consisting of 100 wolves for 5 successive years. Based on the eight 
surveys conducted since 1998, the wolf population in Minnesota has 
exceeded 2,000 individuals over the past 20 years, and populations in 
Michigan and Wisconsin have exceeded 100 individuals every year since 
1996 (USFWS 2018, appendix 1). Based on the criteria set by the Eastern 
Wolf Recovery Team in 1992 and reaffirmed in 1997 and 1998 (Peterson in 
litt. 1997, in litt. 1998), this region contains sufficient wolf 
numbers and distribution to ensure the long-term survival of the gray 
wolf entity.
    The maintenance and expansion of the Minnesota wolf population has 
allowed for the preservation of the genetic diversity that remained in 
the Great Lakes area when its wolves were first protected in 1974. 
Furthermore, the Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population far exceeds the 
numerical recovery criterion even for a completely isolated second 
population. Therefore, even in the unlikely event that this two-State 
population were to become totally isolated and wolf immigration from 
Minnesota and Ontario completely ceased, it would still remain a viable 
wolf population for the foreseeable future, as defined by the Revised 
Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 25-26). Finally, each of the wolf 
populations in Wisconsin and Michigan has exceeded 200 animals for 
about 20 years, so if either were somehow to become isolated, they 
would remain viable, 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 Great Lakes area have been met.

Historical Context of Our Analysis

    When reviewing the current status of a species, it is important to 
understand and evaluate the effects of lost historical range on the 
viability of the species in its current range. In fact, when we 
consider the status of a species in its current range, we are 
considering whether, without the species' lost historical range, the 
species is endangered or threatened. Range reduction may result in: 
Reduced numbers of individuals and populations; changes in available 
resources (such as food) and, consequently, range carrying capacity; 
changes in demographic characteristics (survival, reproductive rate, 
metapopulation structure, etc.); and changes in genetic diversity and 
gene flow. These in turn can increase a species' vulnerability to a 
wide variety of threats, such as habitat loss, restricted gene flow, or 
having all or most of its populations affected by a catastrophic event 
such as a hurricane, fire, or disease outbreak. In other words, past 
range reduction can reduce the redundancy, resiliency, and 
representation of a species in its remaining range, such that a species 
may meet the definition of an ``endangered species'' or ``threatened 
species'' under the Act. Thus, loss of historical range is not 
necessarily determinative of a species' status, but must be considered 
in the context of all factors affecting a species. In addition to 
considering the effects that loss of historical range has had on the 
current and future viability of the species, we must also consider the 
causes of that loss of historical range. If the causes of the loss are 
still continuing, then that loss is also relevant as evidence of the 
effects of an ongoing threat.
    As indicated above, gray wolves historically occupied most of the 
range of the gray wolf entity (see Historical Range). The gray wolf 
range of the gray wolf entity began receding after the arrival of 
Europeans as a result of deliberate killing of wolves by humans and 
government funded bounty programs aimed at eradication (USFWS 2018, pp. 
7-11). Further, many historical habitats were converted into 
agricultural land (Paquet and Carbyn 2003, p. 483), and natural food 
sources such as deer and elk were reduced, eliminated, or replaced with 
domestic livestock, which can become anthropogenic food sources for 
gray wolves (Young 1944 in Fritts et al. 1997, p. 8). The resulting 
reduction in range and population were dramatic--by the 1970s gray 
wolves occupied only a small fraction of their historical range (figure 
2). Although the range of the gray wolf in the gray wolf entity has 
significantly expanded since 1978, its size and distribution remain 
below historical levels. Today, gray wolves within the gray wolf entity 
exist as a metapopulation spread across northern Minnesota, Michigan, 
and Wisconsin, and a small number of colonizing wolves in the west 
coast United States (USFWS 2018, pp. 22-23) (figure 2).
    The alterations to gray wolf historical numbers and populations 
within the gray wolf entity increased the vulnerability of the gray 
wolf entity to a wide variety of threats that would not be at issue 
without such massive range reduction. Some of these threats were 
identified in the 1978 reclassification (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978), 
including reduction in available food (prey) resources, and direct 
killing by humans. In addition to these considerations, in this 
proposed rule we also consider availability of suitable habitat, 
disease and parasites, and climate change. We analyze these potential 
threats to the gray wolf entity below under Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species.
    While range reduction may also result in changes in genetic 
diversity and gene flow, or cause changes in population demographics, 
we do not address genetic diversity or demographics of the gray wolf 
entity below because we are not aware of any information indicating 
that these are potential threats to wolves in the gray wolf entity. 
Wolves in the entity appear to be genetically and demographically 
healthy. Not only do they include wolves of differing and mixed genetic 
origin, but they exist as part of larger metapopulations--adverse 
effects resulting from genetic drift, demographic shifts, and local 
environmental fluctuations can be countered by influxes of individuals 
and their genetic diversity from other subpopulations of the 
metapopulation.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding 
species to, reclassifying species on, or removing species from the 
Federal List of Endangered and

[[Page 9659]]

Threatened Wildlife (List). We may determine a species 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; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be 
warranted based on any of these five factors, singly or in combination. 
We must consider these same five factors in reclassifications of 
species (changing the status from threatened to endangered or vice 
versa), and removing a species from the List (delisting) because it is 
no longer endangered or threatened (50 CFR 424.11(c), (d)). For species 
that are already listed as endangered or threatened, this analysis of 
threats is an evaluation of threats that existed at the time of 
listing, threats currently facing the species, and the threats that are 
reasonably likely to affect the species in the foreseeable future, and 
the impact of the removal or reduction of the Act's protections 
following a delisting or downlisting (i.e., reclassification from 
endangered to threatened).
    For the purposes of this proposed rule, we define the ``foreseeable 
future'' to be the extent to which, given the amount and substance of 
available data, we can anticipate events or effects, or reliably 
extrapolate threat trends that relate to the status of the gray wolf 
entity. 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 within the gray wolf entity. The length of time over 
which this shift occurred, and the ensuing stability in those 
attitudes, gives us confidence that this social climate will persist. 
Also, the Great Lakes States, which contain the vast majority of wolves 
within the gray wolf entity, have had a solid history of cooperating 
with and assisting in wolf recovery and have made a commitment, through 
legislative actions, to continue these activities. Washington, Oregon, 
and California are also committed to conserving wolves as demonstrated 
by development of management plans and laws and regulations that 
protect wolves. We are not aware of any information indicating that the 
commitment of the Great Lakes States and west coast States to gray wolf 
conservation will change and conclude that this commitment will 
continue. When evaluating the available information, with respect to 
foreseeable future, we take into account reduced confidence as we 
forecast further into the future. Finally, we note that there is a 
proposed revision to 50 CFR part 424 that creates a regulatory 
framework for the phrase ``foreseeable future.'' This proposal is not a 
departure from how we have implemented the phrase, but rather is meant 
to codify the framework we have been implementing. Thus, while we are 
not bound to the proposed revised regulations because they are not 
final, our interpretation of ``foreseeable future'' in this rule is 
consistent with them.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor to evaluate 
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes 
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the 
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat, and during the 
status review, we attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. 
The threat is significant if it drives or contributes to the risk of 
extinction of the species, such that the species warrants listing as 
endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the Act. 
However, the mere identification of factors that could affect a species 
negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the species 
warrants listing. The information must include evidence sufficient to 
suggest that the potential threat is likely to materialize and that it 
has the capacity (i.e., it should be of sufficient magnitude and 
extent) to affect the species' status such that it meets the definition 
of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.
    Gray wolves that occur in the gray wolf entity are currently listed 
as endangered under the Act, except those wolves in Minnesota, which 
are listed as threatened. In this analysis we evaluate threat factors 
currently facing the gray wolf entity and those that are reasonably 
likely to have a negative effect on the viability of wolf populations 
in the gray wolf entity if the protections of the Act were not in 
place. Our analysis of threat factors below does not consider the 
potential for effects to C. lupus in areas where the species has been 
extirpated--rather, effects are considered in the context of the 
present population. As explained in our significant portion of the 
range (SPR) final policy (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014), we take into 
account the effect lost historical range may have on the current and 
future viability of a species in the range it currently occupies, and 
also whether the causes of that loss are evidence of ongoing or future 
threats to the species. We do this through our analysis of factors 
affecting the species. A species' current condition reflects the 
effects of historical range loss and, because threat factors are 
evaluated in the context of the species' current condition, historical 
range contraction may affect the outcome of our analysis.
    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we have identified several factors that could potentially 
be significant threats to the gray wolf entity. We summarize our 
analysis of these factors, and factors identified at the time of 
listing, below. We considered and evaluated the best available 
scientific and commercial data for our analyses.

Human-Caused Mortality

    Human-caused mortality was identified as the main factor causing 
the decline of gray wolves at the time of listing (43 FR 9611, March 9, 
1978), and an active eradication program is the sole reason that wolves 
were extirpated from their historical range in the United States 
(Weaver 1978, p. i). European settlers attempted to eliminate the wolf 
entirely, primarily due to the threat or reality of attacks on 
livestock, and the U.S. Congress passed a wolf bounty that covered the 
Northwest Territories in 1817. Bounties on wolves subsequently became 
the norm for States across the species' range. For example, 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. As the first provisional governments in the 
Pacific Northwest region were formed, they too enacted wolf bounties 
(Hampton 1997, pp. 107-108).
    Protection of the gray wolf under the Act and State endangered-
species statutes prohibited the intentional 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. Aside from the reintroduction of wolves into portions of the 
northern Rocky Mountains, the regulation of human-caused wolf mortality 
is the primary reason wolf numbers have significantly increased and 
their range has expanded since the mid-to-late 1970s.

[[Page 9660]]

    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. Nonetheless, these figures provide 
clear support for the contention that human-caused mortality decreased 
significantly once the wolf became protected under the Act.
    Humans kill wolves for a number of reasons. In locations where 
people, livestock, and wolves coexist, some wolves are killed to 
resolve conflicts with livestock and pets (Fritts et al. 2003, p. 310; 
Woodroffe et al. 2005, pp. 86-107, 345-347). Occasionally, wolves are 
killed accidentally (e.g., wolves are hit by vehicles, mistaken for 
coyotes and shot, caught in traps set for other animals, or subject to 
accidental capture-related mortality during conservation or research 
efforts) (Bangs et al. 2005, p. 346). A few wolves have been killed by 
people who stated that they believed their physical safety was being 
threatened. Many wolf killings, however, are intentional, illegal, and 
never reported to authorities.
    The number of illegal killings is difficult to estimate and 
impossible to accurately determine because they generally occur with 
few witnesses. Illegal killing was estimated to make up 70 percent of 
the total mortality rate in a north-central Minnesota wolf population 
and 24 percent in the northern Rocky Mountains population (Liberg et 
al. 2011, pp. 3-5). Liberg et al. (2011, pp. 3-5) suggest more than 
two-thirds of total poaching may go undetected, and that illegal 
killing may pose a threat to wolves; however, poaching has not 
prevented population resurgence in either the Great Lakes area or the 
northern Rocky Mountains, as evidenced by population growth in those 
areas.
    Vehicle collisions contribute to wolf mortality rates throughout 
their range in the lower 48 United States. This type of mortality is 
expected to rise with increasing wolf populations and as wolves 
colonize areas with more human development and a denser network of 
roads and vehicle traffic; however, mortalities due to vehicle 
collisions will likely constitute a small proportion of total 
mortalities.
    Each of the States in the current range of gray wolves in the 
contiguous United States conduct scientific research and monitoring of 
wolf populations. Even the most intensive and disruptive of these 
activities (anesthetizing for the purpose of radio-collaring) involves 
a very low rate of mortality for wolves (73 FR 10542, February 27, 
2008). We expect that capture-related mortality during wolf monitoring, 
nonlethal control, and research activities will remain below three 
percent of the wolves captured, and will have an insignificant impact 
on population dynamics.
    We are unaware of any wolves that have been removed from the wild 
solely for educational purposes in recent years. Wolves that are used 
for such purposes are typically privately held captive-reared offspring 
of wolves that were already in captivity for other reasons. However, 
States may get requests to place wolves that would otherwise be 
euthanized in captivity for research or educational purposes. Such 
requests have been and will continue to be rare, would be closely 
regulated by the State wildlife-management agencies through the 
requirement for State permits for protected species, and would not 
substantially increase human-caused wolf mortality rates.
    Other sources of human-caused mortality include intentional and 
legal actions, such as lethal depredation control and killing wolves in 
defense of human life or property. Although most wolf-human conflicts 
are solved using nonlethal methods, in a few instances lethal control 
is warranted to control a wolf to protect human life and property. The 
number of wolves killed for this purpose is small. For example, from 
2004 to 2014, State or Federal agents killed 26 wolves for these 
purposes in the State of Michigan (an average of around 0.5 percent of 
the population each year) (Roell et al. 2010, p. 9; Beyer in litt. 
2018). In the western States, since the first pack was confirmed in 
Washington in 2008, one wolf has been killed by a private individual 
who claimed self-defense. Although the number of wolves killed in 
defense of human life and property may be slightly higher in areas with 
greater human density and may increase after delisting as authority for 
this action expands (see Post-delisting Management), overall this type 
of mortality is rare and is not expected to have a significant impact 
on wolf populations.
    Lethal control of depredating wolves was authorized in Minnesota 
while wolves have been listed (under the authority of a regulation (50 
CFR 17.40(d)) under section 4(d) of the Act), but such control was not 
authorized in Michigan or Wisconsin, except for the several years when 
such control was authorized under a permit from the USFWS or while 
wolves were delisted under previous actions. Lethal control of 
depredating wolves is not authorized in the listed portion of Oregon, 
Washington, or in California. The Minnesota wolf-depredation-control 
program euthanized from 20 (in 1982) to 262 (in 2015) wolves annually, 
and averaged between 2.2 to 7.6 percent of the wolf population 
annually. During the times wolves were listed and depredation control 
was the primary means of management in the State, the Minnesota wolf 
population continued to grow or remain stable while experiencing these 
levels of lethal control. During the times that lethal control of 
depredating wolves was conducted in Wisconsin and Michigan, there was 
no evidence of resulting adverse impacts to the maintenance of a viable 
wolf population in those States. In Wisconsin, a total of 256 wolves 
were killed for depredation control in the State, including 46 legally 
shot by private landowners, during the 59 months that wolves were 
delisted in the State. A total of 50 wolves were killed by the Michigan 
Department of Natural Resources (MI DNR) and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS), 
Wildlife Services in response to depredation events during that time 
period. Following delisting, wolf depredation control in Wisconsin and 
Michigan would again occur, and be carried out according to their State 
management plans. We anticipate the level of mortality due to 
depredation control that would take place would be similar to what was 
observed during those times. See the Post-delisting Management section 
for a more detailed discussion of legal control of problem wolves 
(primarily for depredation control).
    Regulated public harvest is another form of human-caused mortality 
that has occurred in the Great Lakes area during periods when wolves 
were delisted and will likely occur in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 
Michigan if wolves are delisted again. Using an adaptive-management 
approach that adjusts harvest based on population estimates and trends, 
the initial objectives of States may be to lower wolf

[[Page 9661]]

populations then manage for sustainable populations, similar to how 
States manage all other game species. See the Post-delisting Management 
section for a more detailed discussion of legal harvest.
    Regulation of human-caused mortality has significantly reduced the 
number of wolf mortalities caused by humans, and although illegal and 
accidental killing of wolves is likely to continue with or without the 
protections of the Act, at current levels those mortalities have had 
little impact on wolf populations. Legal human-caused mortality, 
primarily in the form of lethal depredation control and regulated 
harvest, will increase if wolves are delisted, as these are the primary 
human-caused mortality factors that State agencies can manipulate to 
achieve management objectives. However, the high reproductive potential 
of wolves and the innate behavior of wolves to disperse and locate 
social openings allows wolf populations to withstand relatively high 
rates of human-caused mortality.
    We note that the principle of compensatory mortality was previously 
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. Creel and Rotella (2010) reexamined this 
concept with regard to wolves and found that, contrary to the 
previously held belief, wolf population growth declined as human-caused 
mortality increased (Creel and Rotella 2010, p. 3). Their study 
concludes that wolves can be harvested within limits, but that human-
caused mortality was strongly additive in total mortality (Creel and 
Rotella 2010, p. 6).
    The wolf population in the northern Rocky Mountains States of 
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming provides a good example of the effects of 
increased human-caused mortality on population growth rates. From 1995 
to 2008, wolf populations increased an average of 23 percent annually 
(range: 9 percent to 50 percent; USFWS et al. 2016, table 6b), while 
from 1999 to 2008, human-caused mortality removed an average of 
approximately 12 percent of the minimum estimated population each year 
(range: 7 percent to 16 percent; see USFWS et al. 2000-2009). Between 
2009 and 2015, some or all of the northern Rocky Mountains States 
(dependent upon the Federal status of wolves) instituted fair-chase 
wolf hunting seasons with the objective of slowing or reversing 
population growth while continuing to maintain wolf populations well 
above federal recovery requirements in their respective States. During 
those years when legal harvest occurred, human-caused mortality 
increased to an average of 29 percent of the minimum estimated 
population (range: 23 percent to 36 percent; see USFWS et al. 2010, 
2012-2016), while the annual growth rate declined to an average of 
approximately 1 percent annually (range: -7 percent to 4 percent; see 
USFWS et al. 2010, 2012-2016). Where harvest occurs, the species' high 
levels of reproduction and immigration can compensate for mortality 
rates of 17 percent to 48 percent (USFWS 2018, p. 6). Thus, although 
2009 to 2015 is a relatively short time period from which to draw 
inferences, the population trends observed in the Northern Rocky 
Mountains suggest that the northern Rocky Mountains wolf population may 
be able to sustain an approximate 30 percent annual human-caused 
mortality rate while continuing to maintain a stable to slightly 
increasing population.
    The States of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin have committed to 
continue to regulate human-caused mortality so that it does not reduce 
the wolf population below recovery level and have adequate laws and 
regulations to fulfill those commitments and ensure that the wolf 
population in the Great Lakes area remains above recovery levels (See 
Post-delisting Management). Washington, Oregon, and California are also 
committed to conserving wolves as demonstrated by development of 
management plans and laws and regulations that protect wolves. 
Furthermore, each post-delisting management entity (State, Tribal, and 
Federal) has experienced and professional wildlife staff to ensure 
those commitments can be accomplished.
Effects on Wolf Social Structure
    Human-caused mortality of reproductive gray wolves could negatively 
affect gray wolf populations because wolves have a complex social 
system in which usually only the dominant male and female in a pack 
breed. Consequently, the death of one or both of the breeders may 
negatively affect the pack (by leading to pack dissolution) and the 
population as a whole (by slowing or reducing population growth). 
However, studies indicate these effects are context-dependent and that 
the availability of replacement breeders and timing of mortality can 
moderate the consequences of breeder loss (Borg et al. 2014, entire; 
Brainerd et al. 2008, entire). In populations that are at or near 
carrying capacity, where breeder replacement and subsequent 
reproduction occurs relatively quickly, population growth rate is 
largely unaffected by breeder loss (Borg et al. 2014, pp. 6-7). Large 
colonizing populations (> 75 wolves) have similar times to breeder 
replacement and subsequent reproduction as populations at or near 
carrying capacity, while small recolonizing populations (<=75 wolves) 
take about twice as long to replace breeders and subsequently reproduce 
(Brainerd et al. 2008, pp. 89, 93). Therefore, the effects of breeder 
loss may be greatest on small recolonizing gray wolf populations. 
Studies also indicate that mortality of breeding gray wolves is more 
likely to lead to pack dissolution and reduced reproduction when 
mortality occurs during the breeding season (Borg et al. 2014, p. 8) 
and when pack sizes are small (Borg et al. 2014, pp. 5-6; Brainerd et 
al. 2008, p. 94).
    Gray wolf pack social structure is very adaptable and resilient. 
Breeding members can be quickly replaced from either within or outside 
the pack, and pups can be reared by another pack member should their 
parents die (USFWS 2018, p. 6). Consequently, wolf populations can 
rapidly overcome severe disruptions, such as pervasive human-caused 
mortality or disease. Although we acknowledge that breeder loss can and 
will occur in the future regardless of Federal status, we conclude that 
the effects of breeder loss on wolf populations (or the gray wolf 
entity) as a whole are likely to be minimal as long as adequate 
regulatory mechanisms are in place to ensure sufficient population size 
is maintained.
The Role of Public Attitudes
    In our 1978 rule reclassifying wolves, we indicated that 
regulations prohibiting the killing of wolves, even wolves that may be 
attacking livestock and pets, such as the Federal regulations in place 
at that time in Minnesota, may work against gray wolves by creating an 
adverse public attitude toward the species. We acknowledge that public 
attitudes towards wolves vary with demographics, change over time, and 
can affect human behavior toward wolves, including poaching (illegal 
killing) of wolves (see the following studies and reviews: Kellert 
1985, 1990, 1999; Nelson and Franson 1988; Kellert et al. 1996; Wilson 
1999; Browne-Nu[ntilde]ez and Taylor 2002; Williams et al. 2002; 
Manfredo et al. 2003; Naughton-Treves et al. 2003; Schanning 2009; 
Mertig 2004; Chavez et al. 2005; Schanning and Vazquez 2005; Beyer et 
al. 2006; Hammill 2007; Treves et al. 2009; Wilson and Bruskotter 2009; 
Treves and Martin 2011; Treves et al. 2013; Madden and McQuinn 2014). 
However, the factors that affect people's attitudes and

[[Page 9662]]

behaviors toward wolves are not well understood (Treves and Bruskotter 
2014, entire; Treves et al. 2013, p. 316 and references therein; also 
see Olson et al. 2014, entire and Chapron and Treves 2016, entire). 
Thus, it is unclear how delisting and the changes in wolf management 
subsequent to delisting, such as implementation of wolf harvests, may 
affect attitudes, human behavior and, ultimately, wolf mortality.
    We expect that some segments of the public will be more tolerant of 
wolf management at the State level because it may be perceived by some 
as more flexible than Federal regulation, whereas other segments may 
continue to prefer Federal management due to a perception that it is 
more protective. State wildlife agencies have professional staff 
dedicated to disseminating accurate, science-based information about 
wolves and wolf management within their respective States. In addition, 
several States have convened advisory committees to engage stakeholders 
in discussing and addressing conflicts related to wolves (for example, 
Washington (https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/wag/) and Wisconsin 
(https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/committee.html)). As the 
status and management of the gray wolf evolves, continued collaboration 
between managers and researchers to monitor public attitudes toward 
wolves and their management will be necessary.
Human-Caused Mortality Summary
    Despite human-caused mortalities of wolves, wolf populations have 
continued to increase in both numbers and range. Wolf population growth 
will likely slow as densities increase in suitable habitat. Wolves are 
less likely to persist in more unfavorable habitats due to depredation 
management, illegal killing, incidental mortality (for example, vehicle 
collision), natural mortality (disease, starvation, and intraspecific 
aggression), and other means. Once wolf populations become established, 
we should expect to see populations fluctuate around an equilibrium 
resulting from fluctuations in birth and mortality rates.
    Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan will utilize adaptive management 
to respond to wolf population increases or decreases to maintain 
populations at sustainable levels well above management objectives. 
State management plans in these three states that would be implemented 
following delisting manage for a minimum wolf population of 1,600 in 
Minnesota, 250 in Wisconsin (with a management goal of 350), and 200 in 
Michigan. These minimum population numbers are well above Federal 
recovery requirements defined in the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan. 
As wolf population numbers are currently much higher in each of these 
three States, we can expect to see some reduction in wolf populations 
in the Great Lakes areas if they are delisted as States implement 
lethal depredation control and begin to institute wolf hunting seasons 
with the objective of slowing or reversing population growth. However, 
the ultimate goal of these three States is to maintain wolf populations 
well above Federal recovery requirements in their respective States.
    The 2010 State management plan for Oregon and the 2016 plan for 
California do not include population-management goals (Oregon 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 2010, p. 27; California 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2016a, p. 12); however, this is 
likely to be addressed in the forthcoming Oregon plan revision as the 
draft plan revision currently suggests that 300 wolves are the 
``minimum population management threshold'' for the State (ODFW 2017, 
p. 17). While the 2011 Washington State management plan does not 
include population-management goals, it includes recovery objectives 
intended to ensure the reestablishment of a self-sustaining population 
of wolves in Washington (Wiles et al. 2011, p. 9; also see Post-
delisting Management in the West). In these States, wolf populations 
will likely be managed to ensure progress towards recovery objectives 
while also minimizing livestock losses caused by wolves.

Habitat and Prey Availability

    Gray wolves are habitat generalists (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 163) 
and once occupied or transited most of the United States, except the 
southeast. However, much of the historical range of gray wolves 
(Chambers et al. 2012, pp. 34-42) in the contiguous United States has 
been modified due to human use. While lone wolves can travel through, 
or temporarily live, almost anywhere (Jimenez et al. 2017, p. 1), large 
portions of gray wolf historical range is no longer suitable habitat to 
support wolf packs (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559; Carroll et al. 2006, 
p. 32, Mladenoff et al. 1995, p. 287). Much of the area that wolves 
currently occupy corresponds to what is considered ``suitable'' wolf 
habitat in the lower 48 States as modeled by Oakleaf et al. (2006, 
entire), Carroll et al. (2006, entire), Mladenoff (1995, entire), and 
Mladenoff et al. (1999, entire). It is also expected that wolves will 
continue to recolonize areas of the Pacific Northwest where suitable 
habitat has been identified (Maletzke et al. 2015, entire; ODFW 2015, 
entire). We consider suitable habitat as forested terrain containing 
adequate wild ungulate populations (elk, white-tailed deer, and mule 
deer) to support a wolf population. Suitable habitat has minimal roads 
and human development, as human access to areas inhabited by wolves can 
result in wolf mortality.
Great Lakes Area: Suitable Habitat
    Various researchers have investigated habitat suitability for 
wolves in the central and eastern portions of the United States. Most 
of these efforts have focused on using a combination of human density, 
density of agricultural lands, deer density or deer biomass, and road 
density, or have used road density alone to identify areas where wolf 
populations are likely to persist or become established (Mladenoff et 
al. 1995, pp. 284-285; 1997, pp. 23-27; 1998, pp. 1-8, 1999; pp. 39-43; 
Harrison and Chapin 1997, p. 3; 1998, pp. 769-770; Wydeven et al. 2001, 
pp. 110-113; Erb and Benson 2004, p. 2; Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 1661-
1668; Mladenoff et al. 2009, pp. 132-135).
    To a large extent, road density has been adopted as the best 
predictor of habitat suitability in the Midwest due to the connection 
between roads and human-caused wolf mortality. Several studies 
demonstrated that wolves generally did not maintain breeding packs in 
areas with a road density greater than about 0.9 to 1.1 linear mi per 
mi\2\ (0.6 to 0.7 km per km\2\) (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 mi\2\ (0.45 km per km\2\) (Mladenoff et al. 1995, p. 289). 
However, research in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan indicates that, in 
some areas with low road densities, low deer density appears to limit 
wolf occupancy (Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 1667-1668) and may prevent 
recolonization of portions of the Upper Peninsula. In Minnesota, a 
combination of road density and human density is used by Minnesota 
Department of Resources (MN DNR) to model suitable habitat. Areas with 
a human density up to 20 people per mi\2\ (8 people per km\2\) are 
suitable if they also have a road density less than 0.8 mi per mi\2\ 
(0.5 km per km\2\). Areas with a human density of less than 10 people 
per mi\2\ (4 people per km\2\) are suitable if they have road

[[Page 9663]]

densities up to 1.1 mi per mi\2\ (0.7 km per km\2\) (Erb and Benson 
2004, table 1).
    Road density is a useful parameter because it is easily measured 
and mapped, and because it correlates directly and indirectly with 
various forms of other human-caused wolf mortality 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, pp. 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 mi\2\ (0.84 km per km\2\), but human-
related factors produced 71 percent of the wolf deaths in areas with 
higher road densities (Wydeven et al. 2001, pp. 112-113).
    Some researchers have used a road density of 1 mi per mi\2\ (0.6 km 
per km\2\) 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 mi\2\ (0.45 
km per km\2\) 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 mi\2\ (0.6 km per km\2\) 
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 as ``primary wolf habitat,'' areas with 10 to 50 
percent probability as ``secondary wolf habitat,'' and areas with less 
than 10 percent probability as unsuitable habitat (Wisconsin Department 
of Natural Resources (WI DNR) 1999, pp. 47-48).
    The territories of packs that do occur in areas of high road 
density, and hence with low expected probabilities of occupancy, are 
generally near 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 areas and, therefore, less-suitable 
areas (Mech 1989, pp. 387-388; Wydeven et al. 2001, p. 112). The 
predictive ability of this model was questioned (Mech 2006a, 2006b) and 
responded to (Mladenoff et al. 2006), and an updated analysis of 
Wisconsin pack locations and habitat was completed (Mladenoff et al. 
2009). This model maintains that road density is still an important 
indicator of suitable wolf habitat; however, lack of agricultural land 
is also a strong predictor of habitat that wolves occupy.
    It appears that essentially all suitable habitat in Minnesota is 
now occupied, range expansion has slowed or possibly ceased, and the 
wolf population within the State has stabilized (Erb and Benson 2004, 
p. 7; Erb and Don Carlos 2009, pp. 57, 60). This suitable habitat 
closely matches the areas designated as Wolf Management Zones 1 through 
4 in the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, p. 72), which are identical 
in area to Minnesota Wolf Management Zone A (MN DNR 2001, appendix 
III).
    Recent surveys for Wisconsin wolves and wolf packs show that wolves 
have now recolonized the areas predicted by habitat models to have low, 
moderate, and high probability of occupancy (primary and secondary wolf 
habitat). The late-winter 2017-18 Wisconsin wolf survey identified 
packs occurring throughout the central Wisconsin forest area (Wolf 
Management Zone 2) and across the northern forest zone (Zone 1), with 
highest pack densities in the northwest and north-central forest (WI 
DNR 2018, entire).
    Michigan wolf surveys in winter 2017-18 continue to show wolf pairs 
or packs (defined by Michigan DNR as two or more wolves traveling 
together) in every Upper Peninsula county (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 
6; MI DNR 2018, entire).
    Habitat suitability studies in the Upper Midwest indicate that the 
only large areas of suitable or potentially suitable habitat areas that 
are currently unoccupied by wolves are located in the northern Lower 
Peninsula of Michigan (Mladenoff et al. 1997, p. 23; Mladenoff et al. 
1999, p. 39; Potvin 2003, pp. 44-45; Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1239). 
One published Michigan study (Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1239) 
estimates that these areas could host 46 to 89 wolves; a graduate 
thesis estimates that 110-480 wolves could exist in the northern Lower 
Peninsula (Potvin 2003, p. 39). The northern Lower Peninsula is 
separated from the Upper Peninsula by the Straits of Mackinac, whose 4-
mile (6.4-km) width freezes during mid- and late-winter in some years. 
In recent years there have been several documented occurrences of 
wolves in the northern Lower Peninsula, but there has been no 
indication of persistence beyond several months. Prior to those 
occurrences, the last recorded wolf in the Lower Peninsula was in 1910.
    These northern Lower Peninsula patches of potentially suitable 
habitat contain a great deal of private land, are small in comparison 
to the occupied habitat on the Upper Peninsula and in Minnesota and 
Wisconsin, and are intermixed with agricultural and higher-road-density 
areas (Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1240). Therefore, continuing wolf 
immigration from the Upper Peninsula may be necessary to maintain a 
future northern Lower Peninsula population. The Gehring and Potter 
study (2005, p. 1239) predicted 850 mi\2\ (2,198 km\2\) of suitable 
habitat (areas with greater than a 50 percent probability of wolf 
occupancy) in the northern Lower Peninsula. Potvin (2003, p. 21), using 
deer density in addition to road density, believes there are about 
3,090 mi\2\ (8,000 km\2\) of suitable habitat in the northern Lower 
Peninsula. Gehring and Potter (2005, p. 1239) exclude from their 
calculations those northern Lower Peninsula low-road-density patches 
that are less than 19 mi\2\ (50 km\2\), while Potvin (2003, pp. 10-15) 
does not limit habitat patch size in his calculations. Both of these 
area estimates are well below the minimum area described in the Revised 
Recovery Plan, which states that 10,000 mi\2\ (25,600 km\2\) of 
contiguous suitable habitat is needed for a viable isolated gray wolf 
population, and half that area (5,000 mi\2\ or 12,800 km\2\) 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 
Revised Recovery Plan, the Service has concluded that suitable habitat 
for wolves in the western Great Lakes area can be determined by 
considering four factors: road density, human density, prey base, and 
area. An adequate prey base is an absolute requirement, but in much of 
the western Great Lakes area 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 Upper Peninsula 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

[[Page 9664]]

are highly correlated; therefore, road density is often used as a 
predictor of habitat suitability. However, areas with higher road 
density may still be suitable if the human density is very low, so a 
consideration of both factors is sometimes useful (Erb and Benson 2004, 
p. 2). Finally, although the territory of individual wolf packs can be 
relatively small, packs are not likely to establish territories in 
areas of small, isolated patches of suitable habitat.
Great Lakes Area: Prey Availability
    Deer (prey) decline, due to succession of habitat and severe winter 
weather, was identified as a threat at the time of listing. Wolf 
density is heavily dependent on prey availability (for example, 
expressed as ungulate biomass, Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 170-171), and 
prey availability is high in the Great Lakes area. Conservation of 
primary wolf prey in the Great Lakes area, white-tailed deer and moose, 
is a high priority for State conservation agencies. As MN 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 regulating the 
human harvest of deer and moose, MN DNR also plans to continue to 
monitor and improve habitat for these species.
    Land management activities carried out by other public agencies and 
by private 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. 
Approximately one-half of the Minnesota deer harvest is in the Forest 
Zone, which encompasses most of the occupied wolf range in the State 
(Cornicelli 2008, pp. 208-209). There is no indication that harvest of 
deer and moose or management of their habitat will significantly 
depress abundance of these species in Minnesota's primary wolf range.
    In Wisconsin, the statewide post-hunt white-tailed deer population 
estimate for 2017 was approximately 1,377,100 deer (Stenglein 2017, p. 
1). In the Northern Forest Zone of the State, the post-hunt population 
estimate has ranged from approximately 250,000 deer to more than 
400,000 deer since 2002. The 2017 post-hunt deer population estimate in 
that zone was nearly as high as it was in 2002. Three consecutive mild 
winters and limited antlerless harvest may explain the population 
growth in the northern deer herd in 2017. The Central Forest Zone post-
hunt population estimates have been largely stable since 2009 at 
60,000-80,000 deer on average. The Central Farmland Zone deer 
population has increased since 2008, and the 2017 post-hunt deer 
population estimate was similar to the estimate in 2016. For a third 
year in a row, the 2017 post-hunt deer population estimate in the 
Southern Farmland Zone exceeded 250,000 deer (Stenglein 2017, pp. 2, 
7).
    Because of severe winter conditions (persistent, deep snow) in the 
Upper Peninsula, deer populations can fluctuate dramatically from year 
to year. In 2016, the MI DNR finalized a new deer-management plan to 
address ecological, social, and regulatory shifts. An objective of this 
plan is to manage deer at the appropriate scale, considering impacts of 
deer on the landscape and on other species, in addition to population 
size (MI DNR 2016, p. 16). Additionally, the Michigan wolf-management 
plan addresses maintaining a sustainable population of wolf prey (MI 
DNR 2015, pp. 29-31). Short of a major, and unlikely, shift in deer-
management and harvest strategies, there will be no shortage of prey 
for Wisconsin and Michigan wolves for the foreseeable future.
West Coast States: Suitable Habitat
    In Washington, wolves are expected to persist in habitats with 
similar characteristics to those identified by Oakleaf et al. (2006) 
(Wiles et al. 2011, p. 50) and as described above. Several modeling 
studies have estimated potentially suitable wolf habitat in Washington 
with most predicting suitable habitat in northeastern Washington, the 
Blue Mountains, the Cascade Mountains, and the Olympic Peninsula. Total 
area estimates in these studies range from approximately 16,900 mi\2\ 
(43,770 km\2\) to 41,500 mi\2\ (107,485 km\2\) (Wiles et al. 2011, pp. 
51, 53; Maletzke et al. 2015). The Cascade Mountains and Olympic 
Peninsula are both located within the boundary of the gray wolf listed 
entities. Current wolf-pack habitat use in Washington based on the mean 
home ranges of 11 packs with known territories is approximately 359 
mi\2\ (930 km\2\), ranging from an estimated 121 mi\2\ (314 km\2\) to 
1,164 mi\2\ (3,015 km\2\) (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 
(WDFW) et al. 2017, p. WA-6). (While 22 packs are known to occur in 
Washington, sufficient data is not available to estimate home ranges of 
the other 11.)
    The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) developed a map 
of ``potential wolf range'' as part of its recent status review of 
wolves in Oregon (ODFW 2015, entire). The model used predictors of wolf 
habitat including land-cover type, elk range, human population density, 
road density, and land types altered by humans; they chose to exclude 
land ownership because wolves will use forested cover on both public 
and private lands (ODFW 2015, p. 2). Approximately 41,256 mi\2\ 
(106,853 km\2\) were identified as potential wolf range in Oregon. The 
resulting map coincides well with the current distribution of wolves in 
Oregon. The ODFW estimates that wolves occupy 31.6 percent of the 
potential wolf range in the east management zone (the majority of 
wolves here are under State management) and 2.7 percent of potential 
wolf range in the western management zone (all wolves here are under 
Federal management) (ODFW 2015, p. 9).
    Habitat models developed for the northern Rocky Mountains (e.g., 
Oakleaf et al. 2006; Larson and Ripple 2006; Carroll et al. 2006) may 
have limited applicability to California due to differences in 
geography, distribution of habitat types, distribution and abundance of 
prey, potential restrictions for movement, and human habitation (CDFW 
2016b, pp. 154, 156). Despite these challenges, CDFW used these models 
to suggest that wolves are most likely to occupy three general areas: 
(1) The Klamath Mountains and portions of the northern California Coast 
Ranges; (2) the southern Cascades, the Modoc Plateau, and Warner 
Mountains; and (3) the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range (CDFW 2016b, p. 
20). These areas were identified as having a higher potential for wolf 
occupancy based on prey abundance, amount of public land ownership, and 
forest cover, whereas other areas were less suitable due to human 
influences (CDFW 2016b, p. 156). As wolves continue to expand into 
California, models may be refined to better estimate habitat 
suitability and the potential for wolf occupancy.
West Coast States: Prey Availability
    The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife recently conducted a 
Wildlife Program 2015-2017 Ungulate Assessment to identify ungulate 
populations that are below management objectives or may be negatively 
affected by predators (WDFW 2016, entire). The

[[Page 9665]]

assessment covers white-tailed deer, mule deer, black-tailed deer, 
Rocky Mountain elk, Roosevelt elk, bighorn sheep, and moose (WDFW 2016, 
p. 12). Washington defines an at-risk ungulate population as one that 
falls 25 percent below its population objective for two consecutive 
years and/or one in which the harvest decreases by 25 percent below the 
10-year-average harvest rate for two consecutive years (WDFW 2016, p. 
13). Based on available information, the 2016 report concludes that no 
ungulate populations in Washington were considered to be at-risk (WDFW 
2016, p. 13).
    In Oregon, 20 percent of Roosevelt elk populations are below 
management objectives; however, the populations are generally stable 
within the listed gray wolf entity in western Oregon (ODFW 2017, p. 
60). Rocky Mountain elk are above management objectives in 63 percent 
of populations and are considered to be stable or increasing across the 
State (ODFW 2017, p. 60). Mule deer and black-tailed deer populations 
peaked in the mid-1900s and have since declined, likely due to human 
development, changes in land use, predation, and disease (ODFW 2017, p. 
61). White-tailed deer populations, including Columbia white-tailed 
deer, are small, but are increasing in distribution and abundance (ODFW 
2017, p. 64). Deer are a secondary prey item when elk are present; 
areas that lack elk are only likely to support a low density of wolves 
(ODFW 2017, p. 56).
    In California, declines of historical ungulate populations were the 
result of overexploitation by humans dating back to the 19th century 
(CDFW 2016b, p. 147). However, elk distribution and abundance have 
increased due to implementation of harvest regulations, reintroduction 
efforts, and natural expansion (CDFW 2016b, p. 147). Mule deer also 
experienced overexploitation, but were also more likely subject to 
fluctuations in habitat suitability as a result of logging, burning, 
and grazing. Across the West, including California, mule deer 
populations have been declining since the late 1960s due to multiple 
factors including loss of habitat, drought, predation, and competition 
with livestock, but, as noted above, deer are a secondary prey when elk 
are present (CDFW 2016b, p. 147).
Habitat and Prey Availability Summary
    Sufficient suitable habitat exists for the gray wolf entity to 
continue to support wolves into the future. Wolf populations should 
remain strong in these areas with management activities that focus on 
wolf population reduction as needed to maintain populations of wild 
ungulates and reduce conflicts with livestock. Traditional land-use 
practices throughout the vast majority of the species' current range in 
the United States do not appear to be affecting the viability of 
wolves. We do not anticipate overall habitat changes in wolf range for 
the gray wolf entity will occur at a magnitude that would affect wolves 
in the entity rangewide because wolf populations are broadly 
distributed across the current range in the Great Lakes area (where 
most wolves occur in the entity) and are able to withstand high levels 
of mortality due to their high reproductive rate and vagility (the 
ability of an organism to move about freely and migrate) (Fuller et al. 
2003, p. 163; Boitani 2003, pp. 328-330). Further, much of the areas 
occupied by the gray wolf entity occurs on public land where wolf 
conservation is a priority and conservation plans have been adopted to 
ensure continued wolf persistence (see Federal Lands discussion under 
Post-delisting Management) (73 FR 10514, p. 10538, February 27, 2008).
    An important factor in maintaining wolf populations is the native 
ungulate population. Primary wild ungulate prey within the range of 
gray wolves in the gray wolf entity include deer and elk. Each State 
within wolf-occupied range for the gray wolf entity manages its wild 
ungulate populations to maintain sustainable populations for harvest by 
hunters. States employ an adaptive-management approach that adjusts 
hunter harvest in response to changes in big-game population numbers 
and trends when necessary, and predation is one of many factors 
considered when setting seasons. We know of no future condition that 
would cause a decline in ungulate populations significant enough to 
affect the status of gray wolves in the gray wolf entity.

Disease and Parasites

    Although disease and parasites were not identified as a threat at 
the time of listing, a wide range of diseases and parasites have been 
reported for the gray wolf, and several of them have had temporary 
impacts during the recovery of the species in the 48 contiguous United 
States (Brand et al. 1995, p. 419; WI DNR 1999, p. 61, Kreeger 2003, 
pp. 202-214). Although some diseases may be destructive to individuals, 
most of them seldom have long-term, population-level effects (Fuller et 
al. 2003, pp. 176-178; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202-214). All States that 
presently have wolf populations also have some sort of disease-
monitoring program that may include direct observation of wolves to 
assess potential disease indicators or biological sample collection 
with subsequent analysis at a laboratory. Although Washington has not 
submitted biological samples for analysis, samples have been collected 
and laboratory analysis is planned for the future (Roussin 2018, pers. 
comm.).
    Canine parvovirus (CPV) infects wolves, domestic dogs (Canis 
familiaris), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), coyotes, skunks (Mephitis 
mephitis), and raccoons (Procyon lotor). Canine parvovirus has been 
detected in nearly every wolf population in North America including 
Alaska (Bailey et al. 1995, p. 441; Brand et al. 1995, p. 421; Kreeger 
2003, pp. 210-211; Johnson et al. 1994; ODFW 2014, p. 7), and exposure 
in wolves is thought to be almost universal. Nearly 100 percent of the 
wolves handled in Montana (Atkinson 2006), Yellowstone National Park 
(Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18), Minnesota (Mech and Goyal 1993, p. 
331), and Oregon (ODFW 2017, p. 8) had blood antibodies indicating 
nonlethal exposure to CPV. Clinical CPV is characterized by severe 
hemorrhagic diarrhea and vomiting, which leads to dehydration, 
electrolyte imbalances, debility, and shock and may eventually lead to 
death.
    Mech et al. (2008, p. 824) concluded that CPV reduced pup survival, 
subsequent dispersal, and the overall rate of population growth in 
Minnesota (a population near carrying capacity in suitable habitat). 
After the CPV became endemic in the population (around 1979), the 
population developed immunity and was able to withstand severe effects 
from the disease (Mech and Goyal 1993, pp. 331-332). These observed 
effects are consistent with results from studies in smaller, isolated 
populations in Wisconsin and on Isle Royale, Michigan (Wydeven et al. 
1995, entire; Peterson et al. 1998, entire), but indicate that CPV also 
had only a temporary effect in a larger population.
    Canine distemper virus (CDV) is an acute disease of carnivores that 
has been known in Europe since the sixteenth century and infects canids 
worldwide (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). This disease generally infects pups 
when they are only a few months old, so mortality in wild wolf 
populations might be difficult to detect (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 420-
421). Mortality from CDV 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 2003, p. 20)). Carbyn

[[Page 9666]]

(1982, pp. 113-116) concluded that CDV was partially responsible for a 
50-percent decline in the wolf population in Riding Mountain National 
Park (Manitoba, Canada) in the mid-1970s. Serological evidence 
indicates that exposure to CDV is high among some wolf populations--29 
percent in northern Wisconsin and 79 percent in central Wisconsin from 
2002 to 2003 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003, pp. 23-24, table 7) and 
2004 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2004, pp. 23-24, table 7), and similar 
levels in Yellowstone National Park (Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18). 
Exposure to CDV was first documented in Oregon in 2016 (n=3; ODFW 2017, 
p. 8), but no mortalities or clinical signs of the disease were 
observed. The continued strong recruitment in Wisconsin and elsewhere 
in North American wolf populations, however, indicates that distemper 
is not likely a significant cause of mortality (Brand et al. 1995, p. 
421).
    Lyme disease, caused by a spirochete bacterium, is spread primarily 
by deer ticks (Ixodes dammini). Host species include humans, horses 
(Equus caballus), dogs, white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, white-footed 
mice (Peromyscus leucopus), eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus), 
coyotes, and wolves. 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).
    Mange has been detected in wolves throughout North America (Brand 
et al. 1995, pp. 427-428; Kreeger 2003, pp. 207-208). Mange mites 
(Sarcoptes scabeii) infest the skin of the host, causing irritation due 
to feeding and burrowing activities. This causes intense itching that 
results in scratching and hair loss. Mortality may occur due to 
exposure, primarily in cold weather, emaciation, or secondary 
infections (Kreeger 2003, pp. 207-208). Mange mites are spread from an 
infected individual through direct contact with others or through the 
use of common areas. In a long-term Alberta wolf study, higher wolf 
densities were correlated with increased incidence of mange, and pup 
survival decreased as the incidence of mange increased (Brand et al. 
1995, pp. 427-428). Mange has been shown to temporarily affect wolf 
population growth-rates in some areas (Kreeger 2003, p. 208), but not 
others (Wydeven et al. 2009b, pp. 96-97). In Montana and Wyoming, 
proportions of packs with mange fluctuated between 3 and 24 percent 
annually from 2003 to 2008 (Jimenez et al. 2010; Atkinson 2006, p. 5; 
Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 19). In packs with the most severe 
infestations, pup survival appeared low, and some adults died (Jimenez 
et al. 2010); however, evidence suggests infestations do not normally 
become chronic because wolves often naturally overcome them.
    Dog-biting lice (Trichodectes canis) commonly feed on domestic 
dogs, but can infest coyotes and wolves (Schwartz et al. 1983, p. 372; 
Mech et al. 1985, p. 404). The lice can attain severe infestation 
levels, particularly in pups. The worst infestations can result in 
severe scratching, irritated and raw skin, substantial hair loss 
particularly in the groin, and poor condition. While no wolf mortality 
has been confirmed, death from exposure and/or secondary infection 
following self-inflicted trauma caused by inflammation and itching may 
be possible. Dog-biting lice were confirmed on two wolves in Montana in 
2005, on a wolf in southcentral Idaho in early 2006 (Service et al. 
2006, p. 15; Atkinson 2006, p. 5; Jimenez et al. 2010), and in 4 
percent of Minnesota wolves in 2003 through 2005 (Paul in litt. 2005), 
but their infestations were not severe. Dog-biting lice infestations 
are not expected to have a significant impact even at a local scale.
    Other diseases and parasites, including rabies, canine heartworm, 
blastomycosis, bacterial myocarditis, granulomatous pneumonia, 
brucellosis, leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, hookworm, coccidiosis, 
and canine hepatitis have been documented in wild 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, pp. 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; Thomas in litt. 2006), further emphasizing the 
importance of disease-monitoring programs.

Effects of Climate Change

    Effects of climate change were not identified as threats at the 
time of listing. While it is possible that climate change could affect 
gray wolves to some extent, such as through impacts to prey species 
(Hendricks et al. 2018, unpaginated), we are not aware of any 
information indicating that climate change is causing negative effects 
to the viability of gray wolf populations in the gray wolf entity, or 
that it is likely to do so in the future. Throughout their circumpolar 
distribution, gray wolves persist in a variety of ecosystems with 
temperatures ranging from -70 [deg]F to 120 [deg]F (-57 [deg]C to 49 
[deg]C) (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. xv). Gray wolves are highly 
adaptable animals that inhabit a range of ecotypes and are efficient at 
exploiting food resources available to them. Due to this plasticity, we 
do not consider gray wolves to be vulnerable to climate change. For a 
full discussion of potential impacts of climate change on wolves, see 
the final delisting rule for the gray wolf in Wyoming (77 FR 55597-
55598, September 10, 2012).

Cumulative Effects

    When threats occur together, one may exacerbate the effects of 
another, causing effects not accounted for when threats are analyzed 
individually. Many of the threats to the gray wolf entity and gray wolf 
habitat discussed above are interrelated and could be synergistic, and 
thus may cumulatively affect the gray wolf entity beyond the extent of 
each individual threat. For example, a decline in available wild prey 
could cause wolves to prey on more livestock resulting in a potential 
increase in human-caused mortality. Although the types, magnitude, or 
extent of cumulative impacts are difficult to predict, we are not aware 
of any information demonstrating that cumulative effects are occurring 
at a level sufficient to negatively affect gray wolf populations within 
the gray wolf entity. We are not aware of any combination of factors 
that have not already been, or would not be, addressed through ongoing 
management measures that are expected to continue post-delisting and 
into the future, as described above. The best scientific and commercial 
data available indicate that the vast majority of these wolves occur as 
a widespread, large, and resilient metapopulation and that threat 
factors are not currently resulting, nor are they anticipated to 
cumulatively result, in reductions in gray wolf numbers or habitat.

Post-Delisting Management

State Management

Post-Delisting Management in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
    During the 2000 legislative session, the Minnesota Legislature 
passed wolf-management provisions addressing wolf

[[Page 9667]]

protection, taking of wolves, and directing Minnesota Department of 
Natural Resources to prepare a wolf-management plan. The MN DNR revised 
a 1999 draft wolf-management plan to reflect the legislative action of 
2000, and completed the Minnesota Wolf Management Plan in early 2001 
(MN DNR 2001, entire).
    The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board approved the Wisconsin Wolf 
Management Plan in October 1999. In 2004 and 2005 the Wisconsin Wolf 
Science Advisory Committee and the Wisconsin Wolf Stakeholders group 
reviewed the 1999 Plan, and the Science Advisory Committee subsequently 
developed updates and recommended modifications to the 1999 Plan. The 
updates were completed and received final Natural Resources Board 
approval on November 28, 2006 (WI DNR 2006a, entire).
    In late 1997, the Michigan Wolf Recovery and Management Plan was 
completed and received the necessary State approvals. That plan focused 
on recovery of a small wolf population, rather than long-term 
management of a large wolf population and the conflicts that result as 
a consequence of successful wolf restoration. To address changes 
associated with the 2007 Federal delisting of wolves in Michigan, the 
MI DNR revised its original wolf plan and created the 2008 Michigan 
Wolf Management Plan. The 2008 plan addressed the biological, social, 
and regulatory situation of wolf management in Michigan at that time. 
Since then, the context of wolf management in Michigan has continued to 
change, and the MI DNR again updated its wolf-management plan in 2015 
(MI DNR 2015, entire). The 2015 updates reflect the biological and 
social issues associated with the increased population size and 
distribution of wolves in the State, although the four principle goals 
of the 2008 plan remain the same. The complete text of the Wisconsin, 
Michigan, and Minnesota wolf-management plans can be found on our 
website (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    The 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 Federal delisting, MN DNR's management of wolves would differ 
from their current management while wolves were listed as threatened 
under the Act. Most of these differences deal with two aspects of wolf 
management: The control of wolves that attack or threaten domestic 
animals and the implementation of a regulated wolf harvest season.
    The Minnesota Plan divides the State into two wolf-management 
zones--Zones A and B (see map in MN DNR 2001, appendix 3). Zone A 
corresponds to Federal Wolf Management Zones 1 through 4 (approximately 
30,000 mi\2\ (77,700 km\2\) in northeastern Minnesota) in the Service's 
Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf, whereas Zone B constitutes 
Zone 5 in that recovery plan (the rest of the State (approximately 
57,000 mi\2\ (147,600 km\2\) (MN DNR 2001, pp. 19-20 and appendix III; 
USFWS 1992, p. 72). Within Zone A, wolves would receive strong 
protection by the State, unless they were involved in attacks on 
domestic animals. The rules governing the take of wolves to protect 
domestic animals in Zone B would be less protective of wolves than in 
Zone A (see Post-delisting Depredation Control in Minnesota below).
    The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources plans to allow wolf 
numbers and distribution to naturally expand, with no maximum 
population goal, 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 plans to continue to monitor wolves in 
Minnesota to determine whether such intervention is necessary. After 
the WGL DPS was delisted in 2011, the MN DNR increased the frequency of 
population surveys from every 5 years to annually in 2013. Although the 
agency is evaluating wolf-monitoring methods and optimal frequencies, 
short-term plans are to continue annual population-size estimates. In 
addition to these statewide population surveys, MN DNR annually reviews 
data on depredation-incident frequency and locations provided by 
Wildlife Services and winter track-survey indices (see Erb 2008) to 
help ascertain annual trends in wolf population or range (MN DNR 2001, 
pp. 18-19).
    Minnesota (MN DNR 2001, pp. 21-24, 27-28) plans to reduce or 
control illegal mortality of wolves through education, increased 
enforcement of the State's wolf laws and regulations, discouraging new 
road access in some areas, and maintaining a depredation-control 
program that includes compensation for livestock losses. The MN DNR 
plans to use a variety of methods to encourage and support education of 
the public about the effects of wolves on livestock, wild ungulate 
populations, and human activities and the history and ecology of wolves 
in the State (MN DNR 2001, pp. 29-30). These are all measures that have 
been in effect for years in Minnesota, although increased enforcement 
of State laws against take of wolves would replace enforcement of the 
Act's take prohibitions. Financial compensation for livestock losses 
has increased to the full market value of the animal, replacing 
previous caps of $400 and $750 per animal (MN DNR 2001, p. 24). We do 
not expect the State's efforts to result in the reduction of illegal 
take of wolves from existing levels, but these measures would be 
crucial in ensuring that illegal mortality does not significantly 
increase after Federal delisting.
    Under Minnesota law, the illegal killing of a wolf is a gross 
misdemeanor and is punishable by a maximum fine of $3,000 and 
imprisonment for up to 1 year. The restitution value of an illegally 
killed wolf is $2,000 (MN DNR 2001, p. 29). The MN DNR has designated 
three conservation officers who are stationed in the State's wolf range 
as the lead officers for implementing the wolf-management plan (MN DNR 
2001, pp. 29, 32; Stark in litt. 2018).
    Depredation Control in Minnesota--Although federally protected as a 
threatened species in Minnesota, wolves that have attacked domestic 
animals have been killed by designated government employees under the 
authority of a regulation (50 CFR 17.40(d)) under section 4(d) of the 
Act. However, no control of depredating wolves was allowed in Federal 
Wolf Management Zone 1, comprising about 4,500 mi\2\ (7,200 km\2\) in 
extreme northeastern Minnesota (USFWS 1992, p. 72). In Federal Wolf 
Management Zones 2 through 5, employees or agents of the Service 
(including USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services) have taken wolves in response 
to depredations of domestic animals within one-half mile (0.8 km) of 
the depredation site. Young-of-the-year (young produced in one 
reproductive year) captured on or before

[[Page 9668]]

August 1 must be released. The regulations that allow for this take (50 
CFR 17.40(d)(2)(i)(C)) do not specify a maximum duration for 
depredation control, but 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 2004, pers. comm.).
    During the period 1980-2017, the Federal Minnesota wolf-
depredation-control program euthanized from 20 (in 1982) to 262 (in 
2015) wolves annually. The annual averages and the percentage of the 
statewide wolf population for 5-year periods are presented in table 2.

 Table 2--Average Annual Number of Wolves Euthanized Under Minnesota Wolf Depredation Control and the Percentage of the Statewide Wolf Population for 5-
                                                               Year Periods From 1980-2017
  [Final time period represents 3, rather than 5 years) (Erb 2008; USDA-Wildlife Services 2010, p. 3; USDA-Wildlife Services 2011, p. 3; USDA-Wildlife
                                                                  Services 2017, p. 3]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1980-1984    1985-1989    1990-1994    1995-1999    2000-2004    2005-2009    2010-2014    2015-2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual # wolves euthanized..............           30           49          115          152          128          157          194          195
Average annual % of wolf population.............          2.2          3.0          6.0          6.7          4.2          5.4          7.6          7.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 1980, the lowest annual percentage of Minnesota wolves killed 
under this program was 1.5 percent in 1982; the highest percentage was 
9.4 in both 1997 and 2015 (Paul 2004, pp. 2-7; Paul 2006, p. 1; USDA-
Wildlife Services 2017, p. 3). The periods during which the 
depredation-control program was taking its highest percentages of 
wolves was during the 1990s and the 2010s. During the 1990s, when 
wolves euthanized for depredation control averaged around 6 percent of 
the wolf population, Minnesota wolf numbers continued to grow at an 
average annual rate of nearly 4 percent (Paul 2004, pp. 2-7). Wolf 
populations in the State fluctuated during the 2010s, when wolves 
euthanized for depredation control averaged around 7 percent of the 
wolf population. While wolf populations in the State did decline while 
wolves were delisted from 2011-2014, other management techniques in 
addition to depredation control were also implemented during that time 
(e.g., regulated harvest), and that management was expected to reduce 
wolf numbers while maintaining a minimum population level. The level of 
wolf removal for depredation control that has occurred has not 
interfered with wolf recovery in Minnesota.
    Under a Minnesota statute, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture 
(MDA) compensates livestock owners for full market value of livestock 
that wolves have killed or severely injured. An authorized investigator 
must confirm that wolves were responsible for the depredation. The 
Minnesota statute also requires MDA to periodically update its Best 
Management Practices to incorporate new practices that it finds would 
reduce wolf depredation (Minnesota Statutes 2018, Section 3.737, 
subdivision 5).
    Post-delisting Depredation Control in Minnesota--If wolves in 
Minnesota are delisted, depredation control would 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, as discussed above. 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 above, the Federal 
planning goal is 1,251-1,400 wolves for Zones 1-4 and there is no 
minimum population goal for Zone 5 (USFWS 1992, p. 28).
    In Zone A, wolf depredation control would be limited to situations 
of (1) immediate threat and (2) following verified loss of domestic 
animals. In this zone, if the 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 (specific number to be determined on a case-by-case basis) 
within a 1-mile (1.6-km) radius of the depredation site (depredation-
control area) for up to 60 days. In contrast, in Zone B, predator 
controllers may take wolves (specific number to be determined on a 
case-by-case basis) 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 5 years 
of a verified depredation loss upon request of the landowner, thereby 
providing more of a preventative approach than is allowed in Zone A, in 
order to head off repeat depredation incidents (MN DNR 2001, p. 22).
    Depredation control would be allowed throughout Zone A, which 
includes an area (Federal Wolf Management Zone 1) where such control 
has not been permitted under the Act's protection. Depredation by 
wolves in Zone 1, however, has been limited to 2 to 4 reported 
incidents per year, mostly of wolves killing dogs. In 2009, there was 
one probable and one verified depredation of a dog near Ely, Minnesota, 
and in 2010 Wildlife Services confirmed three dogs killed by wolves in 
Zone 1 (USDA-Wildlife Services 2009, p. 3; USDA-Wildlife Services 2010, 
p. 3). There are few livestock in Zone 1; therefore, the number of 
verified future depredation incidents in that Zone is expected to be 
low, resulting in a correspondingly low number of depredating wolves 
being killed there after delisting.
    State law and the Minnesota Plan would also allow for private wolf 
depredation control throughout the State. Persons could shoot or 
destroy a 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 could also 
kill wolves posing an immediate threat to pets under their supervision 
on lands that they do not own or lease, although such actions are 
subject to local ordinances, trespass law, and other applicable 
restrictions. To protect their domestic animals in Zone B, individuals 
do not have to wait for an immediate threat or a depredation incident 
in order to take wolves. At any time in Zone B, persons who own, lease, 
or manage lands may shoot wolves on those lands to protect livestock, 
domestic animals, or pets. They may

[[Page 9669]]

also employ a predator controller to trap a wolf on their land or 
within 1 mile (1.6 km) of their land (with permission of the landowner) 
to protect their livestock, domestic animals, or pets (MN DNR 2001, pp. 
23-24). The MN DNR will investigate any private taking of wolves in 
Zone A (MN DNR 2001, p. 23). The Minnesota Plan would also allow 
persons to harass wolves anywhere in the State within 500 yards of 
``people, buildings, dogs, livestock, or other domestic pets or 
animals.'' Harassment may not include physical injury to a wolf.
    As discussed above, landowners or lessees would be allowed to 
respond to situations of immediate threat by shooting wolves in the act 
of stalking, attacking, or killing livestock or other domestic animals 
in Zone A. We conclude that this action is not likely to result in the 
killing of many additional wolves, as opportunities to shoot wolves 
``in the act'' would likely be few and difficult to successfully 
accomplish, a conclusion shared by a highly experienced wolf-
depredation agent (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).
    State law and the Minnesota Plan would provide broad authority to 
landowners and land managers to shoot wolves at any time to protect 
their livestock, pets, or other domestic animals on land owned, leased, 
or managed by the individual in Zone B (as described above). Such 
takings can occur in the absence of wolf attacks on the domestic 
animals. Thus, the estimated 450 wolves in Zone B could be subject to 
substantial reduction in numbers. At the extreme, wolves could be 
eliminated from Zone B, but this is highly unlikely--the Minnesota Plan 
states that ``Although depredation procedures will likely result in a 
larger number of wolves killed, as compared to previous ESA management, 
they will not result in the elimination of wolves from Zone B.'' (MN 
DNR 2001, pp. 22-23). While wolves were under State management in 2007-
08 and in 2011-14, landowners in Zone B shot six and eight wolves under 
this authority, respectively. Fourteen additional wolves were trapped 
and euthanized in Zone B by State-certified predator controllers, 1 in 
2009 and 13 in 2013 (Stark in litt. 2009; Stark in litt. 2018).
    The limitation of this broad take authority to Zone B is fully 
consistent with the advice in the Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber 
Wolf 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 Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber 
Wolf envisioned that the Minnesota numerical planning goal would be 
achieved solely in Zone A (Federal Zones 1-4) (USFWS 1992, p. 28), and 
that has occurred. Wolves outside of Zone A are not necessary to the 
establishment and long-term viability of a self-sustaining wolf 
population in the State, and, therefore, there is no need to establish 
or maintain a wolf population in Zone B. Accordingly, there is no need 
to maintain significant protection for wolves in Zone B in order to 
maintain a Minnesota wolf population that continues to satisfy the 
Federal recovery criteria after Federal delisting.
    This expansion of depredation-control activities would not threaten 
the continued survival of wolves in the State or the long-term 
viability of the wolf population in Zone A, the large 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 would remain ``very 
localized'' in Zone A. The requirement that such depredation-control 
activities be conducted only in response to verified wolf depredation 
in Zone A played a key role in the team's evaluation (Peterson in litt. 
2001). While wolves were under State management in 2007 and 2008, the 
number of wolves killed for depredation control (133 wolves in 2007 and 
143 wolves in 2008) remained consistent with those killed under the 
special regulation under section 4(d) of the Act while wolves were 
federally listed (105, in 2004; 134, in 2005; and 122, in 2006). The 
number of wolves killed for depredation control while wolves were under 
State management for the second time (2011-2014) was slightly higher 
(203 wolves in 2011, 262 in 2012, 114 in 2013, and 197 in 2014) than 
during 2007 and 2008, but was still consistent with those killed under 
section 4(d) in the surrounding years (192 wolves in 2010 and 213 in 
2015).
    Minnesota would continue to monitor wolf populations throughout the 
State and would also monitor all depredation-control activities in Zone 
A (MN DNR 2001, p. 18). These and other activities contained in their 
plan would be essential in meeting their population goal of a minimum 
statewide winter population of 1,600 wolves, well above the planning 
goal of 1,251 to 1,400 wolves that the Revised Recovery Plan identifies 
as sufficient to ensure the wolf's continued survival in Minnesota 
(USFWS 1992, p. 28).
    Post-delisting Regulated Harvest in Minnesota--Minnesota Department 
of Natural Resources will consider wolf population-management measures, 
including public hunting and trapping seasons and other methods, if 
wolves are federally delisted. In 2011, the Minnesota Legislature 
authorized the MN DNR to implement a wolf season following the Federal 
delisting and classified wolves as small game in State statute 
(Minnesota Statutes 2018 97B.645 Subd. 9). Following Federal delisting, 
the 2012 Legislature established wolf hunting and trapping licenses, 
clarified the authority for the MN DNR to implement a wolf season, and 
required the start of the season to be no later than the start of 
firearms deer season each year. Three regulated harvest seasons (in 
2012, 2013, and 2014) were subsequently implemented in the State while 
wolves were federally delisted. The harvest was divided into three 
segments: An early hunting season that coincided with the firearms deer 
season, a late hunting season, and a concurrent late trapping season. 
In 2012, the MN DNR established a total target harvest of 400 wolves 
(the close of the harvest season is to be initiated when that target is 
met) (Stark and Erb 2013, pp. 1-2). During that first regulated season, 
413 wolves were harvested. Based on the results of the 2012 harvest 
season, the MN DNR revised the target to 220 wolves for 2013; that year 
238 wolves were harvested. The 2014 target harvest was 250 wolves and 
272 were harvested.
    The Minnesota management plan requires that population-management 
measures be implemented in such a way to maintain a statewide late-
winter wolf population of at least 1,600 animals (MN DNR 2001, pp. 19-
20), well above the planning goal of 1,251 to 1,400 wolves for the 
State in the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, p. 28); therefore, 
implementing such management measures under that

[[Page 9670]]

requirement would ensure the wolf's continued survival in Minnesota.
    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, while still maintaining connections to those other 
populations. We support this approach as it provides strong assurances 
that the wolf in both States will remain a viable component of the 
wolves in the Great Lakes area and the larger gray wolf entity.
    The Wisconsin Plan allows for differing levels of protection and 
management within four separate management zones (see WI DNR 2006a, 
figure 8). The Northern Forest Zone (Zone 1) and the Central Forest 
Zone (Zone 2) now contain most of the State's wolf population, with 
approximately 6 percent of the Wisconsin wolves in Zones 3 and 4 
(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2009, table 1). Zones 1 and 2 contain all the 
larger unfragmented areas of suitable habitat, so we anticipate that 
most of the State's wolf packs will continue to inhabit those parts of 
Wisconsin. At the time the 1999 Wisconsin Plan was completed, it 
recommended immediate reclassification from State-endangered to State-
threatened status, because Wisconsin's wolf population had already 
exceeded its reclassification criterion of 80 wolves for 3 years; thus, 
State reclassification occurred that same year.
    The Wisconsin Plan contains a minimum population goal 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 for 
when State re-listing to threatened (a decline to fewer than 250 wolves 
for 3 years) or endangered status (a decline to fewer than 80 wolves 
for 1 year) should be considered. The Wisconsin Plan will be reviewed 
annually by the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee and will be reviewed 
by the public every 5 years. Recently the WI DNR began work on updating 
the State's wolf-management plan, which may include increasing the 
State management goal (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2009, p. 3).
    The Wisconsin 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 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. Protection of pack-rendezvous sites, 
however, 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 under way or where pup survival is extremely poor, such as in 
northeastern Wisconsin (WI DNR 2006a, p. 17). The guidelines for the 
wolf depredation-control program (see Post-delisting Depredation 
Control in Wisconsin) did not undergo significant alteration during the 
update process. The only substantive change to depredation-control 
practices is to expand the area of depredation-control trapping in 
Zones 1 and 2 to 1 mi (1.6 km) outward from the depredation site, 
replacing the previous 0.5-mi (0.8-km) radius trapping zone (WI DNR 
2006a, pp. 3-4).
    An important component of the Wisconsin Plan is the annual 
monitoring of wolf populations by radio 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 would include health monitoring of captured wolves and 
necropsies of dead wolves that are found. Wolf scat would be collected 
and analyzed to monitor for canine viruses and parasites. Health 
monitoring would be part of the capture protocol for all studies that 
involve the live-capture of Wisconsin wolves (WI DNR 2006a, p. 14). The 
2006 update to the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan did not change the WI 
DNR's commitment to annual wolf population monitoring, and ensures 
accurate and comparable data (WI DNR 1999, pp. 19-20).
    Cooperative habitat management would be promoted with public and 
private landowners to maintain existing road densities in Zones 1 and 
2, protect wolf dispersal corridors, and manage forests for deer and 
beaver (WI DNR 1999, pp. 4, 22-23; 2006a, pp. 15-17). Furthermore, in 
Zone 1, a year-round prohibition on tree harvest within 330 feet (100 
m) of den sites and seasonal restrictions to reduce disturbance within 
one-half mile (0.8 km) of dens would be WI DNR policy on public lands 
and would be encouraged on private lands (WI DNR 1999, p. 23; 2006a, p. 
17).
    The 1999 Wisconsin Plan contains, and the 2006 update retains, 
other components that would provide protection to assist in maintenance 
of a viable wolf population in the State following delisting: (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 Wisconsin Plan continues to emphasize the 
need for public education efforts that focus on living with a recovered 
wolf population, ways to manage wolves and wolf-human conflicts, and 
the ecosystem role of wolves. The Plan 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).
    Depredation Control in Wisconsin--Lethal depredation control has 
not been authorized in Wisconsin (due to the listed status of wolves 
there as endangered) except for several years when such control was 
authorized under a permit from the USFWS or while wolves were delisted 
under previous actions. The rapidly expanding Wisconsin wolf population 
has resulted in an increased need for depredation control, however. 
From 1979 through 1989, there were only five cases (an average of 0.4 
per year) of verified wolf depredations in Wisconsin, but the number of 
incidents has steadily increased over the subsequent decades.

[[Page 9671]]

During the 1990s there were an average of approximately 4 incidents per 
year, increasing to an average of approximately 38 per year during the 
2000s and to an average of approximately 69 per year since 2010 (WI DNR 
data files and summary of wolf survey and depredation reports).
    A significant portion of depredation incidents in Wisconsin involve 
attacks on dogs. In most cases, these have been hunting dogs that were 
being used for, or being trained for, hunting bears, bobcats, coyotes, 
and snowshoe hare (Ruid et al. 2009, pp. 285-286). It is believed that 
the dogs entered the territory of a wolf pack and may have been close 
to a den, rendezvous site, or feeding location, thus triggering an 
attack by wolves defending their territory or pups. The frequency of 
attacks on hunting dogs has increased as the State's wolf population 
has grown. Of the 206 dogs killed by wolves during the 25 years from 
1986-2010, more than 80 percent occurred during the period from 2001-
10, with an average of 17 dogs killed annually during that 10-year 
period (WI DNR files). Data on depredations from 2013 to 2017 show a 
continued increase in wolf attacks on dogs, with an average of 23 dogs 
killed annually (with a high of 41 dogs in 2016). While the WI DNR 
compensates dog owners for mortalities and injuries to their dogs, the 
DNR takes no action against the depredating pack unless the attack was 
on a dog that was leashed, confined, or under the owner's control on 
the owner's land. Instead, the DNR issues press releases to warn bear 
hunters and bear-dog trainers of the areas where wolf packs have been 
attacking bear dogs (WI DNR 2008, p. 5) and provides maps and advice to 
hunters on the WI DNR website (see https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/dogdeps.html). In 2010, wolf attacks on dogs 
occurred 14 times near homes, which was the highest level seen of this 
type of depredation (Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 3).
    During the first periods that wolves were federally delisted in 
Wisconsin (from March 2007 through September 2008 and from April 
through early July 2009), 92 wolves were killed for depredation control 
in the State, including 8 legally shot by private landowners (Wydeven 
and Wiedenhoeft 2008, p. 8; Wydeven et al. 2009b, p. 6; Wydeven et al. 
2010, p. 13). When wolves were again delisted from January 2012 through 
December 2014, depredation control resulted in 164 wolves being killed, 
including 38 legally shot by private landowners (McFarland and 
Wiedenhoeft 2013, p. 9; Wiedenhoeft et al, 2014, p. 10; Wiedenhoeft et 
al. 2015, p. 10).
    Post-delisting Depredation Control in Wisconsin--Following Federal 
delisting, wolf depredation control in Wisconsin would be carried out 
according to the 2006 Updated Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan (WI DNR 
2006a, pp. 19-23), Guidelines for Conducting Depredation Control on 
Wolves in Wisconsin Following Federal Delisting (WI DNR 2008), and any 
Tribal wolf-management plans or guidelines that may be developed for 
reservations in occupied wolf range. The 2006 updates did not 
significantly change the 1999 State Plan, and the State wolf management 
goal of 350 wolves outside of Indian reservations (WI DNR 2006a, p. 3) 
is unchanged. Verification of wolf depredation incidents would 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 would be implemented to address 
the depredation problem. These options include technical assistance, 
loss compensation to landowners, translocating 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, would be provided. This may 
also include providing the landowner with various forms of noninjurious 
behavior-modification materials, such as flashing lights, noise makers, 
temporary fencing, and fladry (a string of flags used to contain or 
exclude wild animals). Monetary compensation is also provided for all 
verified and probable losses of domestic animals and for a portion of 
documented missing calves (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22-23). The compensation 
is made at full market value of the animal (up to a limit of $2,500 for 
dogs) and can include veterinarian fees for the treatment of injured 
animals (WI DNR 2006c 12.54). Current Wisconsin law requires the 
continuation of the compensation payment for wolf depredation 
regardless of Federal listing or delisting of the species (WI DNR 2006c 
12.50). In recent years, annual depredation compensation payments have 
ranged from $91,000 (2009) to $256,000 (2017). From 1985 through April, 
2018, the WI DNR had spent over $2,378,000 on reimbursement for damage 
caused by wolves in the State, with 60 percent of that total spent over 
the last 10 years (since 2009) (https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/wolf/documents/WolfDamagePayments.pdf).
    For depredation incidents in Wisconsin Zones 1 through 3, where all 
wolf packs currently reside, wolves may be trapped by USDA-Wildlife 
Services or Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources personnel and, if 
feasible, translocated and released at a point distant from the 
depredation site. If wolves are captured adjacent to an Indian 
reservation or a large block of public land, the animals may be 
translocated locally to that area. 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 nonlethal methods of 
behavior modification are judged to be ineffective, wolves would be 
shot or trapped and euthanized by Wildlife Services or DNR personnel. 
Trapping and euthanizing would 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 would be 
euthanized, rather than translocated (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22-23).
    Full authority to conduct lethal depredation control has not been 
allowed in Wisconsin (due to the listed status of the wolf as an 
endangered species) except for short periods of time. So we have 
evaluated post-delisting lethal depredation control based upon verified 
depredation incidents over the last decade and the impacts of the 
implementation of similar lethal control of depredating wolves under 50 
CFR 17.40(d) for Minnesota, Sec.  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; 29 in 2005; 18 in 2006; 37 in 2007; 39 
in 2008; 9 in 2009; and 16 in 2010 (WI DNR 2006a, p. 32; Wydeven et al. 
2009a, pp. 6-7; Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 15; Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 3).
    Although these lethal control authorities applied to 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

[[Page 9672]]

2003-05, and thus provide a reasonable measure of annual lethal 
depredation control. For 2003, 2004, and 2005, this represents 5.1 
percent, 6.4 percent, 7.4 percent (including the several possible wolf-
dog hybrids), respectively, of the late-winter population of Wisconsin 
wolves during the previous winter. This level of lethal depredation 
control was followed by a wolf population increase of 11 percent from 
2003 to 2004, 17 percent from 2004 to 2005, and 7 percent from 2005 to 
2006 (Wydeven and Jurewicz 2005, p. 5; Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 10). 
Limited lethal-control authority was granted to WI DNR for 3.5 months 
in 2006 by a section 10 permit, resulting in removal of 18 wolves (3.9 
percent of the winter wolf population) (Wydeven et al. 2007, p. 7).
    Lethal depredation control was again authorized in the State while 
wolves were delisted in 2007 (9.5 months) and 2008 (9 months). During 
those times, 40 and 43 wolves, respectively, were killed for 
depredation control (by Wildlife Services or by legal landowner 
action), representing 7 and 8 percent of the late-winter population of 
Wisconsin wolves during the previous year. This level of lethal 
depredation control was followed by a wolf population increase of 0.5 
percent from 2007 to 2008, and 12 percent from 2008 to 2009 (Wydeven 
and Wiedenhoeft 2008, pp. 19-22; Wydeven et al. 2009a, p. 6). Authority 
for lethal control on depredating wolves occurred for only 2 months in 
2009. During that time, eight wolves were euthanized for depredation 
control by USDA-Wildlife Services, and one wolf was shot by a 
landowner; additionally, later in 2009 after re-listing, a wolf was 
captured and euthanized by USDA-Wildlife Services for human safety 
concerns (Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 15). Thus in 2009, 10 wolves, or 2 
percent of the winter wolf population, was removed in control 
activities.
    In 2010, authority for lethal control of wolves depredating 
livestock was not available in Wisconsin, but 16 wolves or 2 percent of 
the winter population were removed for human-safety concerns (Wydeven 
et al. 2011, p. 3). The Wisconsin wolf population in winter 2010-11 
grew to 687 wolves, an increase of 8 percent from the wolf population 
in winter 2009-10 (Wydeven et al. 2010, pp. 12-13). When wolves were 
again delisted from January 2012 through December 2014, a total of 164 
wolves were killed under authorized lethal depredation control 
(McFarland and Wiedenhoeft 2013, p. 9; Wiedenhoeft et al. 2014, p. 10; 
Wiedenhoeft et al. 2015, p. 10). It is more difficult to evaluate the 
effects attributed specifically to depredation control over that time, 
as the State also implemented a regulated public harvest those years; 
however, information from previous years where depredation control was 
the primary change in management provides strong evidence that this 
form and magnitude of depredation control would not adversely affect 
the viability of the Wisconsin wolf population. The locations of 
depredation incidents provide additional evidence that lethal control 
would not have an adverse impact on the State's wolf population. Most 
livestock depredations are caused by packs near the northern forest-
farm land interface. Few depredations occur in core wolf range and in 
large blocks of public land. Thus, lethal depredation-control actions 
would not affect most of the Wisconsin wolf population (WI DNR 2006a, 
p. 30).
    One substantive change to lethal control that would result from 
Federal delisting is the ability of a small number of private 
landowners, whose farms have a history of recurring wolf depredation, 
to obtain limited-duration permits from Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources to kill a limited number of depredating wolves on land they 
own or lease, based on the size of the pack causing the local 
depredations (WI DNR 2008, p. 8). Such permits would be issued to: (1) 
Landowners with verified wolf depredations on their property within the 
last 2 years; (2) landowners within 1 mile (1.6 km) of properties with 
verified wolf depredations during the calendar year; (3) landowners 
with vulnerable livestock within WI DNR-designated proactive control 
areas; (4) landowners with human safety concerns on their property, and 
(5) landowners with verified harassment of livestock on their property 
(WI DNR 2008, p. 8). Limits on the number of wolves to control would be 
based on the estimated number of wolves in the pack causing depredation 
problems.
    During the 19 months in 2007 and 2008 when wolves were federally 
delisted, the DNR issued 67 such permits, resulting in 2 wolves being 
killed. Some landowners received permits more than once, and permits 
were issued for up to 90 days at a time and restricted to specific 
calendar years. In addition, landowners and lessees of land statewide 
would be allowed without obtaining a permit to kill a wolf ``in the act 
of killing, wounding, or biting a domestic animal.'' The incident must 
be reported to a conservation warden within 24 hours, and the 
landowners are required to turn any dead wolves over to the WI DNR (WI 
DNR 2006a, pp. 22-23; WI DNR 2008, p. 6). During that same 19-month 
time period, landowners killed a total of five wolves under that 
authority. One wolf was shot in the act of attack on domestic animals 
during the 2 months when wolves were delisted in 2009; then 38 wolves 
were legally shot by landowners during the 35 months wolves were 
delisted from 2012-2014. The death of these 46 additional wolves--which 
accounted for less than 3 percent of the State's wolves in any year--
did not affect the viability of the population.
    Another potential substantive change after delisting would be 
proactive trapping or ``intensive control'' of wolves in sub-zones of 
the larger wolf-management zones (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22-23). Triggering 
actions and type of controls planned for these ``proactive control 
areas'' are listed in the WI DNR depredation-control guidelines (WI DNR 
2008, pp. 7-9). Controls on these actions would be considered on a 
case-by-case basis to address specific problems, and would be carried 
out only in areas that lack suitable habitat, have extensive 
agricultural lands with little forest interspersion, in urban or 
suburban settings, and only when the State wolf population is well 
above the management goal of 350 wolves outside Indian reservations in 
late-winter surveys. The use of intensive population management in 
small areas would be adapted as experience is gained with implementing 
and evaluating localized control actions (Wydeven 2006, pers. comm.). 
We are confident that the number of wolves killed by these actions 
would not affect the long-term viability of the Wisconsin wolf 
population, because generally less than 15 percent of packs cause 
depredations that would initiate such controls, and ``proactive'' 
controls would be carried out only if the State's late-winter wolf 
population exceeds 350 animals outside Indian reservations.
    The State's current guidelines for conducting depredation-control 
actions say that no control trapping would be conducted on wolves that 
kill ``dogs that are free roaming, roaming at large, hunting, or 
training on public lands, and all other lands except land owned or 
leased by the dog owner'' (WI DNR 2008, p. 5). Controls would be 
applied on wolves depredating pet dogs attacked near homes and wolves 
attacking livestock. Because of these State-imposed limitations, we 
conclude that lethal control of wolves depredating on hunting dogs 
would be rare and, therefore, would 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,

[[Page 9673]]

because farm-raised deer are considered to be livestock under Wisconsin 
law (WI DNR 2008, pp. 5-6; 2006c, 12.52). However, Wisconsin 
regulations for deer farm fencing have been strengthened, and it is 
unlikely that more than an occasional wolf would 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. Wolf packs in more 
marginal habitat with high acreage of pasture land are more likely to 
become depredators (Treves et al. 2004, pp. 121-122). Most large areas 
of forest land and public lands are included in Wisconsin Wolf 
Management Zones 1 and 2, and they have already been colonized by 
wolves. Therefore, new areas likely to be colonized by wolves in the 
future would be in Zones 3 and 4, where they would be exposed to much 
higher densities of farms, livestock, and residences. During 2008, of 
farms experiencing wolf depredation, 25 percent (8 of 32) were in Zone 
3, yet only 4 percent of the State wolf population occurs in this zone 
(Wydeven et al. 2009a, p. 23). 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 would have no impact on wolf population 
viability in Wisconsin because of the much larger wolf populations in 
Zones 1 and 2.
    We anticipate that under the management laid out in the Wisconsin 
Wolf Management Plan the wolf population in Zones 1 and 2 would 
continue to greatly exceed the recovery goal in the Recovery Plan for 
the Eastern Timber Wolf 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 would provide timely and accurate data to evaluate the 
effects of wolf management under the Wisconsin Plan.
    Post-delisting Regulated Harvest in Wisconsin--A regulated public 
harvest of wolves is acknowledged in the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan 
and its updates as a potential management technique (WI DNR 1999, 
appendix D; 2006c, p. 23). Wisconsin Act 169 was enacted in April 2012, 
following Federal delisting of wolves earlier that year. The law 
reclassified wolves in Wisconsin as a game species and directed the WI 
DNR to establish a harvest season in 2012. The harvest season was set 
from October 15-February 28 with zones closing as individual quotas are 
met. The WI DNR holds the authority to determine harvest zones and set 
harvest quotas.
    Harvest quotas for the first season in 2012-13 were designed to 
begin reducing the population toward the established objective, and the 
harvest zones were designed to focus harvest in areas of highest human 
conflict with lower harvest rates in areas of primary wolf habitat. 
State-licensed hunters and trappers were not allowed permits within the 
reservation boundaries of the Bad River, Red Cliff, Lac Courte 
Oreilles, Lac Du Flambeau, Menominee, and Stockbridge-Munsee 
reservations, and separate quotas were set for these ceded territories. 
The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board established a total quota of 201 
wolves (broken into a State-licensed quota of 116 wolves and a tribal 
quota of 85 wolves). A total of 117 wolves were harvested during that 
first season, all under the State licenses (Tribes did not authorize 
tribal members to harvest wolves within reservation boundaries). In 
2013-14, the total quota was 275 wolves; a State-licensed quota of 251, 
and a tribal quota of 24. That year, 257 wolves were harvested. The 
2014-15 wolf quota was reduced to 156 (a 57-percent reduction from the 
2013-14 wolf quota), and 154 wolves were harvested that season (a 60-
percent decrease from the 2013-14 harvest.
    Regardless of the methods used to manage wolves in the State, the 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is committed to maintaining a 
wolf population at 350 wolves outside of Indian reservations, which 
translates to a statewide population of 361 to 385 wolves in late 
winter. No harvest would be allowed if the wolf population fell below 
this goal (WI DNR 1999, pp. 15, 16). Also, the fact that the Wisconsin 
Plan calls for State re-listing of the wolf as a threatened species if 
the population falls to fewer than 250 for 3 years provides a strong 
assurance that any public harvest is not likely to threaten the 
persistence of the population (WI DNR 1999, pp. 15-17). Based on wolf 
population data, the current Wisconsin Plan and the 2006 updates, we 
conclude that any public harvest plan would continue to maintain the 
State wolf population well above the recovery goal of 200 wolves in 
late winter.
    The Michigan Wolf Management Plan--The 2015 updated Michigan Plan 
describes the wolf recovery goals and management actions needed to 
maintain a viable wolf population in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 
while facilitating wolf-related benefits and minimizing conflicts. The 
updated Michigan Plan contains new scientific information related to 
wolf management, updated information on the legal status of wolves, 
clarifications related to management authorities and decisionmaking, 
and updated strategic goals, objectives, and management actions 
informed by internal evaluation and responses and comments received 
from stakeholders. The updated plan retains the four principal goals of 
the 2008 plan, which are to ``(1) maintain a viable Michigan wolf 
population above a level that would warrant its classification as 
threatened or endangered (more than 200 wolves); (2) facilitate wolf-
related benefits; (3) minimize wolf-related conflicts; and (4) conduct 
science-based wolf management with socially acceptable methods'' (MI 
DNR 2015, p. 16). The Michigan Plan details wolf-management actions, 
including public education and outreach activities, annual wolf 
population and health monitoring, research, depredation control, 
ensuring adequate legal protection for wolves, and prey and habitat 
management. 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).
    As with the Wisconsin Plan, the Michigan Department of Natural 
Resources 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, even though their population will continue to 
be connected with populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Canada. The 
Michigan wolf population must exceed 200 wolves in order to achieve the 
Plan's first goal of maintaining a viable wolf population in the Upper 
Peninsula. This number is consistent with the Federal Recovery Plan for 
the Eastern Timber Wolf's definition of a viable, isolated wolf 
population (USFWS 1992, p. 25). The Michigan Plan, however, clearly 
states that 200 wolves is not the target population size, and that a 
larger population may be necessary to meet the other goals of the Plan. 
Therefore, the State would maintain a wolf population that would 
``provide all of the ecological and social benefits valued

[[Page 9674]]

by the public'' while ``minimizing and resolving conflicts where they 
occur'' (MI DNR 2015, p. 17). We strongly support this approach, as it 
provides assurance that a viable wolf population would remain in the 
Upper Peninsula regardless of the future fate of wolves in Wisconsin or 
Ontario.
    The Michigan Plan identifies wolf population monitoring as a 
priority activity, and specifically states that the Michigan Department 
of Natural Resources would monitor wolf abundance twice a year for at 
least 5 years post-delisting (MI DNR 2015, p. 26). This includes 
monitoring to assess wolf presence in the northern Lower Peninsula. 
From 1989 through 2006, the MI DNR attempted to count wolves throughout 
the entire Upper Peninsula. As the wolf population increased, this 
method became more difficult. In the winter of 2006-07, the MI DNR 
implemented a new sampling approach based on an analysis by Potvin et 
al. (2005, p. 1668) to increase the efficiency of the State survey. The 
new approach is based on a geographically based stratified random 
sample and produces an unbiased, regional estimate of wolf abundance. 
The Upper Peninsula was stratified into three sampling areas, and 
within each stratum the DNR intensively surveys roughly 40 to 50 
percent of the wolf habitat area annually. Computer simulations have 
shown that such a geographically stratified monitoring program would 
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 Upper Peninsula 
wolf population (Beyer in litt. 2006, see attachment by Drummer; 
Lederle in litt. 2006; Roell et al. 2009, p. 3).
    Another component of wolf population monitoring is monitoring wolf 
health. The MI DNR would continue to monitor the impact of parasites 
and disease on the viability of wolf populations in the State through 
necropsies of dead wolves and analyzing biological samples from 
captured live wolves. Prior to 2004, MI DNR vaccinated all captured 
wolves for canine distemper and parvovirus and treated them for mange. 
These inoculations were discontinued to provide more natural biotic 
conditions and to provide biologists with an unbiased estimate of 
disease-caused mortality rates in the population (Roell in litt. 2005). 
Since diseases and parasites are not currently a significant threat to 
the Michigan wolf population, the MI DNR is continuing the practice of 
not actively managing disease. If monitoring indicates that diseases or 
parasites may pose a threat to the wolf population, the MI DNR would 
again consider more active management similar to that conducted prior 
to 2004 (MI DNR 2015, p. 35).
    The Michigan Plan includes maintaining habitat and prey necessary 
to sustain a viable wolf population in the State as a management 
component. This includes maintaining prey populations required for a 
viable wolf population while providing for sustainable human uses, 
maintaining habitat linkages to allow for wolf dispersal, and 
minimizing disturbance at known, active wolf dens (MI DNR 2015, pp. 32-
34).
    To minimize illegal take, the Michigan Plan calls for enacting and 
enforcing regulations to ensure adequate legal protection for wolves in 
the State. Under State regulations, wolves could be classified as a 
threatened, endangered, game, or protected animal, all of which 
prohibit killing (or harming) the species except under a permit, 
license, or specific conditions. Michigan removed gray wolves from the 
State's threatened and endangered species list in 2009 and classified 
the species as a game animal in 2015. Game-animal status allows but 
does not require the establishment of a regulated harvest season. The 
Michigan Plan states that regulations would be reviewed, modified, or 
enacted as necessary to provide the wolf population with appropriate 
levels of protection with the following possible actions: (1) 
Reclassify wolves as endangered or threatened under State regulations 
if population size declines to 200 or fewer wolves; (2) review, modify, 
recommend, and/or enact regulations, as necessary, to ensure 
appropriate levels of protection for the wolf population; and (3) if 
necessary to avoid a lapse in legal protection, amend the Wildlife 
Conservation Order to designate wolves as a protected animal (MI DNR 
2015, p. 28).
    The Michigan Plan emphasizes the need for public information and 
education efforts that focus on living with a recovered wolf population 
and ways to manage wolves and wolf-human interaction (both positive and 
negative) (MI DNR 2015, pp. 22-25). The Plan also recommends continuing 
important research efforts, continuing reimbursement for depredation 
losses, minimizing the impacts of captive wolves and wolf-dog hybrids 
on the wild wolf population, and citizen stakeholder involvement in the 
wolf-management program (MI DNR 2015, pp. 27, 52-53, 55-56, 60).
    The Michigan Plan calls for establishing a wolf-management 
stakeholder group that would meet annually to monitor the progress made 
toward implementing the Plan. Furthermore, the Plan will be reviewed 
and updated at 5-year intervals to address ``ecological, social, and 
regulatory'' changes (MI DNR 2015, pp. 60-61). The plan also addresses 
currently available and potential new sources of funding to offset 
costs associated with wolf management (MI DNR 2015, pp. 61-62). The MI 
DNR has long been an innovative leader in wolf-recovery efforts, 
exemplified by its initiation of the nation's first attempt to 
reintroduce wild wolves to vacant historical wolf habitat in 1974 
(Weise et al. 1975). The MI DNR's history of leadership in wolf 
recovery and its repeated written commitments to ensure the continued 
viability of a Michigan wolf population above a level that would 
trigger State or Federal listing as threatened or endangered further 
reinforces that the 2015 Michigan Wolf Management Plan would provide 
adequate regulatory mechanisms for Michigan wolves. The DNR's primary 
goal remains to conduct management to maintain the wolf population in 
Michigan above the minimum size that is biologically required for a 
viable, isolated population and to provide for ecological and social 
benefits valued by the public while resolving conflicts where they 
occur (MI DNR 2015, p. 16).
    Depredation Control in Michigan--Data from Michigan show a general 
increase in confirmed events of wolf depredations on livestock over the 
past two decades, with an average of 3.4 animals killed annually from 
1998 through 2002, an average of 10.6 annually in 2003-2007; an average 
of 38.2 annually from 2008-2012; and an average of 19.2 annually in 
2013-2017. Over 80 percent of the depredation events were on cattle, 
with the rest on sheep, poultry, rabbits, goats, horses, swine, and 
captive deer (Roell et al. 2009, pp. 9, 11; Beyer in litt. 2018).
    Michigan has not experienced as high a level of attacks on dogs by 
wolves as Wisconsin, although a slight increase in such attacks has 
occurred over the last decade. Yearly losses vary, and actions of a 
single pack of wolves can be an important influence. In Michigan, there 
is not a strong relationship between wolf depredation on dogs and wolf 
abundance (Roell et al. 2010, p. 7). The number of dogs killed in the 
State during the 15 years from 1996 to 2010 totaled 34; that number 
increased to 70 during the 7-year period from 2011 through 2017 (Beyer 
in litt. 2018). The majority of the wolf-related dog deaths

[[Page 9675]]

involved hounds used to hunt bears. Similar to Wisconsin, MI DNR has 
guidelines for its depredation-control program, stating that lethal 
control would 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). 
However, in 2008, the Michigan Legislature passed a law that would 
allow dog owners or their designated agents to remove, capture, or, if 
deemed necessary, use lethal means to destroy a gray wolf that is in 
the act of preying upon the owner's dog, which includes dogs free 
roaming or hunting on public lands.
    During the several years that lethal control of depredating wolves 
had been conducted in Michigan, there was no evidence of resulting 
adverse impacts to the maintenance of a viable wolf population in the 
Upper Peninsula. MI DNR and USDA-Wildlife Services killed 50 wolves in 
response to depredation events during the time period when permits or 
special rules were in effect or while wolves were not on the Federal 
lists of endangered and threatened species (Roell et al. 2010, p. 8). 
In 2008, Michigan passed two House bills that would become effective 
after Federal delisting. Those bills authorized a livestock or dog 
owner (or a designated agent) to ``remove, capture, or use lethal means 
to destroy a wolf that is in the act of preying upon'' the owner's 
livestock or dog. During the 2 months that wolves were federally and 
State delisted in 2009, no wolves were killed under these 
authorizations; 32 wolves were killed under these authorities from 2012 
through 2014 (Beyer in litt. 2018). The numbers of wolves killed each 
year for depredation control are as follows: 4 (2003), 5 (2004), 2 
(2005), 7 (2006), 14 (2007), 8 (2008), 1 (during 2 months in 2009), 18 
(2012), 10 (2013), and 13 (2014) (Beyer et al. 2006, p. 88; Roell in 
litt. 2006, p. 1; Roell et al. 2010, p. 19; Beyer in litt. 2018). This 
represents 0.2 percent (2009) to 2.7 percent (2007) of the Upper 
Peninsula's late-winter population of wolves during the previous 
winter. During the years where depredation control took place absent a 
regulated public harvest, the wolf population increased from 2 percent 
(2007-2008) to 17 percent (2006-2007) despite the level of depredation 
control, demonstrating that the wolf population continues to increase 
at a healthy rate (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6; MI DNR 2006, Roell et 
al. 2009, p. 4).
    Post-delisting Depredation Control in Michigan--Following Federal 
delisting, wolf depredation control in Michigan would be carried out 
according to the 2015 Michigan Wolf Recovery and Management Plan (MI 
DNR 2015) and any Tribal wolf-management plans that may be developed in 
the future for reservations in occupied wolf range.
    To provide depredation-control guidance when lethal control is an 
option, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 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 would 
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 would be implemented to address the depredation problem. 
Technical assistance, consisting of advice or recommendations to reduce 
wolf conflicts, would be provided. Technical assistance may also 
include providing to the landowner various forms of noninjurious 
behavior modification materials, such as flashing lights, noise makers, 
temporary fencing, and fladry.
    Trapping and translocating depredating wolves has been used in the 
past, resulting in the translocation of 23 Upper Peninsula wolves 
during 1998-2003 (Beyer et al. 2006, p. 88), but as with Wisconsin, 
suitable relocation sites are becoming rarer, and there is local 
opposition to the release of translocated depredators. Furthermore, 
none of the past translocated depredators have remained near their 
release sites, making this a questionable method to end the depredation 
behaviors of these wolves (MI DNR 2005a, pp. 3-4). Therefore, reducing 
depredation problems by relocation is no longer recommended as a 
management tool in Michigan (MI DNR 2008, p. 57).
    Lethal control of depredating wolves is likely to be the most 
common future response in situations when improved livestock husbandry 
and wolf-behavior-modification techniques (for example, flashing 
lights, noise-making devices) are judged to be inadequate. As wolf 
numbers continue to increase on the Upper Peninsula, 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 Upper 
Peninsula with more livestock and more human residences, leading to 
additional exposure to domestic animals. In a previous application for 
a lethal take permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, MI DNR 
received authority to euthanize up to 10 percent of the late-winter 
wolf population annually (MI DNR 2005b, p. 1). However, based on 2003-
05 and 2007-09 depredation data, it is likely that significantly less 
than 10 percent lethal control would be needed over the next several 
years.
    The Michigan Plan provides recommendations to guide management of 
various conflicts caused by wolf recovery, including depredation on 
livestock and pets, human safety, and public concerns regarding wolf 
impacts on other wildlife. We view the Michigan Plan's depredation and 
conflict control strategies to be conservative, in that they commit to 
nonlethal depredation management whenever possible, oppose preventative 
wolf removal where problems have not yet occurred, encourage incentives 
for best management practices that decrease wolf-livestock conflicts 
without affecting wolves, and support closely monitored and enforced 
take by landowners of wolves ``in the act of livestock depredation'' or 
under limited permits if depredation is confirmed and nonlethal methods 
are determined to be ineffective. Based on these components of the 
revised Michigan Plan and the stated goal for maintaining wolf 
populations at or above recovery goals, the Service concludes that any 
wolf-management changes implemented following delisting would not be 
implemented in a manner that results in significant reductions in 
Michigan wolf populations. The MI DNR remains committed to ensuring a 
viable wolf population above a level that would trigger re-listing as 
either threatened or endangered in the future (MI DNR 2015, p. 8).
    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 nonprofit organization. From the 
inception of the program to

[[Page 9676]]

2000, MI DA has paid 90 percent of full market value of depredated 
livestock 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 
$183,000 in livestock-loss compensation through 2017 (Roell et al. 
2010, p. 15; Beyer in litt. 2018). Neither of these programs provides 
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 (MI DNR 2008, pp. 59-60).
    Post-delisting Regulated Harvest in Michigan--Although the Michigan 
Plan itself does not determine whether a public harvest would be used 
as a management strategy, it does discuss developing ``socially and 
biologically responsible management recommendations regarding public 
harvest of wolves'' (MI DNR 2015, p. 56). The Michigan Plan discusses 
developing recommendations regarding public harvest for two separate 
purposes: To reduce wolf-related conflicts and for reasons other than 
managing wolf-related conflicts (e.g., recreational and utilitarian 
purposes). With regard to implementing a public harvest for 
recreational or utilitarian purposes, the Michigan Plan identifies the 
need to gather and evaluate biological and social information, 
including the biological effects and the public acceptability of a 
general wolf harvest (MI DNR 2015, p. 60). A public harvest during a 
regulated season requires that wolves be classified as game animals in 
Michigan (they were classified as such in 2015). With wolves classified 
as game animals, the Michigan Natural Resource Commission (NRC) has the 
exclusive authority to enact regulations pertaining to the methods and 
manner of public harvest. Although the decisions regarding 
establishment of a harvest season would be made by the NRC, the MI DNR 
would be called upon to make recommendations regarding socially and 
biologically responsible public harvest of wolves. Michigan held a 
regulated public hunting season in 2014 that took into consideration 
the recommendations of the MI DNR. Based on those recommendations, the 
Michigan NRC established quotas for that season based on zones in the 
Upper Peninsula, with a quota of 16 wolves in the far western part of 
the peninsula, 19 in 4 central counties, and 8 in the eastern part of 
the peninsula. Twenty-two wolves were taken during that 2014 season.
Post-Delisting Management in the West Coast States
    Wolves are classified as endangered under the Washington State 
Endangered Species Act (WAC 220-610-010). Unlawful taking (when a 
person hunts, fishes, possesses, maliciously harasses or kills 
endangered fish or wildlife, and the taking has not been authorized by 
rule of the commission) of endangered fish or wildlife is prohibited in 
Washington (RCW 77.15.120). Wolves in California are similarly 
classified as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act 
(CESA; California Fish and Game Commission 2014, entire). Under CESA, 
take (defined as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, kill, or attempts to 
hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill) of listed wildlife species is 
prohibited (California Fish and Game Codes Sec.  86 and Sec.  2080). 
Wolves in Oregon have achieved recovery objectives and were delisted 
from the State Endangered Species Act in 2015. Wolves in Oregon remain 
protected by the State Plan and its associated rules, and Oregon's 
wildlife policy. The wildlife policy states ``that wildlife shall be 
managed to prevent the serious depletion of any indigenous species'' 
and includes seven coequal management goals (ORS 496.012) (ODFW 2017, 
p. 6). Although it remains a possibility for the future, there are no 
current plans to initiate a hunting season, and regulatory mechanisms 
remain in place through the State plan and Oregon statute to ensure a 
sustainable wolf population.
    Oregon, Washington, and California also have adopted wolf-
management plans intended to provide for the conservation and 
reestablishment of wolves in these States (ODFW 2010, entire; Wiles et 
al. 2011, entire; CDFW 2016a, entire; 2016b, entire). These plans 
include population objectives, education and public outreach goals, 
damage-management strategies, and monitoring and research plans. Wolves 
will remain on State endangered species lists in Washington and 
California until recovery objectives have been reached. Once recovery 
objectives have been achieved, the process for delisting wolves at the 
State level will be initiated. Once removed, the States have the 
authority to consider using regulated harvest to manage wolf 
populations. All three State plans also recognize that management of 
livestock conflicts is a necessary component of wolf management (ODFW 
2010, p. 40; Wiles et al. 2011, p. 72; CDFW 2016a, p. 4). Control 
options are currently limited to preventative and nonlethal methods 
within the federally listed portions of Oregon, Washington, and 
California. If Federal delisting occurs, guidelines outlined in each 
State's plan define conditions under which depredating wolves can be 
lethally removed by agency officials (CDFW 2016b, pp. 278-285; ODFW 
2010, pp. 43-54; Wiles et al. 2011, pp. 72-94).
    The Oregon Wolf Management Plan--The Oregon Wolf Conservation and 
Management Plan was developed prior to wolves becoming established in 
Oregon. The plan, first finalized in 2005, contains provisions that 
require it to be updated every 5 years. The first revision occurred in 
2010, and a subsequent revision is presently under review. The Oregon 
Fish and Wildlife Commission provided a set of guiding principles to a 
newly formed Wolf Advisory Committee, which was directed to work on 
plan development. The guiding principles included writing a plan based 
on the conservation of wolves, incorporating public concerns and 
comments, not allowing reintroduction of wolves into Oregon, providing 
flexibility for management while conserving wolves, seeking assistance 
for livestock producers for wolf depredation, and assessing of impacts 
to prey populations. Key stakeholder groups are invited to participate 
in reviews of revisions to the plan. Stakeholders include local 
government, Tribes, non-governmental organizations, State agencies and 
organizations, and Federal agencies.
    The Oregon plan includes two management zones that roughly divide 
the State into western and eastern halves. This division line is 
further to the west of the line that delineates the listed and non-
listed portions of Oregon. Each zone has a separate population 
objective of seven breeding pairs (ODFW 2017, p. 16). Within each zone, 
management phases (Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III) are used to assess 
population objectives, which in turn influence conservation and 
management objectives.
    Phase I includes a conservation population objective of obtaining 
four breeding pairs for 3 consecutive years; upon reaching this 
objective, delisting of wolves statewide may be initiated. The ODFW 
defines a breeding pair as a pack of wolves with an adult male, an 
adult female, and at least two pups surviving to the end of December 
(ODFW 2010, p. 17). This population objective was met in 2014 in the 
eastern

[[Page 9677]]

management zone, and wolves were State delisted in Oregon in 2015. 
Wolves in the eastern management zone were then managed under Phase II 
(ODFW 2016, p. 2). Wolves in the western management zone have yet to 
reach this conservation objective. Despite State delisting, wolves in 
the western management zone (currently in Phase I) are still managed 
with a level of protection mimicking that of Oregon ESA protections for 
wolves.
    Phase II management actions work towards a management population 
objective of seven breeding pairs in the eastern management zone for 3 
consecutive years. During this phase populations are managed to prevent 
declines that could result in re-listing under the Oregon ESA. This 
Phase II management population objective was met in 2016, which 
resulted in the transition of management to Phase III for the eastern 
management zone (ODFW 2017, p. 2).
    Phase III acts to set a balance such that populations do not 
decline below Phase II objectives, but also do not reach unmanageable 
levels resulting in conflicts with other land uses. Phase III is a 
maintenance phase. While the 2010 plan does not include a minimum or 
maximum population level for wolves in Oregon, the plan leaves room for 
development of population thresholds in future planning efforts (ODFW 
2010, p. 28). Similarly, legal harvest of wolves is not included in 
Phase III of the 2010 plan; however, Phase III does provide more 
management flexibility in the case of depredating wolves (ODFW 2010, p. 
45). Currently, hunting of wolves is not permitted in Oregon.
    The Washington Wolf Management Plan--The 2011 Wolf Conservation and 
Management Plan for Washington was developed in response to the State 
endangered status for the species, the expectation that the wolf 
population in Washington would be increasing through natural dispersal 
of wolves from adjacent populations, and the eventual return of wolf 
management to the State after Federal delisting. The purpose of the 
plan is to facilitate reestablishment of a self-sustaining population 
of gray wolves in Washington and to encourage social tolerance for the 
species by addressing and reducing conflicts. An advisory Wolf Working 
Group was appointed at the outset to give recommendations on the plan. 
In addition, the plan underwent extensive peer and public review prior 
to finalization.
    The Washington Plan provides recovery goals for downlisting and 
delisting the species under Washington State law, and identifies 
strategies to achieve recovery and manage conflicts with livestock and 
ungulates. Recovery objectives are defined as numbers of successful 
breeding pairs that are maintained on the landscape for 3 consecutive 
years, with a set geographic distribution within 3 specified recovery 
regions: The Eastern Washington, Northern Cascades, and Southern 
Cascades and Northwest Coast (Wiles et al. 2011, p. 60 figure 9). A 
successful breeding pair of wolves is defined in the Washington Plan as 
an adult male and an adult female with at least two pups surviving to 
December 31 in a given year (Wiles et al. 2011, p. 58). Specific target 
numbers and distribution for downlisting and delisting within the three 
recovery regions identified in the Washington Plan are as follows:
     To reclassify from State endangered to State threatened 
status: 6 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, 
with 2 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions.
     To reclassify from State threatened to State sensitive 
status: 12 successful breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, 
with 4 successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions.
     To delist from State sensitive status: 15 successful 
breeding pairs present for 3 consecutive years, with 4 successful 
breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions and 3 successful 
breeding pairs anywhere in the State.
    In addition to the delisting objective of 15 successful breeding 
pairs distributed in the three geographic regions for 3 consecutive 
years, an alternative delisting objective is also established whereby 
the gray wolf will be considered for delisting when 18 successful 
breeding pairs are present, with 4 successful breeding pairs in the 
Eastern Washington region, 4 successful breeding pairs in the Northern 
Cascades region, 4 successful breeding pairs distributed in the 
Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast region, and 6 anywhere in the 
State.
    After State delisting, wolves could be reclassified as a game 
animal through the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission's public 
process. WDFW intends to develop a new plan for managing wolves 
following Federal and State delisting. Any proposals to hunt wolves 
would go through a public process with the Fish and Wildlife Commission 
(Wiles et al. 2011, pp. 70-71).
    The California Wolf Management Plan--The 2016 Conservation Plan for 
Gray Wolves in California was developed in anticipation of the return 
of wolves to California. The CDFW worked with stakeholder groups in 
2014 and 2015 during plan development. Stakeholders included local 
government, non-governmental organizations, State agencies and 
organizations, and Federal agencies. During the planning process, CDFW 
and the stakeholders identified sideboards and plan goals to direct 
development of the State plan. These sideboards and goals included 
direction to develop alternatives for wolf management, no 
reintroduction of wolves into California, historical distribution and 
abundance are not achievable, conserve biologically sustainable 
populations, manage native ungulates for wolf and human uses, 
management to minimize livestock depredations, and public outreach.
    The California Plan recognizes that wolf activity in the State will 
increase with time, and that the plan needs to be flexible to account 
for information that is gained during the expansion of wolves into the 
State. Similar to plans for other States, the California Plan uses a 
three-phase strategy for wolf conservation and management.
    Phase I is a conservation-based strategy to account for the 
reestablishment of wolves under both State and Federal Endangered 
Species Acts. Phase I will end when there are four breeding pairs for 2 
consecutive years in California. The CDFW defines a breeding pair as at 
least one adult male, one adult female, and at least two pups that 
survive to the end of December (CDFW 2016a, p. 21). California is 
currently in Phase I of the plan, with the Lassen Pack as the only 
breeding pair present for 2 consecutive years.
    Phase II is expected to represent a point at which California's 
wolf population is growing more through reproduction of resident wolves 
than by dispersal of wolves from other States. This phase will conclude 
when there are eight breeding pairs for 2 consecutive years. During 
Phase II, CDFW anticipates gaining additional information and 
experience with wolves in the State, which will help inform future 
revisions to the State plan. During Phase II, flexibility for managing 
wolves for depredation response or predation on wild ungulates may be 
initiated.
    Phase III is less specific due to the information available to CDFW 
at the time of plan development. This phase moves toward longer term 
management of wolves in California. Specific aspects of Phase III are 
more likely to be developed toward the middle of Phase II when more 
information on wolf distribution and abundance in the State are 
available. Towards the end of Phase II and the beginning of Phase III, 
a status review of wolves in California may be

[[Page 9678]]

initiated to determine if continued State listing as endangered is 
warranted. Currently, hunting of wolves is not permitted in California.

Tribal Management and Conservation of Wolves

    Native American tribes and inter-tribal resource-management 
organizations have indicated to the Service that they will continue to 
conserve wolves on most, and probably all, Native American reservations 
in the primary wolf areas of the Great Lakes area. The wolf retains 
great cultural significance and traditional value to many Tribes and 
their members, and to retain and strengthen cultural connections, many 
tribes oppose unnecessary killing of wolves on reservations and on 
ceded lands, even following any Federal delisting (Hunt in litt. 1998; 
Schrage in litt. 1998a; Schlender in litt. 1998). Some Native Americans 
view wolves as competitors for deer and moose, whereas others are 
interested in harvesting wolves as furbearers (Schrage in litt. 1998a). 
Many tribes intend to sustainably manage their natural resources, 
wolves among them, to ensure that they are available to their 
descendants. Traditional natural-resource harvest practices, however, 
often include only a minimum amount of regulation by the Tribal 
governments (Hunt in litt. 1998).
    Although not all Tribes with wolves that visit or reside on their 
reservations have completed management plans specific to the 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 Red Lake Band of Chippewa 
Indians (Minnesota) and the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians 
(Michigan) have developed wolf monitoring and/or management plans. The 
Service has also awarded a grant to the Ho-Chunk Nation to identify 
wolf habitat on reservation lands.
    As a result of many past contacts with, and previous written 
comments from, the Midwestern Tribes and their inter-tribal 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 affect reservation or ceded-territory wolf 
populations.
    The Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians (Minnesota) completed a wolf-
management plan in 2010 (Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians 2010). A 
primary goal of the management plan is to maintain wolf numbers at a 
level that will ensure the long-term survival of wolves on Red Lake 
lands. Key components of the plan are habitat management, public 
education, and law enforcement. To address human-wolf interactions, the 
plan outlines how wolves may be taken on Red Lake lands. Wolves thought 
to be a threat to public safety may be harassed at any time, and if 
they must be killed, the incident must be reported to tribal law 
enforcement. Agricultural livestock are not common on Red Lake lands, 
and wolf-related depredation on livestock or pets is unlikely to be a 
significant management issue. If such events do occur, tribal members 
may protect their livestock or pets by lethal means, but ``all 
reasonable efforts should be made to deter wolves using non-lethal 
means'' (Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians 2010, p. 15). Hunting or 
trapping of wolves on tribal lands will be prohibited. The Reservation 
currently has 7 or 8 packs with an estimated 40-48 wolves within its 
boundaries (Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians 2010, p. 12).
    In 2009, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (LTBB) 
finalized a management plan for the 1855 Reservation and portions of 
the 1836 ceded territory in the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan 
(Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Natural Resource Department 
2009). The plan provides the framework for managing wolves on the LTBB 
Reservation with the goal of maintaining a viable wolf presence on the 
LTBB Reservation or within the northern Lower Peninsula should a 
population become established by (1) prescribing scientifically sound 
biological strategies for wolf management, research, and monitoring; 
(2) addressing wolf-related conflicts; (3) facilitating wolf-related 
benefits; and (4) developing and implementing wolf-related education 
and public information.
    The Tribal Council of the Leech Lake Band of Minnesota Ojibwe 
(Council) approved a resolution that describes the sport and 
recreational harvest of wolves as an inappropriate use of the animal. 
That resolution supports limited harvest of wolves to be used for 
traditional or spiritual uses by enrolled Tribal members if the harvest 
is done in a respectful manner and would not negatively affect the wolf 
population. Over the last several years, the Council has been working 
to revise the Reservation Conservation Code to allow Tribal members to 
harvest some wolves after Federal delisting (Googgleye, Jr. in litt. 
2004; Johnson in litt. 2011). Until this revision occurs, it is unknown 
whether harvest would be allowed and how a harvest might be 
implemented. The Tribe is currently developing a wolf-management plan 
(Mortensen 2011, pers. comm.). In 2005, the Leech Lake Reservation was 
home to an estimated 75 wolves, the largest population of wolves on a 
Native American reservation in the 48 conterminous States (Mortensen 
2006, pers. comm.; White in litt. 2003). Although no recent surveys 
have been conducted, the number of wolves on the reservation likely 
remains about the same (Mortensen 2009, pers. comm.; Johnson in litt. 
2011).
    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 wolf (Schrage in litt. 1998b; in 
litt. 2003; 2009, pers. comm.). If the prohibition of trapping, 
hunting, or poisoning is rescinded, the Band's Resource Management 
Division would coordinate with State and Federal agencies to ensure 
that any wolf hunting or trapping would be ``conducted in a 
biologically sustainable manner'' (Schrage in litt. 2003).
    The Red Cliff Band (Wisconsin) has strongly opposed State and 
Federal delisting of the gray wolf. Current Tribal law protects wolves 
from harvest, although harvest for ceremonial purposes would likely be 
permitted after Federal delisting (Symbal in litt. 2003).
    The Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin is committed to 
establishing a self-sustaining wolf population, continuing restoration 
efforts, ensuring the long-term survival of the wolf in Menominee, 
placing emphasis on the cultural significance of the wolf as a clan 
member, and resolving conflicts between wolves and humans. The Tribe 
has shown a great deal of interest in wolf recovery and protection. In 
2002, the Tribe offered their Reservation lands as a site for 
translocating seven depredating wolves that had been trapped by WI DNR 
and Wildlife Services. Tribal natural resources staff participated in 
the soft release of the wolves on the Reservation and helped

[[Page 9679]]

with the subsequent radio-tracking of the wolves. Although by early 
2005 the last of these wolves died on the reservation, the tribal 
conservation department continued to monitor another pair that had 
moved onto the Reservation, as well as other wolves near the 
reservation (Wydeven in litt. 2006). When the female of that pair was 
killed in 2006, Reservation biologists and staff worked diligently to 
raise the orphaned pups in captivity with the WI DNR and the Wildlife 
Science Center (Forest Lake, Minnesota) in the hope that they could 
later be released to the care of the adult male. However, the adult 
male died prior to pup release, and they were moved back to the 
Wildlife Science Center (Pioneer Press 2006). The Menominee Tribe 
continues to support wolf conservation and monitoring activity in 
Wisconsin.
    The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (Michigan) would continue to list 
the wolf as a protected animal under the Tribal Code following any 
Federal delisting, with hunting and trapping prohibited (Mike Donofrio 
1998, pers. comm.). Furthermore, the Keweenaw Bay Community developed a 
management plan in 2013 that ``provides a course of action that will 
ensure the long-term survival of a self-sustaining, wild gray wolf 
(Canis lupus) population in the 1842 ceded territory in the western 
Upper Peninsula of Michigan'' (KBIC Tribal Council 2013, p. 1). At 
least four other Tribes (Stock-bridge Munsee Community, Lac Courte 
Oreilles Band of Ojibwe, the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, and Grand 
Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa) have indicated plans to develop 
Tribal wolf-management plans.
    Several Midwestern Tribes (for example, the Bad River Band of Lake 
Superior Chippewa Indians and the LTBB) have expressed concern that 
Federal delisting would result in increased mortality of wolves on 
reservation lands, in the areas immediately surrounding the 
reservations, and in lands ceded by treaty to the Federal Government by 
the Tribes (Kiogama and Chingwa in litt. 2000). In 2006, a cooperative 
effort among tribal natural resource departments of several tribes in 
Wisconsin, WI DNR, the Service, and USDA Wildlife Services led to a 
wolf-management agreement for lands adjacent to several reservations in 
Wisconsin. The goal is to reduce the threats to reservation wolf packs 
when they are temporarily off the reservation. Other Tribes have 
expressed interest in such an agreement. This agreement, and additional 
agreements if they are implemented, provides supplementary protection 
to certain wolf packs in the western Great Lakes area.
    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 ensure a healthy and abundant future 
for our brother and ourselves'' (Schlender in litt. 2004).
    According to the 1854 Authority, ``attitudes toward wolf management 
in the 1854 Ceded Territory run the gamut from a desire to see total 
protection to unlimited harvest opportunity.'' However, the 1854 
Authority would not ``implement a harvest system that would have any 
long-term negative impacts to wolf populations'' (Edwards in litt. 
2003). In comments submitted for our 2004 delisting proposal for a 
larger Eastern DPS of the gray wolf, the 1854 Authority stated that the 
Authority is ``confident that under the control of State and tribal 
management, wolves will continue to exist at a self-sustaining level in 
the 1854 Ceded Territory. Sustainable populations of wolves, their prey 
and other resources within the 1854 Ceded Territory are goals to which 
the 1854 Authority remains committed. As such, we intend to work with 
the State of Minnesota and other tribes to ensure successful state and 
tribal management of healthy wolf populations in the 1854 Ceded 
Territory'' (Myers in litt. 2004).
    While there are few written Tribal protections currently in place 
for wolves, 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 affect 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 (BIA), as is being successfully done for the ceded 
territory harvest of inland and Great Lakes fish, deer, bear, moose, 
and furbearers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Therefore, we 
conclude that any future Native American take of delisted wolves will 
not significantly affect the viability of the wolf population, either 
locally or across the Great Lakes area.
    The Service and the Department of the Interior recognize the unique 
status of the federally recognized tribes, their right to self-
governance, and their inherent sovereign powers over their members and 
territory. Therefore, the Department, the Service, the 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 wolves encompassed within the tribes' retained rights to hunt, 
fish, and gather in treaty-ceded territories. The Department is 
available to assist in the exercise of any such rights. If biological 
assistance is needed, the Service may provide it via our field offices. 
Upon delisting, the Service would remain involved in the post-delisting 
monitoring of the wolves in the Great Lakes area, but all Service 
management and protection authority under the Act would end. Legal 
assistance would be provided to the tribes by the Department of the 
Interior, and the BIA would be involved, when needed. We strongly 
encourage the States and Tribes to work cooperatively toward post-
delisting wolf management if wolves are delisted.
    Consistent with our responsibilities to tribes and our goal to have 
the most comprehensive data available for our post-delisting 
monitoring, we would annually contact tribes and their designated 
intertribal natural resource agencies during the 5-year post-delisting 
monitoring period to obtain any information they wish to share 
regarding wolf populations, the health of those populations, or changes 
in their management and protection. Reservations that may have 
significant wolf data to provide during the post-delisting period 
include Bois Forte, Bad River, Fond du Lac, Grand Portage, Keweenaw Bay 
Indian Community, Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, Leech Lake, 
Menominee, Oneida, Red Lake, Stockbridge-Munsee Community, and White 
Earth. Throughout the 5-year post-delisting monitoring period, the 
Service would annually contact the natural resource agencies of each of 
these reservations and that of the 1854 Treaty Authority and Great 
Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission.

[[Page 9680]]

Management on Federal Lands

Great Lakes Area
    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 for the Eastern Timber Wolf's recommendations for 
the eastern timber wolf (USDA Forest Service (FS) 2004a, chapter 2, p. 
31; USDA FS 2004b, chapter 2, p. 28; USDA FS 2004c, chapter 2, p. 19; 
USDA FS 2006a, chapter 2, p. 17; USDA FS 2006b, chapter 2, pp. 28-29). 
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 expects to maintain the classification of the 
wolf as a Regional Forester Sensitive Species for at least 5 years 
after Federal delisting (Moore in litt. 2003; Eklund in litt. 2011). 
The Regional Forester has the authority to recommend classification or 
declassification of species as Sensitive Species. 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 wolves in the Great Lakes area. 
Similarly, in keeping with the practice for other State-managed game 
species, any public hunting or trapping season for wolves that might be 
opened in the future by the States 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 wolf populations in 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
    Wolves regularly use four units of the National Park System in the 
Great Lakes area 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. NPS management policies require that native species be 
protected against harvest, removal, destruction, harassment, or harm 
through human action, although certain parks may allow some harvest in 
accordance with State management plans. Management emphasis in National 
Parks after delisting would continue to minimize the human impacts on 
wolf populations. Thus, because of their responsibility to preserve all 
native wildlife, units of the National Park System are often the most 
protective of wildlife. In the case of the wolf, the NPS Organic Act 
and NPS policies would 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 National Park (Holbeck in litt. 2005). To reduce 
human disturbance, temporary closures around wolf denning and 
rendezvous sites will be enacted whenever they are discovered in the 
park. 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 and 1991 of wolves living 
in and adjacent to the park found that all mortality inside the park 
was due to natural causes (for example, killing by other wolves or 
starvation), whereas the majority (60-80 percent) of mortality outside 
the park was human-induced (for example, shooting and trapping) (Gogan 
et al. 2004, p. 22). If there is a need to control depredating wolves 
outside the park, 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 of Isle Royale National Park, Michigan, is 
small and isolated and lacks genetic uniqueness (Wayne et al. 1991). 
For genetic reasons and constraints on expansion due to the island's 
small size, this wolf population does not contribute significantly 
towards meeting numerical recovery criteria; however, long-term 
research on this wolf population has added a great deal to our 
knowledge of the species. The wolf population on Isle Royale has 
typically varied from 18 to 27 wolves in 3 packs, but has been down to 
just 2 wolves (a father-daughter pair) since the winter of 2015-2016 
(Peterson et al. 2018). NPS recently announced plans to move additional 
wolves to Isle Royale in an effort to restore a viable wolf population 
(83 FR 11787; March 16, 2018).
    Two other units of the National Park System, Pictured Rocks 
National Lakeshore and St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, are 
regularly used by wolves. Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is a narrow 
strip of land along Michigan's Lake Superior shoreline. Lone wolves 
periodically use, but do not appear to be year-round residents of, the 
Lakeshore. If denning occurs after delisting, the Lakeshore 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 (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. Approximately 54-58 wolves from 11 packs used the Riverway 
on the Wisconsin side in 2010 (Wydeven in litt. 2011). The Riverway is 
likely to limit public access to denning and rendezvous sites and to 
follow other management and protective practices outlined in the 
respective State wolf-management plans, although trapping is not 
allowed on NPS lands except possibly by Native Americans (Maercklein in 
litt. 2003).
    At least one pack of 4-5 wolves used the shoreline areas of the 
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, with a major deer yard area (a 
place where deer congregate in the winter) occurring on portions of the 
Park Service land. Wolf tracks have been detected on Sand Island, and a 
wolf was photographed by a trail camera on the island in September 
2009. It is not known if wolves periodically swim to this and other 
islands, or if they only travel to islands on ice in winter.
    Wolves occurring on National Wildlife Refuges in the Great Lakes 
area would be monitored, and Refuge habitat management would maintain 
the current prey base for them for a minimum of 5 years after 
delisting.

[[Page 9681]]

Trapping or hunting by government trappers for depredation control 
would not be authorized on National Wildlife Refuges. Because of the 
relatively small size of these Refuges, however, most or all wolf packs 
or individual wolves in these Refuges also spend significant amounts of 
time off these Refuges.
    Wolves also occupy the Fort McCoy military installation in 
Wisconsin. Management and protection of wolves on the installation 
would not change significantly after Federal or State delisting. Den 
and rendezvous sites would continue to be protected, hunting seasons 
for other species (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. 2005, p. 25; 2006a, 
p. 25).
    Minnesota National Guard's Camp Ripley contains parts of two pack 
territories, which typically include 10 to 20 wolves. Minnesota 
National Guard wildlife managers try to have at least one wolf in each 
pack radio-collared and to fit an additional one or two wolves in each 
pack with satellite transmitters that record long-distance movements. 
There have been no significant conflicts with military training or with 
the permit-only public deer-hunting program at the camp, and no new 
conflicts are expected following delisting. Long-term and intensive 
monitoring has detected only two wolf mortalities within the camp 
boundaries--both were of natural causes (Dirks 2009, pers. comm.).
    The protection afforded to resident and transient wolves, their den 
and rendezvous sites, and their prey by five national forests, four 
National Parks, two military facilities, and numerous National Wildlife 
Refuges in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan will further ensure the 
conservation of wolves in the three States after delisting. In 
addition, wolves that disperse to other units of the National Refuge 
System or the National Park System within the Great Lakes area will 
also receive the protection afforded by these Federal agencies.
West Coast States
    The west coast States generally contain a greater proportion of 
public land than the Great Lakes area. Public lands here include many 
National Parks, National Forests, National Monuments, and National 
Wildlife Refuges. These areas are largely unavailable and/or unsuitable 
for intensive development, and contain abundant ungulate populations. A 
lack of human occupancy and development combined with an adequate prey 
base increase the likelihood of public lands in the west coast States 
to provide suitable habitat for gray wolves.
    In the listed portions of the west coast States of California, 
Oregon, and Washington, wolves are resident on portions of the Lassen, 
Plumas, Fremont-Winema, Rogue-Siskiyou, Mount Hood, Okanogan-Wenatchee, 
and Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forests (Forests). Land and Resource 
Management Plans (LRMPs) for these Forests pre-date the re-
establishment of wolf packs and, therefore, do not contain standards 
and guidelines specific to wolf management. The LRMPs do, however, 
recognize that the Forests have obligations under sections 7(a)(1) and 
7(a)(2) of the Act to proactively conserve and avoid adverse effects to 
Federally listed species. If federally delisted, the Regional Foresters 
for U.S. Forest Service Regions 5 and 6 are expected to include the 
gray wolf as a Regional Forester Sensitive Species. As a Sensitive 
Species, conservation objectives for the gray wolf and its habitat will 
continue to be addressed during planning and implementation of 
projects.
    Gray wolves disperse through but are not currently residents of 
National Parks, National Monuments, and National Wildlife Refuges in 
the listed portions of all three west coast States. Similar to these 
types of lands in the Great Lakes areas, management plans provide for 
the conservation of natural and cultural resources and wildlife. The 
gray wolf and its habitat are expected to persist on these lands should 
Federal delisting occur.
    Overall, public lands on the west coast have the ability to support 
the continued expansion of gray wolves as they disperse from resident 
packs and surrounding States and provinces to establish new packs in 
the west coast States. Because these areas are in public ownership and 
we do not foresee habitat-related threats, we conclude that they will 
continue to provide secure, optimal habitat for a resident wolf 
population.

Summary of Post-Delisting Management

    In summary, upon delisting, there will be varying State and Tribal 
classifications and protections provided to wolves. The State wolf-
management plans currently in place for Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 
Michigan will be more than sufficient to retain viable wolf populations 
in each State. Each of those plans contains management goals that will 
maintain healthy populations of wolves in their State by establishing a 
minimum population of 1,600 in Minnesota, 350 in Wisconsin, and 200 in 
Michigan. Similarly, State management plans developed for Washington, 
Oregon, and California contain objectives to conserve and recover gray 
wolves. To ensure healthy populations are maintained, each State will 
monitor population abundance and trends, habitat and prey availability, 
and impacts of disease and take actions as needed to maintain 
populations. They are also committed to continuing necessary biological 
and social research and outreach and education to maintain healthy wolf 
populations. Each of the three Great Lakes States has a long-standing 
history of leadership in wolf conservation. All of the State management 
plans provide a high level of assurance of the persistence of healthy 
wolf populations, demonstrating their commitment to wolf conservation.
    Furthermore, when federally delisted, wolves in Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, and Michigan will continue to receive protection from 
general human persecution by State laws and regulations. Wolves are 
protected as game species in each of those States, which prohibits 
lethal take without a permit, license, or authorization, except under a 
few limited situations (as described under the management plans above). 
Each of the three States will consider population-management measures, 
including public hunting and trapping, after Federal delisting, but 
regardless of the methods used to manage wolves, each State will 
maintain minimum wolf populations to ensure healthy wolf populations 
remain.
    Wolves in Washington, Oregon, and California will also be protected 
by State laws and regulations when federally delisted. Currently wolves 
in Washington and California are protected under State statutes or acts 
as endangered species, as well as by their respective State management 
plans. Wolves in Oregon are State delisted but still receive protection 
under its State management plan. Each plan contains various phases 
outlining objectives for conservation and recovery. As recolonization 
of the west coast States continues, different phases of management will 
be enacted. All phases within the various State management plans are 
designed to achieve and maintain healthy wolf populations.
    Finally, based on our review of the completed Tribal management 
plans and communications with Tribes and Tribal organizations, 
federally delisted wolves are very likely to be adequately protected on 
Tribal lands. Furthermore, the minimum population goals of the

[[Page 9682]]

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan State management plans can be 
achieved (based on the population and range of off-reservation wolves) 
even without Tribal protection of wolves on reservation lands. In 
addition, on the basis of information received from other Federal land-
management agencies, we expect National Forests, units of the National 
Park System, military bases, and National Wildlife Refuges will provide 
protections to wolves in the areas they manage that will match, and in 
some cases will exceed, the protections provided by State wolf-
management plans and State protective regulations.

Determination of Species Status

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines 
``endangered species'' as any species that is ``in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and 
``threatened species'' as any species that is ``likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' The term ``species'' includes ``any 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population 
segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which 
interbreeds when mature.'' A species is ``endangered'' if it is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to 
become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532 (20)). The word 
``range'' refers to the range in which the species currently exists, 
and the ``foreseeable future'' is the period of time over which events 
or effects reasonably can or should be anticipated, or trends 
extrapolated.
    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species.'' The Act requires that we determine whether a 
species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened 
species'' because of any of the following factors: (A) The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.
    We may delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best 
available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is 
neither endangered nor threatened.

Summary and Conclusion of Our Analysis

    Prior to listing in the 1970s, wolves in the gray wolf entity had 
been reduced to about 1,000 individuals and extirpated from all of 
their range except northeastern Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. 
The primary cause of the decline of wolves in the gray wolf entity was 
targeted elimination by humans. However, gray wolves are highly 
adaptable; their populations are remarkably resilient as long as prey 
availability, habitat, and regulation of human-caused mortality are 
adequate. Wolf populations can rapidly overcome severe disruptions, 
such as pervasive human-caused mortality or disease, once those 
disruptions are removed or reduced.
    Provided the protections of the Act, the size of the gray wolf 
population increased to over four times that at the time of the initial 
gray wolf listings in the early 1970s, and more than triple that at the 
time of the 1978 reclassification (a figure which does not include the 
wolves currently found in the northern Rocky Mountains, which was part 
of those earlier listings, although not now part of the current gray 
wolf entity). The population's range has expanded outside of 
northeastern Minnesota to central and northwestern Minnesota, northern 
and central Wisconsin, and the entire Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and 
is in the early stages of expanding into western Washington, western 
Oregon, and northern California from areas outside the gray wolf 
entity. Wolves in the gray wolf entity now primarily exist as a large, 
stable to growing, metapopulation of about 4,400 individuals in the 
Great Lakes area and a small number of colonizing wolves in the west 
coast States that represent the expanding edge of a large 
metapopulation outside the gray wolf entity (in the northern Rocky 
Mountains and western Canada). Despite the substantial increase in gray 
wolf numbers and distribution within the gray wolf entity since 1978, 
the species currently occupies only a small portion of its historical 
range within the entity. This loss of historical range has resulted in 
a reduction of gray wolf individuals, populations, and suitable habitat 
(including adequate prey levels) within the gray wolf entity compared 
to historical levels.
    To sustain populations over time, a species must have a sufficient 
number and distribution of healthy populations to withstand annual 
variation in its environment (resiliency); catastrophes (redundancy); 
and novel changes in its biological and physical environment 
(representation) (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 308-311). A species with 
sufficient number and distribution of healthy populations is generally 
better able to adapt to future changes and to tolerate stressors 
(factors that cause a negative effect to a species or its habitat). 
Metapopulations are widely recognized as being more secure over the 
long-term than are several isolated populations that contain the same 
total number of packs and individuals (Service 1994, appendix 9). This 
is because adverse effects experienced by one of its subpopulations 
resulting from genetic drift, demographic shifts, and local 
environmental fluctuations can be countered by occasional influxes of 
individuals and their genetic diversity from other subpopulations in 
the metapopulation.
    Changes resulting from loss of historical range for the gray wolf 
entity have increased the species' vulnerability within the entity to 
threats such as reduced genetic diversity and restricted gene flow 
(reduced representation), and all or most of its populations being 
affected by a catastrophic event (reduced redundancy). However, the 
large size of the Great Lakes metapopulation and the high quality of 
the habitat it occupies provide the gray wolf entity resiliency in the 
face of annual environmental fluctuations (for example, prey 
availability, pockets of disease outbreaks), periodic disturbances, and 
anthropogenic stressors. Further, while the subpopulations within the 
metapopulation are interconnected, they are broadly distributed across 
the northern portions of three States. This broad distribution of 
subpopulations within the Great Lakes area provides the gray wolf 
entity the redundancy to survive a catastrophic event because such an 
event is unlikely to simultaneously affect wolf subpopulations from 
Minnesota to Michigan. Lastly, the gray wolf is a generalist species 
that is highly adaptable to a variety of ecosystem types. A mixture of 
western gray wolves and eastern wolves in the Great Lakes area, in 
particular, may provide additional adaptive capacity. Thus, the gray 
wolf entity is likely to contain the representation needed to be able 
to adapt to future changes in the environment.

[[Page 9683]]

    The metapopulation in the Great Lakes area contains sufficient 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation to sustain populations 
within the gray wolf entity over time. Therefore, we conclude that the 
relatively few wolves that occur outside the Great Lakes area within 
the gray wolf entity, including those in the west coast States and lone 
dispersers in other States, are not necessary for the recovered status 
of the gray wolf entity. However, the viability of the entity is 
further increased by wolves that occur outside the Great Lakes area. 
The large and expansive population of about 12,000-14,000 wolves in 
eastern Canada increases the resiliency of the gray wolf entity through 
its connectivity to the Great Lakes area metapopulation. Additionally, 
a large metapopulation of about 16,000 wolves outside the gray wolf 
entity in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Canada is expanding 
into the gray wolf entity in Oregon, Washington, and California (figure 
2). Such a large and widely distributed metapopulation of wolves not 
only contributes to the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of 
gray wolves in the lower 48 United States, but also is likely to 
further increase the viability of the gray wolf entity because these 
wolves are colonizing the western portion of the gray wolf entity. With 
ongoing post-delisting management from States, further expansion of the 
metapopulation into the gray wolf entity is likely to continue in the 
west coast States, further increasing the viability of the gray wolf 
entity.
    Wolves in the Great Lakes area now greatly exceed the recovery 
criteria for (1) a secure wolf population in Minnesota, and (2) a 
second population outside Minnesota and Isle Royale consisting of 100 
wolves for 5 successive years. Therefore, based on the criteria set by 
the Eastern Wolf Recovery Team, the Great Lakes area now contains 
sufficient wolf numbers and distribution, threats have been alleviated, 
and the States and Tribes are committed to continued management such 
that the long-term survival of the wolf is ensured. Consequently, 
because we have identified no other regions of the gray wolf entity as 
necessary for recovery of wolves in this entity, we conclude that the 
Great Lakes area contains sufficient wolf numbers and distribution to 
ensure the long-term survival of the gray wolf entity.
    The recovery of the gray wolf entity is attributable primarily to 
successful interagency cooperation in the management of human-caused 
mortality. Such mortality is the most significant issue to the long-
term conservation status of wolves in the gray wolf entity. Therefore, 
managing this source of mortality remains the primary challenge to 
maintaining a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future. 
Legal harvest and agency control to mitigate depredations on livestock 
will be the primary human-caused mortality factors that State agencies 
can manipulate to achieve management objectives once delisting occurs. 
Wolves in the Great Lakes area are well above Federal recovery 
requirements defined in the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan. As a 
result, we can expect to see some reduction in wolf populations in the 
Great Lakes areas as States begin to institute wolf-hunting seasons 
with the objective of slowing or reversing population growth while 
continuing to maintain wolf populations well above Federal recovery 
requirements in their respective States. Using an adaptive-management 
approach that adjusts harvest based on population estimates and trends, 
the initial objectives of States may be to lower wolf populations then 
manage for sustainable populations, similar to how States manage all 
other game species. For example, in 2013-2014, during a period when 
gray wolves were federally delisted in the Great Lakes area, Wisconsin 
reduced the State's wolf harvest quota by 43 percent in response to a 
reduced (compared to the previous year) estimated size of the wolf 
population. In the west coast States, wolf populations will likely be 
managed to ensure progress towards recovery objectives while also 
minimizing livestock losses caused by wolves.
    Based on our analysis, we conclude that Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 
Michigan will maintain abundance and distribution of the Great Lakes 
wolf population above recovery levels for the foreseeable future, and 
that the threat of human-caused mortality has been sufficiently 
reduced. All three States have wolf-management laws, plans, and 
regulations that adequately regulate human-caused mortality. Each of 
the three States has committed to manage its wolf population at or 
above viable population levels, and we do not expect this commitment to 
change. Based on our review, we conclude that regulatory mechanisms in 
all three States are adequate to facilitate the maintenance of, and in 
no way threaten, the recovered status of wolves in the gray wolf entity 
if they are federally delisted. Adequate wolf-monitoring programs, as 
described in the State wolf-management plans, are likely to identify 
high mortality rates or low birth rates that warrant corrective action 
by the management agencies. Further, while relatively few wolves occur 
in the west coast portion of the gray wolf entity at this time, and 
State wolf-management plans for Washington, Oregon, and California do 
not yet include population management goals, these plans include 
recovery objectives intended to ensure the reestablishment of self-
sustaining populations in these States.
    Based on the biology of wolves and our analysis of threats, we 
conclude that, as long as wolf populations in the Great Lakes States 
are maintained at or above identified recovery levels, wolf biology 
(namely the species' reproductive capacity) and the availability of 
large, secure blocks of suitable habitat within the occupied areas will 
enable the maintenance of populations capable of withstanding all other 
foreseeable threats. Although much of the historical range of the gray 
wolf entity is no longer occupied, based on our analysis we find that 
the amount and distribution of occupied wolf habitat currently 
provides, and will continue to provide, large core areas that contain 
high-quality habitat of sufficient size and with sufficient prey to 
support a recovered wolf population. Our analysis of land management 
shows these areas, specifically Minnesota Wolf Management Zone A 
(Federal Wolf Management Zones 1-4), Wisconsin Wolf Zones 1, and the 
Upper Peninsula of Michigan will maintain their suitability into the 
foreseeable future. Therefore, we conclude that, despite the loss of 
large areas of historical range for the gray wolf entity, Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan contain a sufficient 
amount of high-quality wolf habitat to support wolf populations into 
the future.
    While disease and parasites can temporarily affect population 
stability, as long as populations are managed above recovery levels, 
these factors are not likely to threaten the viability of the wolf 
population in the gray wolf entity at any point in the foreseeable 
future. Climate change is also likely to remain an insignificant factor 
in population dynamics into the foreseeable future, due to the 
adaptability of the species. Finally, based on our analysis, we 
conclude that cumulative effects of threats, do not now, nor are likely 
to in the foreseeable future, threaten the viability of the gray wolf 
entity throughout the range of wolves in the gray wolf entity.

Determination of Status Throughout All of Its Range

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the gray wolf entity

[[Page 9684]]

(the two C. lupus listed entities combined). We evaluated the status 
of, and assessed the factors likely to negatively affect, the gray wolf 
entity, including threats to the gray wolf entity identified at the 
time of reclassification. While wolves in the gray wolf entity 
currently occupy only a portion of wolf historical range, the best 
available information indicates that the gray wolf entity is recovered 
and is not now, nor likely in the foreseeable future, to be negatively 
affected by past, current, and potential future threats such that the 
entity is in danger of extinction.
    Specifically, we have determined, based on the best available 
information, that human-caused mortality (Factor C); habitat and prey 
availability (Factor A); disease and parasites (Factor C); commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational uses (Factor B); climate 
change (Factor E); or other threats, singly or in combination, are not 
of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that 
wolves in the gray wolf entity are in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. We 
have also determined that ongoing effects of recovery efforts, which 
resulted in a significant expansion of the occupied range of and number 
of wolves in the gray wolf entity over the past decades, in conjunction 
with State, Tribal, and Federal agency wolf management and regulatory 
mechanisms that will be in place following delisting across the 
occupied range in the entity, will be adequate to ensure the 
conservation of wolves in the gray wolf entity. These activities will 
maintain an adequate prey base, preserve denning and rendezvous sites, 
monitor disease, restrict human take, and keep wolf populations well 
above the recovery criteria established in the Revised Recovery Plan 
(USFWS 1992, pp. 25-28).
    The term ``foreseeable future'' describes the extent to which we 
can reasonably rely on the predictions about the future in making 
determinations about the future conservation status of the gray wolf 
entity. We conclude that it is reasonable to rely on the scientific 
studies and information assessing human-caused mortality; habitat and 
prey availability; the impacts of disease and parasites; commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational uses; gray wolf adaptability, 
including with respect to changing climate; recovery activities and 
regulatory mechanisms that will be in place following delisting; and 
predictions about how these may affect the gray wolf entity in making 
determinations about the gray wolf entity's future status. Therefore, 
after assessing the best available information, we have determined that 
the gray wolf entity is not in danger of extinction throughout all of 
its range nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
    Because we determined that the gray wolf entity is not in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout 
all of its range, we will consider whether there are any significant 
portions of its range that are in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future.

Determination of Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species warrants 
listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
(SPR). Having determined that the gray wolf entity is not in danger of 
extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
in an SPR. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into 
portions in an infinite number of ways, so we first screen the 
potential portions of the species' range to determine if there are any 
portions that warrant further consideration. To do this we look for 
portions of the species' range for which there is substantial 
information indicating that: (1) The portion may be significant, and 
(2) the species may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future in that portion. A portion would not warrant 
further consideration if, for that portion, either one of these initial 
elements is not present. Therefore, if we determine that either of the 
initial elements is not present for a particular portion of the 
species' range, then further analysis is not necessary and the species 
does not warrant listing because of its status in that portion of its 
range.
    We emphasize that the presence of both of the initial elements is 
not equivalent to a determination that the species should be listed--
rather, it is a determination that a portion warrants further 
consideration. If we identify any portions that meet both of the 
initial elements, we conduct a more thorough analysis to determine 
whether in fact (1) the portion is significant and (2) the species is 
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future in that portion. Confirmation that a geographic area does indeed 
meet one of these standards (either the portion is significant or the 
species is endangered or threatened in that portion of its range) does 
not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other determination as to 
whether the species is endangered or threatened in a significant 
portion of its range. Rather, we must then undertake a more detailed 
analysis of the other standard to make that determination. If the 
portion does indeed meet both standards, then the species is endangered 
or threatened in that significant portion of its range and warrants 
listing rangewide.
    Thus, there can be two separate stages to the process of 
determining whether a species is threatened or endangered in a 
significant portion of its range: The stage of screening potential 
portions to identify if any portions warrant further consideration, and 
the stage of undertaking the more-detailed analysis of any portions 
that do warrant further consideration. At either stage, it may be more 
efficient for us to address the ``significance'' question first, or to 
address the ``status'' question first. Our selection of which question 
to address first for a particular portion depends on the biology of the 
species, its range, and the threats it faces. Regardless of which 
question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect 
to the first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the 
second question for that portion of the species' range.
    We note that a court has invalidated the USFWS and National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS) definition of ``significant'' in their policy 
interpreting ``significant portion of its range,'' and issued a 
nationwide injunction prohibiting us from applying that definition 
(Desert Survivors v. Dep't of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS (N.D. 
Cal. Aug. 24, 2018)). Therefore, in our analysis for the gray wolf, we 
apply ``significant'' in a way that is consistent with that court's 
opinion, and with other relevant case law. As USFWS and NMFS have not 
yet determined the best way to interpret ``significant'' in light of 
the decision in Desert Survivors, for the purposes of the analysis 
here, in determining whether any portions may warrant further 
consideration because they may be significant, we screen by looking for 
portions of the species' range that could be significant under any 
reasonable definition of ``significant'' that relates to the 
conservation of the gray wolf entity. To do this, we look for any 
portions that may be biologically important in terms of the resiliency, 
redundancy, or representation of the species. Our use of this standard 
for ``significant'' is limited to this analysis, and is not precedent 
for any future determinations.
    To screen for the second prong, we consider whether there are any 
portions where the gray wolf entity may be in

[[Page 9685]]

danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. 
This may include consideration of whether the threats are 
geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a 
biologically meaningful scale; if threats are not uniform throughout 
its range, this may be an indication that the species may warrant 
further evaluation to determine whether a different classification is 
appropriate. However, geographically concentrated threats do not 
necessarily indicate that a species may be in danger of extinction or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. Even if 
threats are concentrated in a portion, other factors could indicate 
that there is little chance those threats rise to a level such that the 
portion of the range may be in danger of extinction or likely to become 
so in the foreseeable future.
    After reviewing the biology of the gray wolf entity and potential 
threats, we have not identified any portions of the gray wolf entity 
for which both (1) gray wolves may be in danger of extinction or likely 
to become so in the foreseeable future and (2) the portion may be 
significant. While some portions may be at increased threat from human-
caused mortality or factors related to small numbers, we did not find 
that any of these portions may be significant. We provide examples 
below.
    First, portions peripheral to the Great Lakes metapopulation that 
may contain lone dispersing wolves (e.g., western Minnesota, Lower 
Peninsula of Michigan, eastern South Dakota) or few wolves (e.g., Isle 
Royale), may be at greater threat from human caused mortality or due to 
factors related to small numbers of individuals. However, these 
portions are not biologically important to the gray wolf entity in 
terms of resiliency, redundancy, or representation. They are not 
important to the redundancy or resiliency of the gray wolf entity 
because they are not members of established breeding packs (lone 
dispersers) or are few in number and likely to remain as such (Isle 
Royale). They are also not important to the representation of the gray 
wolf entity because they lack genetic uniqueness relative to other 
wolves in the Great Lakes metapopulation--they are part of that 
metapopulation and are dispersing out from it. In addition, the gray 
wolf is a highly adaptable generalist species capable of long-distance 
dispersal. In other words, it possess the genetic diversity necessary 
to successfully colonize a broad range of habitat types and feed on a 
variety of prey species, and possess dispersal capabilities that 
facilitate colonization of those habitats in addition to gene flow 
among and between populations. Therefore, we find that these portions 
are not ``significant'' under any reasonable definition of that term 
because they are not biologically important to the gray wolf entity in 
terms of its resiliency, redundancy, or representation.
    Second, State wolf-management zones in which post-delisting 
depredation control would be allowed under a broader set of 
circumstances than in core population zones, such as Minnesota Wolf 
Management Zone B (Federal Wolf Management Zone 5) or Wisconsin Wolf 
Management Zones 3 and 4, are not significant under any reasonable 
definition of ``significant.'' While these portions would likely 
experience higher levels of human-caused mortality if the gray wolf 
entity were delisted, these portions are not ``significant'' under any 
reasonable definition of that term. The wolves in these zones occur on 
the periphery of a large metapopulation (the Great Lakes 
metapopulation), in areas of limited habitat suitability, and do not 
contribute appreciably to (and are thus not biologically important to) 
the resiliency, redundancy, or representation of the gray wolf entity. 
In fact, the Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf advises against 
restoration of wolves in State Zone B (Federal Zone 5) because the area 
is ``not suitable for wolves''. Wolves in these higher-intensity 
management zones are not important to the resiliency of the gray wolf 
entity because, even though they contain multiple established packs in 
addition to lone wolves, they comprise a small proportion of wolves in 
the Great Lakes metapopulation and, consequently, the gray wolf entity 
(Zone B contains approximately 15% of the Minnesota wolf population; 
Zones 3 and 4 contain about 6% of the Wisconsin wolf population). If 
wolves are delisted, a large metapopulation of wolves would still occur 
in the Great Lakes area outside these higher-intensity management zones 
in core zones of high-quality habitat and minimal human-caused 
mortality, providing the gray wolf entity the ability to withstand 
stochastic processes. These higher-intensity management zones are not 
important to the redundancy of the gray wolf entity because wolves in 
these zones represent a relatively small number and distribution of 
populations or packs in the Great Lakes metapopulation. The Great Lakes 
metapopulation is large and distributed across three states. Wolves in 
these higher-intensity management zones comprise a small proportion of 
wolves in, and occur on the periphery of, this metapopulation. If 
wolves are delisted, wolves would still occur in multiple populations 
distributed across tens of thousands of square miles in Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, and Michigan, providing the gray wolf entity the ability to 
withstand a catastrophic event. Thus, wolves in these higher-intensity 
management zones do not contribute meaningfully to the ability of the 
Great Lakes metapopulation, or gray wolf entity, to withstand 
catastrophic events. Wolves in these higher-intensity management zones 
are not important to the representation of the gray wolf entity because 
they originate from the Great Lakes and eastern Canada metapopulation 
(they are genetically similar to other wolves in the Great Lakes area 
of the gray wolf entity) and because gray wolves are a highly adaptable 
generalist species capable of long distance-dispersal. Therefore, we do 
not find that these portions may be significant under any reasonable 
definition of ``significant'' because they are not biologically 
important to the gray wolf entity in terms of its resiliency, 
redundancy, or representation.
    Third, the west coast portion of the gray wolf entity, where wolves 
exist in small numbers in California, western Oregon, and western 
Washington, also is not biologically important to the gray wolf entity 
in terms of resiliency, redundancy, or representation. This portion is 
not important to the gray wolf entity in terms of resiliency or 
redundancy because wolves occur in small numbers in this portion and 
include only a few breeding pairs. Because these wolves represent the 
expanding front of a recovered and stable source metapopulation, and 
are therefore not an independent population within the gray wolf 
entity, the small number of wolves there do not contribute meaningfully 
to the ability of any population, in the NRM or Great Lakes area, to 
withstand stochastic events, nor to the entire entity's ability to 
withstand catastrophic events. This portion is also not important in 
terms of representation, because (1) gray wolves are a highly adaptable 
generalist carnivore capable of long-distance dispersal, and (2) the 
gray wolves in this area are an extension of a large metapopulation of 
wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Canada (i.e., they 
are not an isolated population with unique or markedly different 
genetic or phenotypic traits that is evolving separate from other wolf 
populations). Therefore, for the purpose of assessing the status of the 
gray wolf

[[Page 9686]]

entity under the Act, we do not find that this portion may be 
significant under any reasonable definition of ``significant'' because 
it is not biologically important to the gray wolf entity in terms of 
its resiliency, redundancy, or representation.
    We conclude that there are no portions of the gray wolf entity for 
which both (1) gray wolves may be in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future and (2) the portion may be 
significant. As discussed above, portions that may be in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future are not 
significant under any reasonable definition of that term. Conversely, 
other portions that are or may be significant (i.e. the core areas of 
the Great Lakes metapopulation) are not in danger of extinction or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Because we did not 
identify any portions of the gray wolf entity where threats may be 
concentrated and where the portion may be biologically important in 
terms of the resiliency, redundancy, or representation of the gray wolf 
entity, a more thorough analysis is not required. Therefore, we 
conclude that the gray wolf entity is not in danger of extinction or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future within a significant 
portion of its range.

Proposed Determination

    After a thorough review of all available information and an 
evaluation of the five factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, 
as well as consideration of the definitions of ``threatened species'' 
and ``endangered species'' contained in the Act and the reasons for 
delisting as specified in 50 CFR 424.11(d), we propose that removing 
the two entities of gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is appropriate. We have 
collectively evaluated the current and potential threats to the 
combined gray wolf entities, including those that result from past loss 
of historical range. Wolves have recovered in the combined entities as 
a result of the reduction of threats as described in the analysis of 
threats and are neither currently in danger of extinction, nor likely 
to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant 
portion of their range.
    Although substantial contraction of gray wolf historical range 
occurred within the combined entities since European settlement, the 
range of the gray wolf has expanded significantly since its original 
listing in 1978 and the impacts of lost historical range are no longer 
manifesting in a way that threatens the viability of the species. The 
causes of the previous contraction (for example, targeted extermination 
efforts), and the effects of that contraction (for example, reduced 
numbers of individuals and populations, and restricted gene flow), in 
addition to the effects of all other threats, have been ameliorated or 
reduced such that the combined entities no longer meet the Act's 
definitions of ``threatened species'' or ``endangered species.'' 
Further, we note that, while we combined the two C. lupus listed 
entities for our analysis, even if we had analyzed them separately, 
neither would meet the Act's definitions of ``threatened species'' or 
``endangered species.'' Both of these two listed entities are either 
part of the same metapopulation or the expanding front of the recovered 
NRM metapopulation. Therefore, because the status of each of these two 
listed entities is influenced by its connectedness to the other, the 
status of each would be the same as if analyzed in combination. We also 
note that the Act allows us to list species, subspecies, or DPSs and 
that, because the two listed entities are not discrete and are 
therefore not DPSs, neither of the two listed entities constitute valid 
listable entities under the Act and should, therefore, be removed from 
the List.

Effects of This Rule

    This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) by 
removing the two existing C. lupus listed entities from the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This proposal, if made 
final, would also remove 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 km\2\ (9,845 mi\2\) in northeastern and north-
central Minnesota. This proposal, if made final, would remove the 
designation of critical habitat for gray wolves in Minnesota and on 
Isle Royale, Michigan.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in the 1988 reauthorization, 
requires us to implement a system, in cooperation with the States, to 
monitor for not less than 5 years the status of all species that have 
recovered and been removed from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). The purpose of this 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 authority under section 
4(b)(7) of the Act to prevent a significant risk to the well-being of 
any recovered species. Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires 
cooperation with the States in development and implementation of PDM 
programs, 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 State and Federal agencies 
or Tribal governments that are expected to assume management authority 
for the species' conservation, should our proposed delisting be 
finalized. In some cases, agencies have already devoted significant 
resources toward wolf monitoring efforts. For example, the States of 
Washington, Oregon, and California have wolf-management plans that 
include monitoring strategies for wolves and wolf populations. Should 
such monitoring document significant declines, the Service will 
investigate the degree and importance of such declines.
    We developed a PDM plan for wolves in the Great Lakes area with the 
assistance of the Eastern Wolf Recovery Team in 2008. That document 
remains applicable today as it focuses on monitoring wolves within the 
borders of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan 
and is available on our website (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    The PDM program will rely on a continuation of State monitoring 
activities, similar to those that have been conducted by Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, and Michigan DNR's in recent years, and Tribal monitoring. 
These activities will include both population monitoring and health 
monitoring of individual wolves. During the PDM period, the Service 
will conduct a review of the monitoring data and program. We will 
consider various relevant factors (including but not limited to 
mortality rates, population changes and rates of change, disease

[[Page 9687]]

occurrence, range expansion or contraction) to determine if the 
population of wolves within the borders of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 
the Upper Peninsula of Michigan warrants expanded monitoring, 
additional research, consideration for re-listing 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 program 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 work with the States and Tribes to evaluate and change (intensify, 
extend, and/or otherwise improve) the monitoring methods, if 
appropriate, and/or consider re-listing the gray wolf, if warranted.
    This PDM monitoring program will extend for 5 years beyond the 
effective delisting date of the two currently listed gray wolf 
entities. At the end of the 5-year period, we will conduct another 
review and post the results on our website. In addition to the above 
considerations, the review will determine whether the PDM program 
should be terminated or extended.

Required Determinations

Clarity of This Proposed Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental 
assessment or an environmental impact statement, as defined under the 
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.), in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to 
section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons 
for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 
FR 49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. We have coordinated the proposed rule 
with the affected Tribes and, furthermore, throughout several years of 
development of earlier related rules and this 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. If requested, we will conduct additional 
consultations with Native American Tribes and multi-tribal 
organizations subsequent to any final rule in order to facilitate the 
transition to State and Tribal management of wolves within the Lower 48 
United States outside of the NRM DPS where wolves are already under 
State and Tribal management. We will fully consider all of the comments 
on the proposed rule that are submitted by Tribes and Tribal members 
during the public comment period and will attempt to address those 
concerns, new data, and new information where appropriate.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is 
available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-
2018-0097 or upon request from the USFWS Headquarters Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the 
USFWS.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless 
otherwise noted.


Sec.  17.11   [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by removing both entries for ``Wolf, gray 
(Canis lupus)'' under MAMMALS in the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife.


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 6, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Exercising 
the Authority of the Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-04420 Filed 3-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P