69778 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ecos.fws.gov. Comments and materials We also considered all comments and we received, as well as some supporting information we received during the Fish and Wildlife Service documentation we used in preparing proposed delisting rule’s comment this rule, are available for public period. 50 CFR Part 17 inspection at http:// Table of Contents [Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2018–0097; www.regulations.gov. Previous Federal Actions FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 212] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General Background RIN 1018–BD60 Bridget Fahey, Chief, Division of The 1978 Reclassification Classification and Conservation, National Wolf Strategy Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf Wildlife Service, Headquarters Office, Meet the Statutory Definition of a (Canis lupus) From the List of MS: ES, 5275, Leesburg Pike, Falls ‘‘Species’’ Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Church, VA 22041–3803; telephone Approach for This Rule (703) 358–2163. Persons who use a The Gray Wolf Entities Addressed in This Rule AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, telecommunications device for the deaf Interior. Why and How We Address Each (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Configuration of Gray Wolf Entities ACTION: Final rule and notification of Service at 800–877–8339. The Two Listed Entities Assessed petition finding. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Separately The Two Listed Entities Assessed in SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Executive Summary Combination Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), The Two Listed Entities and the NRM DPS have evaluated the classification status Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act and our regulations, if we Assessed in Combination of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) entities How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing currently listed in the lower 48 United determine that a species is no longer How We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties States and Mexico under the threatened or endangered throughout all in This Rule Endangered Species Act of 1973, as or a significant portion of its range, we Definition and Treatment of Range amended (Act). Based on our must remove the species from the Lists Summary of Our Approach Species Information evaluation, we are removing the gray of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants in title 50 of the Code of Biology and Ecology wolf entities in the lower 48 United Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North States and Mexico, except for the Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). The Act requires us to issue a America Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi), that are Range and Population Trends Prior to 1978 currently on the List of Endangered and rule to remove a species from the List Reclassification Threatened Wildlife. We are taking this (‘‘delist’’ it) (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)). Historical Range What this document does. This rule action because the best available Historical Abundance removes from the List gray wolves that scientific and commercial data available Historical Trends in Range and Abundance are currently listed as threatened or Distribution and Abundance at the Time of establish that the gray wolf entities in endangered species in the lower 48 the 1978 Reclassification the lower 48 United States do not meet United States and Mexico. This rule Current Distribution and Abundance the definitions of a threatened species or does not have any effect on the separate Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery an endangered species under the Act. Implementation listing of the Mexican wolf subspecies The effect of this rulemaking action is Recovery Criteria for the Eastern United as endangered under the Act (80 FR that C. lupus is not classified as a States 2487, January 16, 2015). threatened or endangered species under Recovery Progress in the Eastern United The basis for our action. Under the the Act. This rule does not have any States Act, we determine whether a species is Recovery Criteria for the NRM effect on the separate listing of the an endangered or threatened species Recovery Progress in the NRM DPS Mexican wolf subspecies (Canis lupus based on any one or more of five factors Historical Context of Our Analysis baileyi) as endangered under the Act. In or the cumulative effects thereof: (A) Regulatory Framework addition, we announce a 90-day finding The present or threatened destruction, Summary of Factors Affecting the Species on a petition to maintain protections for Human-Caused Mortality modification, or curtailment of its the gray wolf in the lower 48 United Human-Caused Mortality in the Currently habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for States as endangered or threatened Listed Entities commercial, recreational, scientific, or distinct population segments. Based on Human-Caused Mortality in the NRM DPS educational purposes; (C) Disease or Regulated Harvest in Idaho our review, we find that the petition predation; (D) The inadequacy of Depredation Control in Idaho does not present substantial scientific or existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Wolf Population and Human-Caused commercial information indicating that Other natural or manmade factors Mortality in Idaho Summary the petitioned actions may be affecting its continued existence (16 Regulated Harvest in Montana warranted. Therefore, we are not Depredation Control in Montana U.S.C. 1533(a)(1(A)). We have initiating status reviews of the Wolf Population and Human-Caused determined that the gray wolf entities petitioned entities in response to the Mortality in Montana Summary currently listed in the lower 48 United petition. Regulated Harvest in Wyoming States and Mexico (not including the Depredation Control in Wyoming DATES: This rule is effective January 4, Mexican wolf subspecies) do not meet Wolf Population and Human-Caused 2021. the definition of an endangered species Mortality in Wyoming Summary ADDRESSES: This final rule, the post- or threatened species under the Act. Regulated Harvest in Oregon delisting monitoring plan, and the Peer review and public comment. We Depredation Control in Oregon Wolf Population and Human-Caused summary of the basis for the petition sought comments on the proposed Mortality in Oregon Summary finding contained in this document are delisting rule from independent Regulated Harvest in Washington available on the internet at http:// specialists to ensure that this rule is Depredation Control in Washington www.regulations.gov under Docket No. based on reasonable assumptions and Wolf Population and Human-Caused FWS–HQ–ES–2018–0097 or https:// scientifically sound data and analyses. Mortality in Washington Summary

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69779

Effects on Wolf Social Structure and Pack Peer Reviewer Comments Effects of This Rule Dynamics Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or Post-Delisting Monitoring The Role of Public Attitudes Population Trends Required Determinations Human-Caused Mortality Summary Human-Caused Mortality National Environmental Policy Act Habitat and Prey Availability Habitat and Prey Availability Government-to-Government Relationship Great Lakes Area: Suitable Habitat Disease and Parasites With Tribes Great Lakes Area: Prey Availability Post-Delisting Management NRM DPS: Suitable Habitat General Previous Federal Actions NRM DPS: Prey Availability Biological Report Gray wolves were originally listed as West Coast States: Suitable Habitat Policy subspecies or as regional populations 1 West Coast States: Prey Availability State and Federal Agency Comments of subspecies in the lower 48 United Recovery and Delisting Central Rocky Mountains: Suitable Habitat States and Mexico. Early listings were Central Rocky Mountains: Prey Availability Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or Habitat and Prey Availability Summary Population Trends under legislative predecessors of the Disease and Parasites Taxonomy Act—the Endangered Species Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding Human-Caused Mortality Preservation Act of 1966 and the Effects of Climate Change Effects of Climate Change Endangered Species Conservation Act of Cumulative Effects Genetics 1969. Later listings were under the Ongoing and Post-Delisting State, Tribal, and Post-Delisting Management Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Federal Wolf Management Policy Tribal and Tribal Organization Comments Federal Register citations for all the Ongoing Management in the Delisted NRM rulemaking actions described in the DPS Public Comments State Management Recovery and Delisting following paragraphs are provided in Idaho Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or table 1, below. Montana Population Trends In 1978, we published a rule Wyoming Taxonomy reclassifying the gray wolf throughout Tribal Management and Conservation of Human-Caused Mortality the lower 48 United States and Mexico, Wolves Habitat and Prey Availability subsuming the earlier listings of Wind River Indian Reservation Disease and Parasites Effects of Climate Change subspecies or regional populations of Blackfeet Indian Reservation subspecies. In that rule, we classified Flathead Indian Reservation Genetics Additional Threats gray wolves in Minnesota as a Confederated Tribes of the Colville Post-Delisting Management threatened species and gray wolves Reservation Post-Delisting Monitoring Management on Federal Lands elsewhere in the lower 48 United States General Summary of Management in the NRM DPS and Mexico as an endangered species Policy Post-Delisting Management Where Wolves (table 1). At that time, we considered Evaluation of a Petition To Revise the the gray wolves in Minnesota to be a are Currently Listed Listings for the Gray Wolf Under the Act State Management in Minnesota, Background listable entity under the Act, and we Wisconsin, and Michigan Species and Range considered the gray wolves in the lower The Minnesota Wolf Management Plan Petition History 48 United States and Mexico, other than Depredation Control in Minnesota Findings Minnesota, to be another listable entity Post-Delisting Depredation Control in Alternatives 1 and 2 (43 FR 9607 and 9610, respectively, Minnesota Alternative 3 March 9, 1978). The earlier subspecies Post-Delisting Regulated Harvest in Determination of Species Status Minnesota listings thus were subsumed into two Currently Listed Entities listed entities: The gray wolf in The Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan Minnesota: Determination of Status Depredation Control in Wisconsin Throughout All of Its Range Minnesota; and the gray wolf in the rest Post-Delisting Depredation Control in Minnesota: Determination of Status of the lower 48 United States and Wisconsin Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Mexico. Post-Delisting Regulated Harvest in Range The 1978 reclassification was Wisconsin Minnesota: Final Determination undertaken to address changes in our The Michigan Wolf Management Plan 44-State Entity: Determination of Status understanding of gray wolf taxonomy Depredation Control in Michigan Throughout All of Its Range and protect all gray wolves in the lower Post-Delisting Depredation Control in 44-State Entity: Determination of Status Michigan 48 United States and Mexico (43 FR Throughout a Significant Portion of Its 9607, March 9, 1978). In addition, we Post-Delisting Regulated Harvest in Range Michigan 44-State Entity: Final Determination also clarified that the gray wolf was only State Management in the West Coast States Combined Listed Entity listed south of the Canadian border. The Oregon Wolf Management Plan Combined Listed Entity: Determination of The 1978 reclassification rule The Washington Wolf Management Plan Status Throughout All of Its Range stipulated that ‘‘biological subspecies The California Wolf Management Plan Combined Listed Entity: Determination of would continue to be maintained and State Management in the Central Rocky Status Throughout a Significant Portion dealt with as separate entities’’ (43 FR Mountains of Its Range 9609), and offered ‘‘the firmest Post-Delisting Management in Colorado Combined Listed Entity: Final assurance that [the Service] will Post-Delisting Management in Utah Determination continue to recognize valid biological Tribal Management and Conservation of Lower 48 United States Entity Wolves Lower 48 United States Entity: subspecies for purposes of its research Management on Federal Lands Determination of Status Throughout All and conservation programs’’ (43 FR Great Lakes Area of Its Range 9610). Accordingly, we implemented West Coast States Lower 48 United States Entity: three gray wolf recovery programs in Central Rocky Mountains Determination of Status Throughout a three regions of the country—the Summary of Post-Delisting Management Significant Portion of Its Range Summary of Changes From the Proposed Lower 48 United States Entity: Final 1 A group of fish or wildlife in the same taxon Rule Determination below the subspecific level, in common spatial Summary of Comments and Determination of Species Status: arrangement that interbreed when mature (50 CFR Recommendations Conclusion 17.3).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69780 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

northern Rocky Mountains, the 1713 of Public Law 112–10, reinstating 2017)). Thus, wolves are currently Southwestern United States, and the our 2009 delisting rule for the NRM DPS delisted in the entire northern Rocky Eastern United States (including the and, with the exception of Wyoming, Mountains DPS (figure 1). Great Lakes States). The recovery removed gray wolves in that DPS from As a result of the above actions, the programs were pursued to establish and the List. In 2012, we finalized a rule C. lupus listed entities in 50 CFR 17.11 prioritize recovery criteria and actions removing gray wolves in Wyoming from currently include: (1) C. lupus in appropriate to the unique local the List. That rule was later vacated by Minnesota listed as threatened, and (2) circumstances of the gray wolf (table 1). the U.S. District Court for the District of C. lupus in all or portions of 44 U.S. Recovery in one of these regions Columbia. In 2013, we published a States and Mexico, listed as endangered (Southwestern United States) included proposed rule to: (1) Delist C. lupus in (figure 1). In the United States, this reintroduction of gray wolves in an the remaining listed portions of the includes: All of Alabama, Arkansas, experimental population (table 1). United States and Mexico outside of the California, Colorado, Connecticut, Recovery in a second region (northern delisted NRM and WGL DPSs; and (2) Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Rocky Mountains) included keep Mexican wolf (C. l baileyi; Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, reintroduction of gray wolves in an occurring in the Southwestern United Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, experimental population (table 1) and States and Mexico) listed as an Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, natural recolonization. Recovery in the endangered subspecies (table 1). North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, In 2014, the U. S. District Court for third region (Eastern United States) New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, the District of Columbia vacated the relied on natural recolonization and New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, December 28, 2011, final rule population growth. Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Between 2003 and 2015, we identifying the WGL DPS and removing Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, published several rules revising the it from the List (table 1). The district Texas, Virginia, Vermont, West Virginia, 1978 listed entities to acknowledge new court’s decision was based, in part, on and Wisconsin; and portions of Arizona, information regarding taxonomy, its conclusion that the Act does not New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and comport with current policy and allow the Service to use its authority to Washington (figure 1). practices, and recognize the biological identify a DPS solely for the purpose of recovery of gray wolves in the northern delisting it (Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v. On March 15, 2019, we published a Rocky Mountains (NRM) and Eastern Jewell, 76 F. Supp. 3d 69, 112–13 proposed rule to delist the two currently United States. Previous rules were (D.D.C. 2014)). The U.S. Court of listed C. lupus entities in the Federal challenged and subsequently Appeals disagreed, ruling in 2017 that Register (84 FR 9648). The publication invalidated or vacated by various courts the Service had the authority to of the proposed delisting rule opened a based, in part, on their determinations designate a DPS from a larger listed 60-day public comment period, which that our distinct population segment entity and delist it in the same rule was scheduled to close on May 14, (DPS) designations were legally flawed (table 1). That court nonetheless upheld 2019. Based on several requests from the (table 1). the district court’s vacatur of the rule, public to extend the comment period, Of particular relevance to this rule is concluding that the Service failed to we published a document on May 14, our 2011 final rule addressing wolf analyze or consider two significant 2019, extending the comment period 60 recovery in the western Great Lakes aspects of the rule: The impacts of days, to July 15, 2019 (84 FR 21312). We (WGL) area of the Eastern United States delisting the DPS on the rest of the announced a public information open (76 FR 81666, Dec. 28, 2011). In that listed entity and the impacts of the loss house and public hearing on our rule, we recognized the expansion of the of historical range (Humane Soc’y of the proposed rule and the availability of the Minnesota wolf population by revising U.S. v. Zinke, 865 F.3d 585, 602–03, final peer review report in the Federal the previously listed Minnesota entity to 605–07). Register on June 6, 2019 (84 FR 26393). include all or portions of six In 2015, we finalized the portion of The public events were held in surrounding States, classified the the 2013 proposed rule listing the Brainerd, Minnesota, on June 25, 2019. expanded population as the WGL DPS, Mexican wolf as an endangered For additional information on these and determined that the WGL DPS did subspecies (table 1). In 2017, the D.C. Federal actions and their associated not meet the definition of a threatened Circuit reversed the district court’s litigation history, refer to the relevant or an endangered species due to decision and reinstated the delisting of associated rules or the Previous Federal recovery. Also in 2011, we published a gray wolves in Wyoming (Defenders of Actions sections of our recent gray wolf final rule that implemented section Wildlife v. Zinke, 849 F.3d 1077 (DC Cir. 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.

Federal Register Entity Year of action Type of action citation Litigation history

C. lupus lycaon ...... 1967 1 ...... List ...... 32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967. C. lupus irremotus ...... 1973 1 ...... List ...... 38 FR 14678, June 4, 1973. C. l. lycaon ...... 1974 ...... List ...... 39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974. C. l. irremotus ...... 1974 ...... List ...... 39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974. C. l. baileyi ...... 1976 ...... List (E) ...... 41 FR 17736, April 28, 1976. C. lupus monstrabilis 2 ...... 1976 ...... List (E) ...... 41 FR 24064, June 14, 1976. C. lupus in lower 48 U.S. (except Min- 1978 ...... Reclassify (E) ...... 43 FR 9607, March nesota) & Mexico. 9, 1978 3.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69781

TABLE 1—KEY FEDERAL REGULATORY ACTIONS UNDER THE ACT AND PREDECESSOR LEGISLATION 1 PERTAINING TO GRAY WOLF AND, WHERE APPLICABLE, OUTCOMES OF COURT CHALLENGES TO THESE ACTIONS.—Continued

Federal Register Entity Year of action Type of action citation Litigation history

C. lupus in Minnesota ...... 1978 ...... Reclassify (T) ...... 43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978 3. C. lupus ...... 1978 (revised 1992) Recovery Plan for Eastern Timber n.a. Wolf (eastern gray wolf). C. lupus ...... 1980 (revised 1987) Recovery Plan for NRM Gray Wolf ... n.a. C. lupus ...... 1982 (revised 2017) Recovery Plan for Mexican Gray n.a. Wolf (C. l. baileyi). C. lupus ...... 1994 ...... Establish experimental population 59 FR 60266, No- (southeastern Idaho, southern vember 22, 1994. Montana, and Wyoming). C. lupus ...... 1994 ...... Establish experimental population 59 FR 60252, No- Upholding reintroduction in the NRM (central Idaho & southwest Mon- vember 22, 1994. region (Wyoming Farm Bureau v. tana). Babbitt, 199 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2000)). C. lupus ...... 1998 ...... Establish experimental population 63 FR 1752, January (Arizona & New Mexico). 12, 1998. C. lupus DPSs: ...... 2003 ...... Designate DPS & classify/reclassify 68 FR 15804, April Rule vacated (Defenders of Wildlife —Eastern DPS as:. 1, 2003. v. Norton, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1156 —Western DPS —Eastern DPS (T) (D. Or. 2005); National Wildlife —Southwestern U.S. & Mexico —Western DPS (T) Federation v. Norton, 386 F. Supp. DPS —Southwestern U.S. & Mexico 2d 553 (D. Vt. 2005)). DPS (E) —Delist in unoccupied non-his- torical range C. lupus WGL DPS ...... 2007 ...... Designate DPS & delist ...... 72 FR 6052, Feb- Rule vacated (Humane Society of the ruary 8, 2007. United States v. Kempthorne, 579 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D. D.C. 2008)). C. lupus NRM DPS ...... 2008 ...... Designate DPS & delist ...... 73 FR 10514, Feb- Rule enjoined (Defenders of Wildlife ruary 27, 2008. v. Hall, 565 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (D. Mont. 2008)), and subsequently vacated and remanded. C. lupus DPSs: ...... 2008 ...... Reinstatement of protections—NRM 73 FR 75356, De- —WGL DPS & WGL DPSs. cember 11, 2008. —NRM DPS C. lupus WGL DPS ...... 2009 ...... Designate DPS & delist ...... 74 FR 15070, April Rule vacated (Humane Society of the 2, 2009. United States v. Salazar, 1:09– CV–1092–PLF (D.D.C. 2009)). C. lupus NRM DPS (except Wyoming) 2009 ...... Designate DPS & delist (except in 74 FR 15123, April Rule vacated (Defenders of Wildlife Wyoming). 2, 2009. v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010)). C. lupus WGL DPS ...... 2009 ...... Reinstatement of protections—WGL 74 FR 47483, Sep- tember 16, 2009. C. lupus NRM DPS ...... 2010 ...... Reinstatement of protections—NRM 75 FR 65574, Octo- DPS. ber 26, 2010. C. lupus NRM DPS...... 2011 ...... Reissuance of 2009 NRM DPS 76 FR 25590, May Upholding Section 1713 (Alliance for delisting rule (as required by Public 5, 2011. the Wild Rockies v. Salazar, 672 Law 112–10—The Department of F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2012)). Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011). C. lupus WGL DPS ...... 2011 ...... Revise 1978 listing, designate DPS & 76 FR 81666, De- Rule vacated (Humane Society of the delist. cember 28, 2011. U.S. v. Jewell, 76 F. Supp. 3d 69, 110 (D.D.C. 2014)) . Vacatur upheld on appeal (Humane Society of the U.S. v. Zinke, 865 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2017)). C. lupus in lower 48 U.S. and Mexico, 2012 ...... 5-Year Review ...... n.a. as revised. C. lupus in Wyoming ...... 2012 ...... Delist in Wyoming ...... 77 FR 55530, Sep- Rule vacated (Defenders of Wildlife tember 10, 2012. v. Jewell, 68 F. Supp. 3d 193 (D.D.C. 2014) Vacatur reversed on appeal (Defenders of Wildlife v. Zinke, 849 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2017)). C. lupus in lower 48 U.S. (except NRM 2013 ...... Propose delist in lower 48 U.S. & list 78 FR 35664, June & WGL DPSs) and Mexico. C. l. baileyi (E); status review of 13, 2013. wolves in Pacific Northwest. C. l. baileyi ...... 2015 ...... List E ...... 80 FR 2488, January 16, 2015. C. l. baileyi ...... 2015 ...... Revised 1998 C. lupus experimental 80 FR 2512, January population and associated it with 16, 2015. C. l. baileyi listing. C. lupus WGL DPS and C. lupus in 2015 ...... Reinstatement of protections—WGL 80 FR 9218, Feb- Wyoming. DPS & Wyoming. ruary 20, 2015. C. lupus in Wyoming...... 2017 ...... Reinstatement of 2012 delisting— 82 FR 20284, May Wyoming. 1, 2017. E = endangered species, T = threatened species, DPS = Distinct Population Segment, NRM = Northern Rocky Mountains, WGL = Western Great Lakes. 1 Action taken under the Endangered Species Preservation predecessor legislation (Endangered Species Act of 1966, Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969). 2 Later subsumed into C. l. baileyi due to taxonomic changes.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69782 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

3 In this rule we also identified critical habitat in Michigan and Minnesota and promulgated special regulations under section 4(d) of the Act for operating a wolf- management program in Minnesota. The special regulation was later modified (50 FR 50793, December 12, 1985).

General Background in the lower 48 United States and reestablishing wolf populations in three Mexico, rather than an indication of specific regions of the country: The The 1978 Reclassification where gray wolves actually existed or Eastern United States (including the When the gray wolf (C. lupus) was where recovery efforts were considered Great Lakes States), the northern Rocky reclassified in March 1978 (replacing necessary. Thus, the 1978 Mountains, and the Southwestern multiple subspecies entities with two C. reclassification resulted in inclusion of United States. We have consistently lupus population entities as described large areas of the lower 48 United States focused our recovery efforts on further in Previous Federal Actions), it where gray wolves were extirpated, as reestablishing wolf populations in these had been extirpated from much of its well as the mid-Atlantic and specific regions (see table 1 and Gray historical range in the lower 48 United southeastern United States, areas where Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery States. Although the 1978 long-held differences of opinion Implementation). reclassification listed two gray wolf regarding the precise boundary of the entities (a threatened population in National Wolf Strategy Minnesota and an endangered species’ historical range remain (Young Although not required by the Act, in population throughout the rest of the and Goldman 1944, pp. 413–416, 478; 2011 we described our national wolf lower 48 United States and Mexico), Hall 1981, p. 932; Nowak 1995, p. 395, strategy in our proposed rule to revise these entities were not predicated upon Fig. 20; Nowak 2009, p. 242; Mech and the List for the gray wolf in the Eastern a formal DPS analysis, because the Boitani 2003, p. 251, Fig. 9.7). While United States (76 FR 26089–26090, May reclassification predated the November this generalized approach to the gray 5, 2011). This strategy was intended to: 1978 amendments to the Act, which wolf listing facilitated recovery of (1) Lay out a cohesive and coherent revised the definition of ‘‘species’’ to wolves in the northern Rocky approach to addressing wolf include DPSs of vertebrate fish or Mountains and western Great Lakes, it conservation needs, including wildlife, and our 1996 DPS Policy. also erroneously included areas outside protection and management, in As indicated in Previous Federal the species’ historical range and was accordance with the Act’s statutory Actions, the 1978 reclassification was misread by some members of the public framework; (2) ensure that actions taken undertaken to address changes in our as an expression of a more expansive for one wolf population do not cause understanding of gray wolf taxonomy gray wolf recovery effort not required by unintended consequences for other and to ensure the gray wolf was the Act and never intended by the populations; and (3) be explicit about protected wherever it was found (as Service. In fact, our longstanding the role of historical range in the described in 47 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) approach to recovery has focused on conservation of extant wolf populations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 ER03NO20.016 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69783

Our strategy focused on the continued throughout the rest of the lower 48 considered discrete if it ‘‘is markedly conservation of three extant gray wolf United States and Mexico (43 FR 9612, separated from other populations of the entities (the Great Lakes population, the March 9, 1978). The 1978 rule treated same taxon as a consequence of northern Rocky Mountains population, these entities as distinct ‘‘species’’ physical, physiological, ecological, or and the southwestern population of under the statutory definition of the behavioral factors’’ (61 FR 4725). For the Mexican wolves) and consideration of term that was in effect at that time (43 reasons set forth below, the gray wolf conservation of a fourth, wolves in the FR 9610, March 9, 1978). entities currently on the List do not Pacific Northwest. In 2013 we When the Act was adopted in 1973, meet this standard. completed a status review for gray the term ‘‘species’’ was defined to The two entities are not markedly wolves in the Pacific Northwest include species, subspecies or ‘‘any separated from other populations of the (western Washington, western Oregon, other group of fish or wildlife of the same taxon. The threatened Minnesota and northern California) (table 1) and same species or smaller taxa in common listed entity is not discrete from the determined that, under our DPS policy, spatial arrangement that interbreed endangered listed entity where they these wolves are not discrete from when mature’’ (Pub. L. 93–205, 87 Stat. abut in the Great Lakes area because wolves in the recovered NRM DPS 884, 886 (1973)). In November 1978, the gray wolves in Minnesota are not (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, eastern Act was amended to introduce the discrete from gray wolves in Wisconsin Oregon, eastern Washington, and north- concept of DPSs (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). and Michigan. In 1978, gray wolves central Utah) (see 78 FR 35707–35713). Unlike species and subspecies, DPS is were largely confined to northern Therefore, since that time, our strategy not a taxonomic term. Rather, it refers Minnesota, with some wolves has been consistent with a focus on the to certain populations of vertebrates occupying Isle Royale and possibly western Great Lakes, the northern Rocky (i.e., less than the entire range of a other individuals scattered in Wisconsin Mountains, and the southwestern taxonomic vertebrate species or and Michigan (43 FR 9608). Wolves in population of Mexican wolves (see subspecies). We issued a policy in 1996, northern Minnesota subsequently Previous Federal Actions). in conjunction with the National Marine dispersed and recolonized Wisconsin Fisheries Service, to explain how we The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities and Michigan, resulting in a would apply this statutory term (61 FR metapopulation 2 in the Great Lakes area Do Not Meet the Statutory Definition of 4722–4725, February 7, 1996). a ‘‘Species’’ (Mech 2010, p. 130). There are no Since the concept of DPSs was significant physical barriers separating The gray wolf entities that are introduced, we have attempted to revise Minnesota wolves from those in currently on the List do not meet the the lower 48 United States and Mexico Wisconsin and Michigan, as evidenced Act’s definition of a ‘‘species’’ (16 listings to account for the biological by frequent movement of wolves among U.S.C. 1532(16)). The original listing of recovery of gray wolves in the Western the three States (Treves et al. 2009, certain gray wolf subspecies predated Great Lakes (WGL) and Northern Rocky entire). In addition, genetic analyses the Act. In 1967, under a precursor to Mountains (NRM). We published rules demonstrate that Wisconsin and the Act, we listed C. l. lycaon (Eastern identifying recovered DPSs, but some of Michigan wolves are mostly of the same timber wolf) in the Great Lakes region those actions did not survive legal genetic makeup as Minnesota wolves (table 1). In 1973, under the same challenges. For example, our 2007 and and there is effective interbreeding precursor to the Act, we listed C. l. 2011 rules designating and delisting a among wolves in the three States irremotus (Northern Rocky Mountain WGL DPS were vacated by the (Wheeldon et al. 2010, p. 4438; wolf) (table 1). In 1974, these subspecies reviewing courts. Thus, wolves in the Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 104; Fain were listed under the Act (table 1). In WGL are part of the currently listed gray et al. 2010, p. 1758; see also Taxonomy 2015, we subsequently listed C. l. wolf entities. By contrast, although our of Gray Wolves in North America). baileyi (Mexican wolf) as endangered in rules designating and delisting the NRM Thus, gray wolves in the Minnesota the Southwestern United States and DPS were also challenged in court, after entity are not ‘‘markedly separated’’ Mexico (table 1). Finally, on June 14, several rounds of litigation and from wolves in the Great Lakes portion 1976, we listed a fourth gray wolf congressional action the NRM DPS was of the endangered listed entity. subspecies, C. l. monstrabilis (table 1), delisted and remains so today (see Likewise, the endangered listed entity which was later subsumed within C. l. Previous Federal Actions). is not discrete from other populations of baileyi. The two currently listed entities are: gray wolves. As noted above, gray In 1978, we concluded that ‘‘this (1) C. lupus in Minnesota (listed as listing arrangement has not been threatened); and (2) C. lupus in all or wolves in the Great Lakes portion of the satisfactory because the taxonomy of portions of 44 U.S. States and Mexico endangered listed entity are connected wolves is out of date, wolves may (listed as endangered). Neither of the to gray wolves in Minnesota. And gray wander outside of recognized entities encompasses an entire species, wolves in the West Coast States that are subspecific boundaries, and some or a subspecies, of gray wolf. Thus, the part of the endangered listed entity are wolves from unlisted subspecies may currently listed entities would only not discrete from the recovered NRM occur in certain parts of the lower 48 constitute listable entities (i.e., meet the population (78 FR 35664, June 13, 2013, states’’ (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). We statutory definition of ‘‘species’’) if they 2 A metapopulation is a population that exists as wanted to clarify that C. lupus was qualified as DPSs. partially isolated sets of subpopulations that listed as threatened or endangered south To constitute a DPS, a vertebrate ‘‘interact’’ when individuals move from one of the Canadian border, and we population must be both discrete from subpopulation to another. A metapopulation is determined that the ‘‘most convenient’’ and significant to the remainder of the widely recognized as being more secure over the long term than are several isolated populations that way to do so was to list the entity at the taxon (i.e., taxonomic species or contain the same total number of individuals. A species level rather than by subspecies subspecies) (61 FR 4725, February 7, metapopulation is more secure because adverse (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). The 1996). We consider first whether the effects experienced by one of its subpopulations separate subspecies listings were population is discrete and, if so, then resulting from genetic drift, demographic shifts, and local environmental fluctuations can be countered subsumed into two entities that were we evaluate its biological and ecological by occasional influxes of individuals and their defined geographically: (1) Threatened significance (61 FR 4725, February 7, genetic diversity from the other components of the in Minnesota; and (2) endangered 1996). A population segment may be metapopulation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69784 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

pp. 35707–35713; see also Current remove an entity from the List if, among we focus on the currently listed entities. Distribution and Abundance). We other things, ‘‘[t]he listed entity does not We do so by evaluating the conservation removed most of the NRM DPS from the meet the statutory definition of a status of the currently listed entities List, most recently, in 2011 (ID, MT, the species’’). In the preamble to the rule we under three different configurations, as eastern one-third of OR and WA, and a explained that this is not a new explained below. small portion of north-central UT) and interpretation, but ‘‘merely reflects the In our proposed rule, we focused on the remainder, most recently, in 2017 text and intent of the Act, i.e., only the status of listed gray wolves by (WY) (table 1). As we explained in our ‘species,’ as defined in section 3 of the assessing the two listed entities in 2019 proposed rule, the NRM Act, may be listed under the Act’’ (84 combination. In response to peer review population has continued to expand and FR 45037, August 27, 2020). and public comments, we have wolves from that population have now However, before proceeding with expanded our analysis to consider the dispersed and become established in delisting, we may consider whether any conservation status of gray wolves in parts of the West Coast States (84 FR populations of gray wolves covered by three different configurations. 9656, March 15, 2019). Genetic analysis the listed entities meet the definition of Specifically, we assess: (1) Each of the shows that all gray wolves currently a threatened species or an endangered two currently listed gray wolf entities occupying Oregon descended from NRM species. Thus, instead of removing the separately; (2) the two currently listed wolves and those wolves expanded into listed entities solely because they do not entities combined into a single entity California (Hendricks et al. 2018, pp. meet the statutory definition of a (the approach in our proposed rule); and 142–143; California Department of Fish ‘‘species,’’ in this rule, we consider the (3) a single gray wolf entity that and Wildlife 2020, entire). Wolves in status of gray wolves in several includes all gray wolves in the lower 48 Washington in both the endangered configurations, as explained below, to state and Mexico except for the Mexican listed entity and the NRM include eliminate the possibility of removing wolf. We explain our reasoning for individuals descended from NRM protections for any gray wolves that analyzing these specific configurations wolves as well as wolves from Canada might meet the Act’s definition of a below. (Hendricks et al. 2018, pp. 142–143). ‘‘species’’ and might be endangered or Why and How We Address Each Thus, listed wolves in the West Coast threatened. Configuration of Gray Wolf Entities States are not genetically distinct from the NRM wolves. Nor is there marked Approach for This Rule We consider the status of gray wolves separation resulting from physical The Gray Wolf Entities Addressed in in each of the following configurations factors. Wolf habitat models show that This Rule to determine whether wolves should be there is little separation between included on the List in their current occupied wolf habitat in the NRM DPS As described above, two gray wolf status, be reclassified from their current and suitable habitat in western entities are currently listed: C. lupus in status (e.g., upgraded to endangered or Washington, western Oregon, and Minnesota, listed as threatened; and C. downgraded to threatened), or be northern California (see 78 FR 35712, lupus in all or portions of 44 U.S. States removed from the List. For a summary June 13, 2013). Any gaps in suitable and Mexico, listed as endangered (figure of these configurations, see table 2. habitat are unlikely to preclude 1). We refer to these entities simply as ‘‘Minnesota’’ and the ‘‘44-State entity’’ The Two Listed Entities Assessed dispersal because gray wolves are Separately capable of traveling long distances throughout this rule. through a variety of habitats (78 FR While our past status reviews have In this configuration, we assess the 35712, June 13, 2013; ODFW 2016, p. focused on gray wolf DPSs and status of gray wolves occurring within 10; Jimenez et al. 2017, entire). In sum, taxonomic units that align with our the geographic area outlined by each of listed wolves in the West Coast States national wolf strategy (see table 1), we the two currently listed C. lupus entities are not discrete from wolves in the have revised our approach in this rule separately, as they are listed. We do so delisted NRM DPS portion of the gray to take into account the unique listing because they are the entities that are wolf taxon. history of the gray wolf, as well as currently on the List. Evaluating the Because the two currently listed multiple court opinions regarding our entities as they are listed is consistent entities are not discrete, we need not prior actions to designate and delist gray with section 4(c) of the Act, which evaluate their significance (61 FR 4725, wolf DPSs (see table 1). The two authorizes the Secretary to review February 7, 1996). Neither of the listed currently listed gray wolf entities are species included on the List and entities is a DPS, and thus neither entity largely vestiges of a 42-year-old action determine on the basis of the review is a ‘‘species’’ as that term is defined (the 1978 reclassification (see General whether changes to the listing status are under the Act. Background)) that occurred prior to warranted (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)). We do As we noted in our proposed rule, the formulation and implementation of our not consider the delisted NRM DPS currently listed gray wolf entities could DPS policy. As explained above, the wolves as part of the 44-State entity be removed from the List because they gray wolf entities that are currently on under analysis in this configuration do not meet the statutory definition of the List are not species, subspecies, or because they are recovered and no a ‘‘species’’ (84 FR 9686, March 15, distinct population segments (DPSs) longer listed. However, we include 2019). This independent basis for (see The Currently Listed C. lupus information on the NRM DPS, as delisting, which is based on the plain Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory appropriate, to provide context and to language of the Act, was explained in Definition of a ‘‘Species’’), and as such inform our analysis and conclusions our 2019 revisions to the Act’s should be delisted. However, in about the status of wolves comprising implementing regulations. We recognition of the unique listing history the 44-State entity. distinguish between a ‘‘listed entity’’ of the gray wolf, our many prior actions and a ‘‘species,’’ and reiterate that an to designate and delist DPSs (table 1), The Two Listed Entities Assessed in entity that is not a ‘‘species’’ as defined and related court opinions, we have Combination under the Act should be removed from adopted a conservative approach to In this configuration, we assess the the List. See 50 CFR 424.11(e)(3) delisting in this rule. Rather than focus status of gray wolves occurring within (providing that the Secretary shall on gray wolf DPSs and taxonomic units, the geographic area outlined by the two

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69785

currently listed C. lupus entities We assessed the two listed entities in entities are not discrete from each other combined into a single entity. We do so combination in our proposed rule. In and the 44-State entity is not discrete because: (1) These are the entities that that rule, we referred to the resulting from the NRM DPS (see The Currently are currently on the List and it is clear entity as the ‘‘gray wolf entity.’’ For Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the that neither listed entity would qualify clarity, in this final rule, we refer to the Statutory Definition of a ‘‘Species’’), and as a DPS under our 1996 DPS policy due resulting entity as the ‘‘combined listed (2) it makes sense, biologically, to to their lack of discreteness from each entity’’ (table 2). combine the two currently listed entities and the NRM DPS for analysis in light other (see The Currently Listed C. lupus The Two Listed Entities and the NRM of their lack of discreteness. We refer to Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory DPS Assessed in Combination Definition of a ‘‘Species’’), and (2) it this entity as the ‘‘lower 48 United makes sense, biologically, to combine In this configuration, we assess the States entity.’’ Although we include the them for analysis in light of their lack status of gray wolves occurring within NRM wolves in this configuration due the geographic area of the lower 48 to their connection to currently listed of discreteness. We do not consider the United States and Mexico (excluding wolves, we reiterate that wolves in the delisted NRM DPS wolves as part of the the Mexican gray wolf; see How We NRM DPS are recovered, and we are not listed entity under analysis in this Address the C. l. baileyi Listing below), reexamining or revisiting our 2009 and configuration because they are a single entity that includes the two 2012 delisting rules (74 FR 15123, April recovered and no longer listed. currently listed entities and the delisted 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10, However, we include information on the NRM DPS combined. We do so because: 2012). For additional information NRM DPS, as appropriate, to provide (1) It includes the two entities that are regarding our rationale for analyzing the context and to inform our analysis and currently on the List and neither listed lower 48 United States entity, see conclusions about the status of wolves entity qualifies as a DPS under our 1996 Summary of Changes from the Proposed comprising this combined entity. DPS policy because the two listed Rule.

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF ANALYSES IN THIS RULE

Description of entity Name given to the entity in Configuration assessed this rule Why we assess the entity

1. The separate listed enti- State of Minnesota ...... Minnesota ...... It is a currently listed entity. ties. Lower 48 States and Mex- 44-State entity ...... It is a currently listed entity. ico 1 outside of the NRM DPS and Minnesota. 2. The combined listed enti- Lower 48 States and Mex- combined listed entity ...... Includes the two currently listed entities, but these two ties. ico 1 outside of the NRM entities are not discrete from one another; it makes DPS. sense, biologically, to combine them in light of their lack of discreteness. We do not include the NRM wolves because they are delisted. 3. The combined listed enti- Lower 48 States and Mex- lower 48 United States en- Includes the two currently listed entities, but these two ties and the NRM DPS. ico 1. tity. entities are not discrete from one another, and one (the 44-State entity) is not discrete from the delisted NRM DPS; it makes sense, biologically, to combine them in light of their lack of discreteness. 1 But see How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing.

How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing rule. Further, the Mexican wolf is the wolves; see Taxonomy of Gray Wolves As indicated above (see Previous only subspecies of C. lupus known to in North America). Available Federal Actions), in 2015 we revised the currently occupy the Mexican wolf information indicates ongoing scientific listing for the gray wolf by reclassifying experimental population area (that debate and a lack of resolution on the the subspecies C. l. baileyi as a covers portions of Arizona and New taxonomy of eastern wolves. (see separately listed entity with the status of Mexico) and Mexico. Therefore, based Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North endangered, wherever found. Although on the best available information, the America). Further, none of these the rulemaking does not include experimental population area and viewpoints is more supported by the language expressly excluding C. l. Mexico are unoccupied by and, scientific evidence or more widely baileyi from the previously listed C. consequently, outside the range of, the accepted by the scientific community lupus entity, we indicated in our 2015 gray wolves under analysis in this rule than others. In other words, there is no final rule listing the subspecies that the (see Definition and Treatment of Range). standard taxonomy indicating that eastern wolves are a distinct species, effect of the regulation was to revise the How We Address Taxonomic and no agreement among the scientific List by making a separate entry for the Uncertainties in This Rule Mexican wolf (80 FR 2511, January 16, community regarding the taxonomic 2015). Therefore, because we already The taxonomy and evolutionary assignment of eastern wolves. assessed the status of, and listed, the history of wolves in North America are We originally listed the gray wolf Mexican wolf separately, we do not complex and controversial, particularly subspecies C. l. lycaon, the eastern assess individuals or populations of the with respect to the taxonomic timber wolf, in 1967. We continued to Mexican wolf in this rule. In other assignment of wolves historically recognize this subspecies—and the words, we do not consider individuals present in the Northeastern United Northeastern United States as part of its or populations of Mexican wolves to be States and those that occur in portions historical range—for years, as evidenced among the wolves under analysis in this of the Great Lakes region (eastern by both our original (1978) and revised

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69786 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

(1992) Recovery Plan for the Eastern endangered where found (32 FR 4001, Species Information Timber Wolf. In 2013, we proposed March 11, 1967). We do not consider We provide detailed background recognizing the species C. lycaon, red wolves further in this rule and the information on gray wolves in the lower occurring in southeastern Canada and, red wolf listing is not affected by this 48 United States in a separate Gray Wolf historically, the Northeastern United rule. Biological Report (see USFWS 2020, States, in our proposed rule to delist C. Definition and Treatment of Range entire). This document can be found lupus and list C. l. baileyi as endangered along with this rule at http:// (table 1). However, all peer reviewers of We interpret the term ‘‘range’’ as used in the Act’s definitions of ‘‘threatened regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS– that proposed rule considered the HQ–ES–2018–0097 (see Supplemental scientific basis for recognizing C. lycaon species’’ and ‘‘endangered species’’ to Documents). We summarize relevant as a species to be insufficient. They refer to the area occupied by the species information from this report below. For noted that this is an area of active at the time we make a status additional information, including scientific research with new studies determination under section 4 of the Act sources of the information presented published yearly, and stated that the (79 FR 37583, July 1, 2014). In this rule, below, see USFWS (2020, entire) and proposed recognition of these wolves as we consider the latest wolf distribution references therein. a species was premature (National maps (inclusive of wolf packs, breeding Center for Ecological Analysis and pairs, and areas of persistent activity by Biology and Ecology multiple wolves) and other information Synthesis 2014, unpaginated). New Gray wolves are the largest wild information published on the topic obtained from State agencies as the best available information on wolf members of the canid (dog) family and since publication of our 2013 rule have a broad circumpolar range. Adults indicates the taxonomy and occupancy and, therefore, wolf range. Gray wolf range based on this range in weight from 18 to 80 kilograms evolutionary history of eastern wolves (40 to 175 pounds), depending on sex remains unresolved (USFWS 2020, pp. information is shown in figure 2. and geographic locale. Gray wolves are 1–5). The uncertainty of the existence of Because we do not consider Mexican highly territorial, social animals that a separate species is reflected in the fact wolves to be among the wolves under live and hunt in packs. They are well that C. lycaon is not recognized by analysis in this rule, we do not include adapted to traveling fast and far in authoritative taxonomic organizations the Mexican wolf experimental search of food, and to catching and such as the American Society of population area (that covers portions of eating large mammals. In North Mammalogists or the International Arizona and New Mexico) or Mexico America, they are primarily predators of Commission on Zoological within current gray wolf range (See How medium to large mammals, including Nomenclature. Therefore, based on our We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing). deer, elk, and other species, and are review of the best available scientific Wolves occur periodically in the and commercial information, in this lower 48 United States as lone efficient at shifting their diet to take rule we continue to recognize wolves in dispersers in places that otherwise lack advantage of available food resources the Northeastern United States as evidence of persistent wolf presence or (USFWS 2020, p. 6). members of the species C. lupus. suitable habitat for supporting a resident Gray wolves are a highly adaptable Because we recognize wolves in the wolf population (see Current species. They can successfully occupy a Northeastern United States as members Distribution and Abundance). While wide range of habitats provided of the species C. lupus in our dispersal plays an important role in adequate prey exists and human-caused assessment of the status of gray wolf recolonization of suitable habitat, mortality is sufficiently regulated. entities in this rule, we include eastern individual dispersers that do not settle Scientific models generally depict high- wolves and eastern wolf range that in an area, survive, and reproduce do quality suitable habitat as areas with occurs within the geographical not substantively contribute to the sufficient prey where human-caused boundaries of the gray wolf entities we wolf’s viability (i.e., the ability of a mortality is relatively low due to limited assess. This approach ensures our species to sustain populations in the human access, or high amounts of analysis takes into account the wild over time). Therefore, we did not escape cover, or relatively low risk of possibility that gray wolves historically include the areas in which only these wolf–livestock conflicts (USFWS 2020, occurred throughout most of the lower lone dispersers are occasionally found pp. 8–9). 48 United States. In other words, in our definition of current range. Established gray wolf populations are remarkably resilient as long as their because we also consider eastern wolf Summary of Our Approach historical range, our analysis assumes a food supply is adequate and human- larger historical range for the gray wolf In this rule, we assess the status of caused mortality is not too high. Where species in the lower 48 United States gray wolves in three different human-caused mortality is low or and, as a result, a greater loss of such configurations. We do not include in nonexistent, gray wolf populations are range (see Historical Range). our assessment individuals or regulated by the distribution and Scientists also disagree on the populations of the Mexican wolf (C. l. abundance of prey on the landscape, taxonomic assignment of wolves in the baileyi) (wolves that occur in Mexico though considerable evidence indicates southeastern United States generally and the nonessential experimental density-dependent, intrinsic recognized as ‘‘red wolves.’’ However, a population area in the Southwestern mechanisms (e.g., social strife, recent consensus study by the National United States). Also, for the purposes of territoriality, disease) may limit Academies of Sciences, Engineering, this rule, we consider any eastern populations when ungulate densities are and Medicine concluded that available wolves within the geographic high. High levels of reproduction and evidence supports species (C. rufus) boundaries of the entities we evaluated immigration in gray wolf populations status for the extant red wolf (National to be members of the species C. lupus. can compensate for high mortality rates Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Further, we consider the range of the in established populations (USFWS and Medicine (NASEM) 2019, pp. 51– gray wolf to be the current distribution 2020, pp. 7–8). Pack social structure is 72). We recognize the red wolf as the of gray wolves (as shown in figure 2) very adaptable—in many instances, species C. rufus (USFWS 2018, pp. 15– within the geographic boundaries of the breeding members can be quickly 17) and note that it is listed as entities we evaluated. replaced from within or outside the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69787

pack, and pups can be reared by other the eastern wolf to be consistently (USFWS 2020, pp. 3–5)—except for the pack members should their parents die. intermediate between the gray wolf and Mexican wolf, where there is strong Consequently, wolf populations can the coyote, both morphologically and scientific evidence supporting its rapidly overcome severe disruptions, genetically (USFWS 2020, p. 2). subspecies status. For example, coastal such as pervasive human-caused Regardless of viewpoint on the correct and inland wolves in western Canada mortality or disease; and they can taxonomic status of the eastern wolf, and Alaska have been identified as increase rapidly after severe declines if hybridization and introgression is genetically and morphologically the source of mortality is reduced. The widely recognized to have played, and distinct, and display distinct habitat and species’ dispersal capabilities allow continue to play, an important role prey preferences, despite relatively wolf populations to quickly expand and among eastern wolves. However, there close proximity. There have been recolonize vacant habitats as long as is scientific disagreement on the role of attempts to assess whether any wolves rates of human-caused mortality are not hybridization between eastern wolves recolonizing western States possess excessive; although, the rate of and coyotes, eastern wolves and gray genetic markers indicative of coastal recolonization can be affected by the wolves, and gray wolves and coyotes. wolf ancestry. Genetic analysis of extent of intervening unoccupied Minnesota appears to be the western wolves recolonizing Washington habitat between the source population edge of a hybrid zone between gray revealed the presence of individuals and newly recolonized area (USFWS wolves in the west and eastern wolves— primarily from the northern Rocky 2020, p. 7). wolves in western Minnesota appear to Mountains. However, two individuals be western gray wolves based on were an admixture of wolves with Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North morphological and genetic analysis America inland wolf ancestry (wolves from the while wolves in eastern Minnesota and northern Rocky Mountains or inland The gray wolf is a member of the much of the Great Lakes area appear to western Canada) and coastal wolf canid family (Canidae) in a genus be eastern wolf, introgressed with ancestry (wolves from coastal British (Canis) that includes domestic dogs (C. western gray wolf to varying degrees. Columbia and coastal Alaska), although familiaris), coyotes (C. latrans), and Scientists who support the eastern wolf it is not clear whether the admixture of several other species (USFWS 2020, p. as a distinct species report that the only coastal and inland wolves happened in 1). Taxonomic relationships among area in which eastern wolves are not Washington, or whether already Canis species found in North America currently experiencing admixture with admixed individuals dispersed there. have been studied extensively, though either gray wolves or coyotes is in All wolves recolonizing Oregon and with a notable lack of consensus on Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario, California appear to be descended from various phylogenetic issues (USFWS Canada (USFWS 2020, pp. 2–3). Even inland wolves dispersing from the 2020, p. 1). Consequently, wolf among those who hypothesize a hybrid northern Rocky Mountains (USFWS taxonomy and evolutionary history in origin of eastern wolves, meaning they 2020, pp. 3–5). North America are complex and are the result of ancient or more recent controversial (USFWS 2020, p. 5). hybridization between gray wolves and Range and Population Trends Prior to In North America, scientists generally coyotes, eastern wolves are viewed as 1978 Reclassification recognize a ‘‘red wolf’’ phenotype genetically distinct (USFWS 2020, pp. Historical Range (morphological form), and an ‘‘eastern 2–3). wolf’’ phenotype that is distinct from Despite the ongoing debate about We view the historical range to be the wolves further west (‘‘western gray taxonomy and evolutionary history, range of gray wolves within the lower wolves’’), but disagree on the correct there is general agreement that wolves 48 United States at the time of European taxonomic assignment of these two currently found in the Great Lakes area settlement. We determined that this entities or on their evolutionary origin and neighboring provinces in Canada timeframe is appropriate because it (USFWS 2020, p. 1). As indicated above are genetically distinct to some degree precedes the major changes in range in (see How We Address Taxonomic from wolves further west in the Rocky response to excessive human-caused Uncertainties in this Rule), we continue Mountains or the Pacific northwest mortality (USFWS 2020, pp. 9–13). to recognize the red wolf as the species (USFWS 2020, pp. 1–2). Although there At the time of the 1978 C. rufus and do not discuss the is some debate about the degree of reclassification, the historical range of taxonomy of the species further in this genetic difference between the wolves the gray wolf was generally believed to rule (for more information, see our 2018 that occupy the Great Lakes area versus include most of North America and, Red Wolf Species Status Assessment). the Western United States, wolves in the consequently, most of the lower 48 We discuss the eastern wolf further, Great Lakes area are generally smaller, United States. We acknowledge that the below. occupy habitat dominated by mixed historical range of the gray wolf is The eastern wolf has been the source deciduous-coniferous forests with uncertain and the topic of continued of perhaps the most significant relatively little elevation change, and debate among scientists. However, disagreement on North American canid their primary prey is white-tailed deer; based on our review of the best available taxonomy among scientists. The eastern whereas wolves in the Western United information, we view the historical wolf has been variously described as a States are larger and occupy montane range of the gray wolf within the lower species, a subspecies of gray wolf, an forests that also contain larger prey such 48 United States to be consistent with ecotype of gray wolf, the product of as elk and moose (USFWS 2020, pp. 28– that presented in Nowak (1995, p. 395, introgressive hybridization between 29). fig. 20) and depicted in figure 2. This gray wolves and coyotes, the same All wolves in the Western United includes all areas within the lower 48 species as the red wolf, or the product States are widely recognized as gray United States except western California, of introgressive hybridization between wolves (C. lupus) (USFWS 2020, pp. 3– a small portion of southwestern red wolves and gray wolves (USFWS 4). However, the science pertaining to Arizona, and the southeastern United 2020, p. 1). Morphologically, eastern gray wolf subspecies designations, States (see figure 2 and USFWS 2020, wolves have long been considered unique evolutionary lineages, ecotypes, pp. 9–13). While some authorities distinct from gray wolves and coyotes. and admixture of formerly isolated question the absence of gray wolves in Many scientists have generally found populations continues to develop parts of California, limited preserved

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69788 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

physical evidence of wolves in Distribution and Abundance at the Time (at least 1,880 in the NRM DPS and at California exists (USFWS 2020, p. 11). of the 1978 Reclassification least 26 outside the NRM DPS Therefore, we rely on early reports of By 1978, when several gray wolf boundary), the final year of a combined wolves in the State that describe the subspecies were consolidated into two northern Rocky Mountain wolf annual species as occurring in the northern and listed entities, a lower 48 United States report (USFWS 2020, p. 28, Appendix Sierra Nevada Mountain regions of and Mexico entity and a separate 2). At the end of 2015, the post-delisting California. Further, while recognizing Minnesota entity, the gray wolf monitoring period ended for Idaho and that the extent of overlap of red wolf population in Minnesota had increased Montana. After the post-delisting and gray wolf ranges is uncertain to an estimated 1,235 wolves in 138 monitoring period ended for Idaho and (USFWS 2020, pp. 9–10), we chose packs (in the winter of 1978–79) and Montana, these States transitioned away Nowak (1995) as the historical range had an estimated range of 14,038 square from using minimum counts to boundary in the East to encompass the miles (mi2) (36,500 square kilometers document wolf numbers and developed largest reasonable historical distribution (km2)) (USFWS 2020, p. 20) (figure 2). other techniques to estimate population in the northeast and, consequently, the Although, prior to this time, wolves size or evaluate population trends (or lower 48 United States. Also, although were occasionally reported in both) which are not directly comparable included in the 44-state listing, because Wisconsin, it was not until 1978 that to minimum counts (USFWS 2020, pp. the southeastern United States are wolf reproduction was documented in 15–16). Based on the most current generally recognized as within the range the State (USFWS 2020, p. 21). In the estimates, approximately 1,000 gray of the red wolf (USFWS 2020, pp. 9–10), West, occasional sightings were wolves occur in Idaho and 819 wolves we consider it to be generally outside were estimated in Montana (USFWS the range of the gray wolf. documented, but there was no indication that reproducing wolf packs 2020, Appendix 2). In addition, the Historical Abundance occurred in the West at the time most recent year-end minimum counts (USFWS 2020, p. 14; 59 FR 60266, indicate at least 311 gray wolves occur Historical abundance of gray wolves in Wyoming and 310 in the States of within the lower 48 United States is November 22, 1994; USFWS 1987, pp. 3–6). Oregon, Washington, and California largely unknown. Based on the reports (256 in the delisted NRM DPS and 54 in of European settlers, gray wolves were Current Distribution and Abundance the endangered listed entity) (USFWS common in much of the West. While During the years since the species was 2020, p. 16, Appendix 2). While the historical (at the time of European current estimates for Idaho and Montana settlement) estimates are notoriously reclassified in 1978, gray wolves within are not directly comparable to year-end difficult to verify, one study estimates the lower 48 United States increased in minimum counts, indications from that hundreds of thousands of wolves number (figure 3) and expanded in mortality data are that the number of occurred in the Western United States distribution (figure 2). Gray wolves individuals in these States remains and Mexico (USFWS 2020, pp. 10–11). within the lower 48 United States now similar to the number of individuals In the East, in the Great Lakes area, exist primarily in two large, stable or that were in these States in 2015, when there may have been 4,000 to 8,000 growing metapopulations in two all of the States were reporting year-end wolves in Minnesota, 3,000 to 5,000 in geographic areas in the lower 48 United minimum counts (see table 3). In Wisconsin, and fewer than 6,000 in States—the Western United States and addition, in January of 2020, Colorado Michigan (USFWS 2020, p. 12). No the Great Lakes area in the Eastern estimates are available for historical United States (USFWS 2020, p. 27). Parks and Wildlife personnel confirmed wolf abundance in the Northeast Gray wolf populations within each of the presence of a group of at least six (USFWS 2020, p. 13). these areas are connected as evidenced wolves in extreme northwest Colorado by movements between States and (USFWS 2020, pp. 19, 28). Historical Trends in Range and genetic data (USFWS 2020, p. 27). The Similar to the metapopulation in the Abundance Great Lakes metapopulation consists of Great Lakes area, the gray wolf Gray wolf range and numbers more than 4,200 individuals broadly metapopulation in the Western United throughout the lower 48 United States distributed across the northern portions States is connected to a large and declined significantly during the 19th of three States in the Great Lakes area expansive population of about 15,000 and 20th centuries as a result of humans (USFWS 2020, p. 27). This wolves in western Canada (USFWS killing wolves through poisoning, metapopulation is also connected, via 2020, p. 28). As a result, gray wolves in unregulated trapping and shooting, and documented dispersals, to the large and the Western United States function as government-funded wolf-extermination expansive population of about 12,000– part of a larger ‘‘western United States efforts (USFWS 2020, pp. 9–14). By the 14,000 wolves in eastern Canada. As a and western Canada’’ metapopulation time subspecies were first listed under result, gray wolves in the Great Lakes that spans several States of the United the Act in 1974 (table 1), the gray wolf area do not function as an isolated States and two Provinces of Canada. had been eliminated from most of its metapopulation of 4,200 individuals in Further, effective dispersal has been historical range within the lower 48 three States, but rather as part of a much documented between West Coast States United States. Aside from a few larger ‘‘Great Lakes and eastern Canada’’ where gray wolves are federally scattered individuals, wolves occurred metapopulation that spans across those protected (California, western Oregon, in only two places within the lower 48 three States and two Canadian and western Washington), as well as United States. A population persisted in Provinces (USFWS 2020, pp. 27–28). between these areas, the NRM DPS northeastern Minnesota, and a small, Gray wolves in the Western United where wolves are delisted (Idaho, isolated group of about 40 wolves States are distributed across the NRM Montana, Wyoming, eastern Oregon, occurred on Isle Royale, Michigan. The DPS and into western Oregon, western eastern Washington, and north-central Minnesota wolf population was the only Washington, northern California, and Utah), and Canada (USFWS 2020, pp. 5, major U.S. population in existence most recently in northwest Colorado 17–18, 28). Thus, wolves outside the outside Alaska at this time and (USFWS 2020, p. 28). The Western NRM DPS boundary in western numbered about 1,000 individuals United States metapopulation consisted Washington, western Oregon, and (USFWS 2020, pp. 12–14). of more than 1,900 gray wolves in 2015 northern California are an extension of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69789

the metapopulation of wolves in the Finally, a number of lone long- in North Dakota, which also has an northern Rocky Mountains and western distance dispersing wolves have been additional 45 probable but unverified Canada. Although their specific place of documented outside core populations 3 reports (USFWS 2020, pp. 25–26). origin remains unknown at this time, of the Great Lakes area and Western In sum, gray wolves in the lower 48 the group of wolves in Colorado are United States. For example, over the United States today exist primarily as assumed to be related to NRM wolves years, dispersing wolves have been two large metapopulations: One spread based on proximity and the fact that detected in all States within historical dispersing wolves of known origin gray wolf range west of the Mississippi across northern Minnesota, Michigan, documented in Colorado since the early River except Oklahoma and Texas and Wisconsin, and the other consisting 2000s all originated from the NRM, (USFWS 2020, pp. 26, 28–29). Since the of the recovered and delisted NRM DPS including the lone individual that early 2000s, confirmed records of wolf population that is biologically dispersed from Wyoming to Colorado individual gray wolves have been connected to a small number of and has resided in North Park, reported from Vermont, Massachusetts, colonizing wolves in western Colorado, since at least July 2019 New York, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Washington, western Oregon, northern (USFWS 2020, p. 19). Little information Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, California, and, most likely, Colorado is currently available regarding the Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, (USFWS 2020, pp. 27–29) (figure 2). In movements or territory use of the group Arizona, and Nevada. The total number addition, a number of lone dispersers in northwest Colorado but, to date, all of confirmed records in each of these have been documented outside of core confirmed reports have been in States, since the early 2000s, ranges populations in several States. Colorado. from 1 to at least 27, the latter occurring

3 A population that inhabits a larger, more size and more genetically diverse (due to higher population that inhabits smaller, more isolated, continuous, higher quality habitat patch within a gene flow), and has greater evolutionary potential lower quality habitat patches. species’ distribution and, consequently, is larger in and resilience to stochastic events than a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 ER03NO20.017 69790 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and regulatory documents and do not identified in the recovery plan. Recovery Implementation substitute for the determinations and Likewise, we may learn new Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to promulgation of regulations required information about the species after we develop and implement recovery plans under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A finalize the recovery plan. The new for the conservation and survival of decision to revise the status of a species, information may change the extent to endangered species and threatened or to delist a species is ultimately based which existing criteria are appropriate species unless we determine that such on an analysis of the best scientific and for identifying recovery of the species. a plan will not promote the commercial data available to determine The recovery of a species is a dynamic conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. whether a species is no longer an process requiring adaptive management 1533(f)(1)). Recovery plans are non- endangered species or a threatened that may, or may not, follow all of the regulatory documents that identify species, regardless of whether that guidance provided in a recovery plan. management actions that may be information differs from the recovery The Act does not describe recovery in necessary to achieve conservation and plan. terms of the proportion of historical survival of the species. They also There are many paths to recover a range that must be occupied by a identify objective, measurable criteria species, and recovery may be achieved species, nor does it imply that (recovery criteria) which, when met, without all recovery criteria being fully restoration throughout the entire may result in a determination that the met. For example, one or more criteria historical range is required to achieve species should be removed from the may be exceeded while other criteria conservation. In fact, the Act does not List. Methods for monitoring recovery may not yet be accomplished. In that contain the phrase ‘‘historical range.’’ progress may also be included in instance, we may determine that the Thus, the Act does not require us to recovery plans. threats are minimized sufficiently and restore the gray wolf (or any other Recovery plans provide a roadmap for that the species is robust enough that it species) to its entire historical range, or us and our partners on methods of no longer meets the definition of an any specific percentage of currently enhancing conservation and minimizing endangered species or a threatened suitable habitat. For some species, threats to listed species, as well as species. In other cases, we may discover expansion of their distribution or measurable criteria against which to new recovery opportunities after having abundance may be necessary to achieve evaluate progress towards recovery and finalized the recovery plan. Parties recovery. The amount of expansion assess the species’ likely future seeking to conserve the species may use necessary is driven by the biological condition. However, they are not these opportunities instead of methods needs of the species for viability (ability

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 ER03NO20.018 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69791

to sustain populations in the wild over principles. The Recovery Team example, the Minnesota wolf time) and sustainability. Thus, there is concluded that the remnant Minnesota population), it should be maintained at no specific percentage of historical wolf population must be maintained a minimum of 100 wolves for at least 5 range or currently suitable habitat that and protected to achieve wolf recovery years, based on late-winter population must be occupied by the species to in the Eastern United States. estimates, to be considered viable. A achieve recovery. Many other species Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf nearby second population would be may be recovered in portions of their population is important in terms of considered viable at a smaller size historical range or currently suitable representation because these wolves because it would be closely tied with habitat by removing or addressing the include both western gray wolves and the Minnesota population, and by threats to their continued existence. wolves that are admixtures of western occasional immigration of Minnesota And some species may be recovered by gray wolves and eastern wolves (see wolves, would retain sufficient genetic a combination of range expansion and Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North diversity to cope with environmental threat reduction. America) and are comparable to wolf fluctuations. As indicated in Previous Federal populations that were present in the The original Recovery Plan did not Actions, following our 1978 area historically. The successful growth specify where in the Eastern United reclassification, we drafted recovery of the remnant Minnesota population States the second population should be plans and implemented recovery has maintained and maximized the reestablished. Therefore, the second programs for gray wolves in three representation of that genetic diversity population could have been established regions of the lower 48 United States among wolves in the Great Lakes area. anywhere within the triangular (table 1). Wolves in one of these Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf Minnesota-Maine-Florida area covered regions—C. l. baileyi, in the population is also important in terms of by the Recovery Plan and the Revised Southwestern United States and resiliency. Although the Revised Recovery Plan, except on Isle Royale Mexico—are listed separately as an Recovery Plan did not establish a (Michigan) or within Minnesota. The endangered subspecies and are not specific numerical criterion for the Revised Recovery Plan identified assessed in this rule (see Approach for Minnesota wolf population, it did potential gray wolf reestablishment this Rule). Below, we discuss recovery identify, for planning purposes, a areas in northern Wisconsin, the Upper of wolves in the other two regions—the population goal of 1,251–1,400 animals Peninsula of Michigan, the Adirondack Eastern United States and the northern for the Minnesota population (USFWS Forest Preserve of New York, a small Rocky Mountains. 1992, p. 28). A population of this size area in eastern Maine, and a larger area not only increases the likelihood of of northwestern Maine and adjacent Recovery Criteria for the Eastern United maintaining its genetic diversity over northern New Hampshire (USFWS States the long term, but also reduces the 1992, pp. 56–58). Neither the 1978 nor The 1978 Recovery Plan (hereafter adverse impacts of unpredictable the 1992 recovery criteria indicate that Recovery Plan) and the 1992 Revised demographic and environmental events. the establishment of gray wolves Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Furthermore, the Revised Recovery Plan throughout all or most of what was Wolf (hereafter Revised Recovery Plan) recommends a wolf population that is thought to be its historical range in the were developed to guide recovery of the spread across about 40 percent of Eastern United States, or within all of eastern timber wolf subspecies in the Minnesota (Zones 1 through 4) (USFWS the identified potential reestablishment Eastern United States. Those recovery 1992, p. 28), adding a geographic areas, is necessary to achieve recovery plans contain the same two recovery component to the resiliency of the under the Act. criteria, which are meant to indicate Minnesota wolf population. when recovery of the eastern timber The second recovery criterion states Recovery Progress in the Eastern United wolf throughout its historical range in that at least one viable wolf population States the Eastern United States has been should be reestablished within the Wolves in the Great Lakes area greatly achieved. These criteria are: (1) The historical range of the eastern timber exceed the recovery criteria (USFWS survival of the wolf in Minnesota is wolf outside of Minnesota and Isle 1992, pp. 24–26) for (1) a secure wolf assured, and (2) at least one viable Royale, Michigan (USFWS 1992, pp. population in Minnesota, and (2) a population of eastern timber wolves 24–26). The reestablished population second population outside Minnesota outside Minnesota and Isle Royale in enhances both the resiliency and and Isle Royale consisting of 100 wolves the lower 48 States is reestablished. redundancy of the Great Lakes within 100 mi (160 km) of Minnesota for The first recovery criterion, assuring metapopulation. 5 successive years. Based on the surveys the survival of the wolf in Minnesota, The Revised Recovery Plan provides conducted since 1998, the wolf addresses a need for reasonable two options for reestablishing this population in Minnesota has exceeded assurances that future State, Tribal, and second population. If it is an isolated 2,000 individuals over the past 20 years, Federal wolf management and population, that is, located more than and populations in Michigan and protection will maintain a viable 100 miles (mi) (160 kilometers (km)) Wisconsin, which are less than 100 mi recovered population of wolves within from the Minnesota wolf population, the (160 km) from the Minnesota the borders of Minnesota for the second population should consist of at population, have exceeded 100 foreseeable future. Although the least 200 wolves for at least 5 years, individuals every year since 1994 recovery criteria predate identification based upon late-winter population (USFWS 2020, Appendix 1). Based on of the conservation biology principles of estimates, to be considered viable. Late- the criteria set by the Eastern Wolf representation (conserving the adaptive winter estimates are made at a time Recovery Team in 1992 and reaffirmed diversity of a taxon), resiliency (ability when most winter mortality has already in 1997 and 1998 (Peterson in litt. 1997, to withstand demographic and occurred and before the birth of pups; Peterson in litt. 1998, Peterson in litt. environmental variation), and thus, the count is made at the annual 1999a, Peterson in litt. 1999b), this redundancy (sufficient populations to low point of the population. region contains sufficient wolf numbers provide a margin of safety), the recovery Alternatively, if the second population and distribution to ensure the long-term criteria for the gray wolf in the Eastern is located within 100 mi (160 km) of a survival of gray wolves in the Eastern United States are consistent with those self-sustaining wolf population (for United States.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69792 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

The maintenance and expansion of breeding pairs or 150 wolves at the end consequently, carrying capacity; the Minnesota wolf population has of the year in any one of those States for changes in demographic characteristics allowed for the preservation of the 3 consecutive years; or (3) if a change (survival, reproductive rate); changes in genetic diversity that remained in the in State law or management objectives population distribution and structure; Great Lakes area when its wolves were would significantly increase the threat and changes in genetic diversity and first protected in 1974. The Wisconsin– to the wolf population. For additional gene flow. These, in turn, can increase Michigan wolf population far exceeds information on NRM wolf recovery a species’ vulnerability to a wide variety the numerical recovery criterion, even goals and their evolution over time, see of threats, such as habitat loss, restricted for a completely isolated second 74 FR 15130–15135 and references gene flow, reduced genetic diversity, or population. Therefore, even in the therein. having all or most of its populations unlikely event that this two-State Recovery Progress in the NRM DPS affected by a catastrophic event. In other population were to become totally words, past range reduction can reduce isolated and wolf immigration from As indicated in Previous Federal the redundancy, resiliency, and Minnesota and Ontario completely Actions, wolves in the NRM DPS have representation of a species in its current ceased, it would still remain a viable recovered and were delisted (table 1). wolf population for the foreseeable The NRM wolf population achieved its range, such that a species may meet the future, as defined by the Revised numerical and distributional recovery definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 25– goals at the end of 2000 (USFWS et al. ‘‘threatened species’’ under the Act. 26). Finally, each of the wolf 2008, table 4). The temporal portion of Thus, loss of historical range is not populations in Wisconsin and Michigan the recovery goal was achieved in 2002 necessarily determinative of a species’ has exceeded 200 animals for about 20 when the numerical and distributional status; rather, it must be considered in years, so if either were somehow to recovery goals were exceeded for the the context of other factors affecting a become isolated, they would remain 3rd successive year (USFWS et al. 2008, species. In addition to considering the viable. Furthermore, each State has table 4). In 2009, we concluded that effects that loss of historical range has committed to manage its wolf wolves in the NRM DPS far exceeded had on the current and future viability population above viable population recovery goals. We also concluded that of the species, we must also consider levels (see Post-delisting Management). ‘‘The NRM wolf population: (1) Has at the causes of that loss of historical The wolf’s numeric and distributional least [45] reproductively successful range. If the causes of the loss are recovery criteria for the Eastern United packs and [450] individual wolves each ongoing, then that loss is also relevant States have been met. winter (near the low point in the annual as evidence of the effects of an ongoing cycle of a wolf population); (2) is threat. Recovery Criteria for the NRM equitably distributed within the 100,000 The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan was mi2 (250,000 km2) area containing 3 As indicated above, gray wolves approved in 1980 (USFWS 1980, p. i) areas of large core refugia (National historically occupied a large portion of and revised in 1987 (USFWS 1987, p. i). Parks, wilderness areas, large blocks of the lower 48 United States (see figure 2). The wolf recovery goal for the NRM was remote secure public land) and at least The range of the gray wolf began reevaluated and, when necessary, 65,725 mi2 (170,228 km2) of suitable receding after the arrival of Europeans modified as new scientific information wolf habitat; and (3) is genetically as a result of deliberate killing of wolves warranted (USFWS 1987, p. 12; USFWS diverse and has demonstrated by humans and government-funded 1994, Appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and successful genetic exchange through bounty programs aimed at eradication Carbyn 1995, p. 26; Bangs 2002, p. 1; 73 natural dispersal and human-assisted (USFWS 2020, pp. 10–13). Further, FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR migration management between all many historical habitats were converted 15130–15135, April 2, 2009). The three core refugia’’ (74 FR 15133, April into agricultural land (Paquet and Service’s resulting recovery goal for the 2, 2009). Post-delisting and subsequent Carbyn 2003, p. 483), and natural food NRM gray wolf population was: 30 or monitoring, and the expansion of the sources such as deer and elk were more breeding pairs comprising at least NRM population into western reduced, eliminated, or replaced with 300 wolves equitably distributed among Washington, western Oregon, northern domestic livestock, which can become Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming for 3 California, and, likely, Colorado anthropogenic food sources for gray consecutive years, with genetic (USFWS 2020, pp. 15–19, 28; see also wolves (Young 1944 in Fritts et al. 1997, exchange (either natural or, if necessary, Current Distribution and Abundance), p. 8). The resulting reductions in range agency managed) between indicate that the wolf population in the and population were dramatic—by the subpopulations. To provide a buffer NRM DPS remains well above minimum 1970s, gray wolves occupied only a above these minimum recovery levels, recovery levels (see Current Distribution small fraction of their historical range each State was to manage for at least 15 and Abundance). (figure 2). Although the range of the gray breeding pairs and 150 wolves in mid- wolf in the lower 48 United States has winter (77 FR 55538–55539, September Historical Context of Our Analysis 10, 2012; 74 FR 15132, April 2, 2009). When reviewing the current status of significantly expanded since 1978, its Further, the post-delisting monitoring a species, it is important to understand size and distribution remain below plan stipulated that three scenarios and evaluate the effects of lost historical historical levels. The alterations to gray could lead us to initiate a status review range on the viability of the species. In wolf historical range in the lower 48 and analysis of threats to determine if fact, when we consider the status of a United States increased the relisting was warranted: (1) If the wolf species, we are considering whether the vulnerability of gray wolves in the lower population in Idaho, Montana, or species is currently (i.e., without the 48 United States to a wide variety of Wyoming fell below the minimum NRM species’ occupying parts of its historical threats that would not be at issue wolf population recovery level of 10 range) an endangered species or without such range reduction. We breeding pairs and 100 wolves at the threatened species. Range reduction analyze these potential threats to gray end of any one year; (2) if the portion may result in: Reduced numbers of wolves in the lower 48 United States of the wolf population in Montana, individuals and populations; changes in below (see Summary of Factors Idaho, or Wyoming falls below 15 available resources (such as food) and, Affecting the Species).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69793

Regulatory Framework level. We evaluate each threat and its certain behaviors, and other Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) expected effects on the species, then demographic factors. For the purposes of this rule, and and its implementing regulations (50 analyze the cumulative effect of all of consistent with our proposed rule, we CFR part 424) set forth the procedures the threats on the species as a whole. define the ‘‘foreseeable future’’ to be the for determining whether a species is an We also consider the cumulative effect extent to which, given the amount and ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened of the threats in light of those actions substance of available data, we can species.’’ The Act defines an and conditions that will have positive anticipate events or effects, or reliably endangered species as a species that is effects on the species, such as any extrapolate threat trends that relate to ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary the status of wolves within the lower 48 or a significant portion of its range,’’ and United States. The Great Lakes States of a threatened species as a species that is determines whether the species meets the definition of an ‘‘endangered Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan ‘‘likely to become an endangered have an established history of species within the foreseeable future species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only after conducting this cumulative cooperating with and assisting in wolf throughout all or a significant portion of recovery and have made a commitment, its range.’’ The Act requires that we analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the through legislative actions, to continue determine whether any species is an these activities. Washington, Oregon, ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened foreseeable future. The Act does not define the term California, Colorado, and Utah are also species’’ because of any of the following committed to wolf conservation, as factors: ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened demonstrated by development of (A) The present or threatened management plans and/or codification destruction, modification, or species.’’ Since publication of our proposed rule (84 FR 9648, March 15, of laws and regulations protecting curtailment of its habitat or range; wolves (see Post-delisting Management). (B) overutilization for commercial, 2019), the Service codified its understanding of foreseeable future at The best available information indicates recreational, scientific, or educational that the Great Lakes States, West Coast purposes; 50 CFR 424.11(d) (84 FR 45020). In those regulations, we explain the term States, and central Rocky Mountain (C) disease or predation; States (Colorado and Utah) are (D) the inadequacy of existing ‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far into the future as the Services can committed to gray wolf conservation, regulatory mechanisms; and and, therefore, we conclude that this reasonably determine that both the (E) other natural or manmade factors commitment is likely to continue into future threats and the species’ responses affecting its continued existence. the foreseeable future. Further, the NRM to those threats are likely. The Service These factors represent broad States have, for years, demonstrated will describe the foreseeable future on a categories of natural or human-caused their commitment to managing their case-by-case basis, using the best actions or conditions that could have an wolf populations at or above recovery available data and taking into account effect on a species’ continued existence. levels and the best available information considerations such as the species’ life- In evaluating these actions and indicates that this commitment will history characteristics, threat-projection conditions, we look for those that may continue into the foreseeable future. have a negative effect on individuals of timeframes, and environmental the species, as well as other actions or variability. The Service need not Summary of Factors Affecting the conditions that may ameliorate any identify the foreseeable future in terms Species negative effects or may have positive of a specific time period. These Wolves within the lower 48 United effects. regulations did not significantly modify States are currently listed as endangered We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in the Service’s interpretation; rather they under the Act, except wolves in general to actions or conditions that are codified a framework that sets forth how Minnesota, which are listed as known to or are reasonably likely to the Service will determine what threatened, and wolves in the NRM negatively affect individuals of a constitutes the foreseeable future based DPS, which were delisted due to species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes on our longstanding practice. recovery (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009, actions or conditions that have a direct Accordingly, though these regulations and 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012). impact on individuals (direct impacts), do not apply to the determinations for In this analysis we evaluate threat as well as those that affect individuals the entities assessed in this final rule factors currently affecting wolves within through alteration of their habitat or because it was proposed prior to their the lower 48 United States and those required resources (stressors). The term effective date, they do not change the that are reasonably likely to have a ‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either Service’s assessment of foreseeable negative effect on the viability of wolves together or separately—the source of the future for the entities assessed in our within the lower 48 United States if the action or condition or the action or proposed rule and in this determination. protections of the Act are removed. As condition itself. It is not always possible or necessary explained in our significant portion of However, the mere identification of to define foreseeable future as a the range (SPR) final policy (79 FR any threat(s) does not necessarily mean particular number of years. Analysis of 37578, July 1, 2014), we take into that the species meets the statutory the foreseeable future uses the best account the effect lost historical range definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or scientific and commercial data available may have on the current and future a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining and should consider the timeframes viability of a species in the range it whether a species meets either applicable to the relevant threats and to currently occupies and also evaluate definition, we must evaluate all the species’ likely responses to those whether the causes of that loss are identified threats by considering the threats in view of its life-history evidence of ongoing or future threats to species’ expected response, and the characteristics. Data that are typically the species. We do this through our effects of the threats—in light of those relevant to assessing the species’ analysis of the five factors described in actions and conditions that will biological response include species- section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A species’ ameliorate the threats—on an specific factors such as lifespan, current condition reflects the effects of individual, population, and species reproductive rates or productivity, historical range loss, and, because threat

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69794 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

factors are evaluated in the context of mortality are discretionary, can be Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 104). Outside of the species’ current condition, historical limited by the managing agency, and very remote areas and large protected range contraction may affect the include permitted take, sport hunting, areas such as Yellowstone and Isle outcome of our analysis. and direct agency control. Sources of Royale National Parks, anthropogenic Based on our review of the best mortality that will be difficult to limit, causes are the greatest source of available scientific and commercial or may be uncontrollable, occur mortality for most wolves in the lower information, we have identified several regardless of population size and 48 United States. Such causes are factors that could be significant threats include things such as natural estimated to account for 60–70 percent to wolves within the lower 48 United mortalities, illegal take, and accidental of all mortalities in the NRM wolf States. We summarize our analysis of deaths (e.g., vehicle collisions, capture- population (Murray et al. 2010, p. 2518), these factors, and factors identified at related mortalities). However, if Michigan (O’Neil 2017, p. 214) and the time of listing, below. Due to recent population levels and controllable Wisconsin (Treves et al. 2017a, p. 27; information confirming the presence of sources of mortality are adequately Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 108) and nearly a group of six wolves in extreme regulated, the life-history characteristics 80 percent in Minnesota (Fuller 1989, p. northwest Colorado, and their proximity of wolf populations provide natural 24). The risk of human-caused mortality to and potential use of habitats within resiliency to high levels of human- is not uniform, however, and tends to be Utah, we included these States in our caused mortality. highest for dispersing animals (Smith et analysis. Two Minnesota studies provide some al. 2010, pp. 630–631) and for wolves limited insight into the extent of Human-Caused Mortality that occupy less suitable habitats human-caused wolf mortality before and generally found on the peripheries of At the time of listing, human-caused after the species’ listing. Examining occupied wolf range (Smith et al. 2010, mortality was identified as the main bounty data from a period that predated pp. 630–631; O’Neil et al. 2017, pp. factor responsible for the decline of gray wolf protection under the Act by 20 9524–9528; Stenglein et al. 2018, p. wolves (43 FR 9611, March 9, 1978). An years, Stenlund (1955, p. 33) found an 109). active eradication program is the sole annual human-caused mortality rate of In the absence of high levels of reason that wolves were extirpated from 41 percent. Fuller (1989, pp. 23–24) human-caused mortality, for example in much of their historical range in the evaluated data from a north-central Yellowstone and Isle Royale National United States (Weaver 1978, p. i). Minnesota study area and found an Parks, wolf populations tend to be European settlers attempted to eliminate annual human-caused mortality rate of the wolf entirely, primarily due to the 29 percent from 1980 through 1986, regulated by density-dependent, real or perceived threats to livestock, which includes 2 percent mortality from intrinsic mechanisms (Fuller et al. 2003, and the U.S. Congress passed a wolf legal depredation-control actions. pp. 187–188; Cubaynes et al. 2014, pp. bounty that covered the Northwest However, it is difficult to draw 9–11). Outside of such areas, where Territories in 1817. Bounties on wolves conclusions from comparisons of these anthropogenic influences are greater, subsequently became the norm for two studies because of differences in the influence of human-caused States across the species’ range habitat quality, exposure to humans, mortality on wolf populations may be (Hampton 1997, pp. 107–108; Beyer et prey density, time periods, and study considered either additive (mortality in al. 2009, p. 66; Erb and DonCarlos 2009, design. Nonetheless, these figures excess of the number of deaths that p. 50; Wydeven et al. 2009b, p. 88; indicate that human-caused mortality would have occurred naturally) or USFWS 2020, pp. 10–13). For example, decreased significantly once the wolf compensatory (mortality that replaces in Michigan, an 1838 wolf bounty became protected under the Act. deaths that would have occurred became the ninth law passed by the Humans kill wolves for a number of naturally). Some studies have First Michigan Legislature. reasons. In locations where people, concluded that anthropogenic mortality After the gray wolf was listed under livestock, and wolves coexist, some may be super-additive (increased the Act, its protections, along with State wolves are killed to resolve conflicts additive mortality beyond the effect of endangered-species statutes, prohibited with livestock and pets (Fritts et al. direct killing itself) due to the effects the intentional killing of wolves except 2003, p. 310; Woodroffe et al. 2005, pp. increased take may have on the under very limited circumstances. Such 86–107, 345–347). Occasionally, wolves reproductive dynamics of wolves and circumstances included defense of are killed accidentally by vehicles, packs (Creel and Rotella 2010, p. 3). human life, scientific or conservation mistaken for coyotes and shot, caught in Another study implied super-additive purposes, and special regulations traps set for other animals, or subject to mortality occurred through increased intended to reduce wolf depredations of accidental capture-related mortality legal take, which prompted a concurrent livestock or other domestic animals. during conservation or research efforts increase in illegal take that reduced Aside from the reintroduction of wolves (Bangs et al. 2005, p. 346). A few wolves reproductive output and population into portions of the northern Rocky have been killed by people who growth rates (Chapron and Treves 2016, Mountains, the regulation of human- believed their physical safety was being p. 5); however, the claims of that study caused wolf mortality is the primary threatened. Many wolf killings, have been questioned (Olson et al. 2017, reason wolf numbers have significantly however, are intentional, illegal, and entire; Pepin et al. 2017, entire; Stein increased and their range has expanded never reported to authorities. 2017, entire). Another study since the mid-to-late 1970s (Smith et al. Although survival can be highly documented that harvest mortality was 2010, entire; O’Neil et al. 2017, entire; variable across populations (Fuller et al. largely additive to natural mortality and Stenglein et al. 2018, entire). 2003, pp. 176–181), recent estimated that evidence for super-additive The regulation of human-caused annual mortality rates for wolves greater mortality was weak in Idaho (Horne et mortality has long been recognized as than 1 year of age are relatively al. 2019a, pp. 40–41). Murray et al. the most significant factor affecting the consistent among some U.S. populations (2010, pp. 2522–2523) noted long-term conservation of wolves. and range between 20 to 25 percent anthropogenic mortality was partially Human-caused mortality includes both (Adams et al. 2008, pp. 11–12; Smith et compensatory in the NRM wolf controllable and uncontrollable sources al. 2010, p. 625; Cubaynes et al. 2014, population; however, as population of mortality. Controllable sources of p. 5; O’Neil et al. 2017, p. 9523; density increased, human-caused

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69795

mortality became increasingly additive populations that likely depends on a underestimated in both the NRM and (Murray et al. 2010, pp. 2522–2523), a number of factors, including prey Wisconsin. We acknowledge the trend that was also observed in availability, pack size, harvest rates, and challenges of documenting and Michigan (O’Neil 2017, pp. 201–229). In whether or not harvest was biased estimating illegal take, and note that Wisconsin, Stenglein et al. (2018, pp. toward certain age-classes (Hayes and illegal take may have slowed wolf 106–108) noted a different trend in Harestad 2000, pp. 43–44; Webb et al. population growth in the lower 48 which mortality was largely additive 2011, pp. 748–749). Jimenez et al. (2017, United States to some extent (Liberg et prior to 2004, whereas it became p. 588) found that increased human- al. 2012, entire; Stenglein et al. 2018, p. partially compensatory after 2004 as caused mortality (illegal take and 105). However, based on wolf minimum wolves began to occupy most of the agency lethal control) removed counts and population estimates available suitable habitat in the State. individual wolves and entire packs, and (USFWS 2020, Appendix 1 and 2), Borg et al. (2014, pp. 7–9) documented thereby provided a constant source of illegal take, whether documented or not, that strong compensatory mechanisms social openings or vacant habitat for has not prevented recovery of the buffered against long-term population- wolves to recolonize. However, long- species, the maintenance of viable wolf level impacts of breeder loss and pack distance dispersals still occurred at low populations, or the continued dissolution in Denali National Park. wolf density even when vacant habitat recolonization of vacant, suitable Fuller et al. (2003, p. 186) concluded was nearby. Using data from 197 GPS- habitat. that human-caused mortality can collared wolves from 65 wolf packs in Vehicle collisions also contribute to replace up to 70 percent of natural Idaho to construct an integrated wolf mortality. The total number of wolf mortality in wolf populations. Increased population model, Horne et al. (2019a, mortalities associated with vehicle levels of human-caused mortality in p. 40) found that variation in harvest collisions is expected to rise with wolf populations can be compensated rates did not translate to changes in the increasing wolf populations as wolves for by a reduction in natural mortality propensity for wolves to disperse. The attempt to colonize more human- (O’Neil 2017, pp. 201–229), dispersal to authors speculated that harvest rates in dominated areas that contain a denser fill social openings (Fuller et al. 2003, their study were not high enough to network of roads and vehicular traffic. p. 186; Adams et al. 2008, pp. 20–21; cause widespread breeding vacancies However, mortalities associated with Smith et al. 2010, pp. 630–633; Bassing and increased dispersal behavior. vehicle collisions are unlikely to increase as a percentage of the total wolf et al. 2019, pp. 585–586), or In wolf populations that are not reproduction (Gude et al. 2012, pp. 113– population if increases occur hunted, lethal control of depredating concurrently. Regardless, mortalities 114; Schmidt et al. 2017, p. 25). wolves (see below for discussion) and Similarities in survival rates among wolf from vehicle collisions will likely illegal take are the two primary continue to constitute a small populations subject to different levels of anthropogenic causes of mortality. In human-caused and other forms of proportion of total wolf mortalities. the NRM, Smith et al. (2010, p. 625) Neither scientific research nor the use mortality (see above for discussion estimated that illegal take accounted for of wolves for educational purposes are about survival/mortality rates) indicates 24 percent of all mortalities (or significant sources of human-caused a moderate level of compensation in approximately 6 percent of the mortality. Each of the States in the mortality occurs in wolf populations. It population); however, 12 percent of the current range of gray wolves in the further indicates that moderate documented mortalities were attributed lower 48 United States conduct increases in human-caused mortality to unknown causes, so it is highly scientific research and monitoring of may not have a large effect on annual plausible that the number of wolves wolf populations. Even the most wolf survival (O’Neil 2017, p. 220). illegally taken may have been higher intensive and disruptive of these Increased human-caused mortality (Liberg et al. 2012, p. 914; O’Neil 2017, activities (ground or aerial capture for may either increase or decrease wolf pp. 220–221; Treves et al. 2017b, p. 7). the purpose of radio-collaring) involves dispersal rates depending on various Ausband et al. (2017a, p. 7) used radio- a very low rate of mortality for wolves factors. For example, if wolf harvest is collared wolves to estimate that 8.2 (73 FR 10542, February 27, 2008). We significant, it can reduce wolf densities percent of the Idaho wolf population expect that capture-related mortality leading to an overall decline in was illegally killed annually while the during wolf monitoring, nonlethal dispersal events due to a reduction in annual rate of illegal take in Michigan control, and research activities will the number of individuals available to was estimated at approximately 9 remain low, and will have an disperse, reduced competition for percent (O’Neil 2017, p. 214). In insignificant impact on population resources within the pack, or through Wisconsin, it was estimated that 9 dynamics. direct removal of dispersing animals percent of wolves were killed illegally The best available information does (Packard and Mech 1980, p. 144; Gese (Stenglein et al. 2018; p. 104) while not indicate any wolves have been and Mech 1991, p. 2949; Adams et al. Stenglein et al. (2015b, p. 1183) removed from the wild solely for 2008, pp. 16–18). Trapping, in concluded that as many as 400 wolves educational purposes in recent years. particular, may remove the age classes were illegally killed but were not Wolves that are used for such purposes most likely to disperse because younger, detected between 2003 and 2012. are typically privately held, captive- less experienced wolves are often more Another study conducted outside of the reared offspring of wolves that were vulnerable to this form of harvest. In a lower 48 United States estimated the already in captivity for other reasons. heavily harvested population with a percentage of unknown illegal take that However, States may get requests to significant portion of the harvest from occurred and estimated that place wolves that would otherwise be trapping, long open seasons, and no bag approximately 69 percent of all euthanized in captivity for research or limits, dispersal rates were observed to poaching incidents were undocumented educational purposes. Such requests be up to 50 percent less than in (Liberg et al. 2012, p. 912). Similarly, have been and will continue to be rare, unexploited populations (Webb et al. Treves et al. (2017b, entire) concluded would be closely regulated by the State 2011, pp. 748–749). However, there that illegal take was the primary cause wildlife-management agencies through appears to be considerable variability in of wolf mortality and that the relative the requirement for State permits for dispersal rates from harvested risk of poaching was grossly protected species, and would not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69796 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

substantially increase human-caused life or property or to minimize the risk level of mortality due to depredation wolf mortality rates. of recurrent conflicts. The number of control would be similar to what was Some federally listed wolves have wolves killed for this purpose in the observed during previous periods when been legally removed by private citizens lower 48 United States is small when wolves were delisted. See the Post- in the lower 48 United States through compared to the greater population (see delisting Management section for a more defense of life or property statutes. It is information in subsequent paragraph). detailed discussion of legal control of a rare occurrence for non-habituated With respect to the area of the lower 48 problem wolves (primarily for wild wolves in North America to pose United States currently listed as depredation control). a threat to humans (McNay 2002, pp. endangered (see figure 1), lethal control Regulated public harvest is another 836–837); nonetheless, on rare of depredating wolves is not currently form of human-caused mortality that occasions, humans have killed wolves authorized; however, after delisting, has occurred in the Great Lakes area due to a real or perceived threat to their State and Tribal wildlife agencies may during periods when wolves were safety or the safety of others, which is choose to use lethal control as a delisted, and will likely occur in permissible even under the Act’s mitigation response. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan if protections. For example, since wolves wolves are delisted again. Using an began recolonizing the West Coast Human-Caused Mortality in the adaptive-management approach that States in 2008, a single wolf has been Currently Listed Entities adjusts harvest based on population killed by a private individual who Lethal control of depredating wolves estimates and trends, the initial claimed self-defense in the federally was authorized in Minnesota while objectives of States may be to reduce or listed portion of Washington. Under the wolves were listed under the authority stabilize wolf populations and then rules that governed Federal wolf of 50 CFR 17.40(d) pursuant to section manage for sustainable populations, management for nonessential 4(d) of the Act. However, such control similar to how States manage all other experimental populations under section was not authorized in Michigan or hunted species. See the Post-delisting 10(j) of the Act in portions of the NRM Wisconsin, except (1) as authorized Management section for a more detailed DPS (59 FR 60252 and 59 FR 60266, under section 4(d) when the population discussion of legal harvest. November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, January was reclassified to threatened (from Regulation of human-caused mortality 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008), April 13, 2003, to January 31, 2005), (2) has significantly reduced the number of private individuals were lawfully by special permits (from April 1, 2005, wolf mortalities caused by humans and, allowed to kill a wolf in defense of to September 13, 2005, and from April although illegal and accidental killing of property provided the incident was 24, 2006, to August 10, 2006), and (3) wolves is likely to continue with or immediately reported to the Service and when delisted (from March 12, 2007, to without the protections of the Act, at an investigation confirmed evidence of September 29, 2008, May 4, 2009, to current levels those mortalities have had an attack. To our knowledge, most July 1, 2009, and January 27, 2012, to minimal impact on wolf abundance or States within occupied wolf range December 19, 2014). The depredation distribution. We assume that legal already have rules and regulations control program in Minnesota killed human-caused mortality will increase related to the taking of wildlife when between 6 and 216 wolves annually when wolves are delisted as State life or property are threatened and the from 1979 to 2006. The 5-year annual managers continue or have the ability to taking of wolves under these average of statewide populations for implement lethal control to mitigate circumstances will be regulated under wolves killed ranged from 26 (2 percent repeated conflicts with livestock and the same rules post-delisting. Although of the estimated population) to 152 (7 decide whether to incorporate regulated the number of wolves lawfully killed in percent of the estimated population) public harvest to assist in achieving defense of human life and property by during that time period (Ruid et al. wolf management objectives in their private individuals may be slightly 2009, p. 287). During the periods when respective States. However, the high higher in areas with greater human or wolves were managed under the 4(d) reproductive potential of wolves, and livestock density and may increase after rule in the State, the Minnesota wolf their innate behavior to disperse and delisting as authority for this action population continued to grow or remain locate social openings or vacant suitable expands, overall this type of mortality is stable. During the times that lethal habitats, allows wolf populations to rare and is not expected to have a control of depredating wolves was withstand relatively high rates of significant impact on gray wolf authorized in Wisconsin and Michigan, human-caused mortality (USFWS 2020, populations in the lower 48 United there was no evidence of resulting pp. 8–9). States. For information related to adverse impacts to the maintenance of The States of Minnesota, Michigan, defense of life or property mortalities, a viable wolf population in those States. and Wisconsin have committed to refer to the Post-delisting Management In Wisconsin, during the almost 5 years continue to regulate human-caused section of this rule for the Great Lakes (cumulative over three different time mortality so that it does not reduce the area and the Human-caused Mortality in periods) that lethal depredation control wolf population below recovery levels. the NRM DPS section for the NRM DPS. was allowed in the State, a total of 256 We conclude that the States have The use of lethal depredation control wolves were killed for this purpose, adequate laws and regulations to fulfill to mitigate wolf-human conflicts or to including 46 legally shot by private those commitments and ensure that the minimize risk associated with repeated landowners. A total of 64 wolves were wolf population in the Great Lakes area livestock depredations will likely killed in Michigan (half of these (32) remains above recovery levels (See Post- increase in the lower 48 United States were legally killed by private delisting Management). Washington, after delisting. Although most wolf landowners) in response to depredation Oregon, California, Colorado, and Utah conflicts are rare or one-time incidents events during the same nearly 5-year are also committed to conserving wolves that do not require management action period (cumulative over three different as demonstrated by the development of or may be resolved using preventative or time periods). Following delisting, we management plans and/or codification nonlethal methods, in some instances anticipate that wolf depredation control of laws and regulations that protect lethal control by wildlife management would occur in Wisconsin and wolves. Furthermore, each post- agencies or private individuals is used Michigan consistent with their State delisting management entity (State, to resolve imminent threats to human management plans. We anticipate the Tribal, and Federal) has experienced

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69797

and professional wildlife staff to ensure increased an average of 24 percent that the effects of this type of mortality those commitments can be annually (USFWS et al. 2016, table 6b) on wolf populations are not significant. accomplished. while from 1999 to 2008, total wolf Outside of very remote or large mortality (includes all forms of known protected areas, human-caused Human-Caused Mortality in the NRM wolf mortality) averaged approximately mortality accounts for the majority of DPS 16 percent of the minimum known wolf the documented wolf mortalities After gray wolves were afforded population each year (USFWS et al. annually, and wolves in the NRM are no Federal protections under the Act in 2000–2009, entire). Wolf numbers and exception. Between 1999 and 2008, 1974, an interagency team began distribution stabilized after 2008 as when gray wolves were federally listed recovery planning for wolves in the suitable habitat became increasingly (with the exception of February to July West. The team identified three saturated (74 FR 15160, April 2, 2009). 2008), documented human-caused wolf recovery areas in the NRM that included Between 2009 and 2015, some or all of mortality averaged 13 percent of the northwest Montana, central Idaho, and the NRM States (depending upon the minimum known NRM wolf population the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA; Federal status of wolves at that time; see annually (USFWS et al. 2000–2009, USFWS 1987, pp. v, 13). These areas table 1) began to manage wolves with entire) with lethal control of were selected because they contained the objective of reversing or stabilizing depredating wolves (which includes large contiguous blocks of Federal population growth while continuing to legal take by private individuals) and public lands, had abundant ungulate maintain wolf populations well above illegal take (discussed previously) being populations, and relatively low numbers Federal recovery targets. The primary the primary mortality factors. As of livestock that were seasonally grazed method used to manage wolf expected, human-caused mortality on Federal allotments. It was further populations and achieve management increased after 2008 as NRM States, recognized that control of depredating objectives is through regulated public dependent on the Federal status of wolves would be an important aspect of harvest. As a result, during those years wolves, began to manage wolf the recovery planning process and the when legal harvest occurred, total wolf populations. As a result, human-caused eventual management of gray wolves mortality in the NRM increased to an mortality increased to an average of 27 (USFWS 1980, pp. 14–15; USFWS 1987, average of 29 percent of the minimum percent of the minimum known NRM pp. v–vi, 9, 14–15, 33–35; USFWS 1994, known population (USFWS et al. 2010– wolf population annually between 2009 entire; Bangs et al. 2009, p. 97). In 1994, 2016, entire), while population growth and 2015 (USFWS et al. 2010–2016, the Service designated portions of declined to an average of approximately entire). Since 2009, regulated public Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming as two 1 percent annually (USFWS et al. 2010– harvest and lethal control of nonessential experimental population 2016, entire). Where high levels of wolf depredating wolves have been the two areas for the gray wolf under section mortality occur, the species’ primary mortality factors removing an 10(j) of the Act, which facilitated the reproductive capacity and dispersal average of 17 percent and 9 percent of 1995 and 1996 reintroduction of gray capability can compensate for mortality the minimum known NRM wolf wolves into these areas and offered rates of 17 to 48 percent (USFWS 2020, population annually, respectively more flexibility to manage conflicts than pp. 8–9), this appears to be the case in (USFWS et al. 2010–2016, entire). As was otherwise allowed for an the NRM. As of 2015, the final year of part of post-delisting monitoring in the endangered species (USFWS 1994; 59 a combined NRM wolf count due to the NRM, the Service conducted annual FR 60252 and 59 FR 60266, November assessments of the NRM wolf end of federally required post-delisting 22, 1994). Wolves in northwest Montana population and noted that it remained monitoring in Idaho and Montana, wolf retained their classification as well above Federal recovery levels with populations in the NRM remained well endangered because natural no identifiable threats that imperiled its above minimum recovery levels with a recolonization from Canada had already recovered status under State minimum known population of 1,704 begun in the 1980s (USFWS 1994; 59 FR management in 2009 (Bangs 2010, wolves distributed across Idaho, 60252 and 59 FR 60266, November 22, entire) and 2011 to 2015 (Jimenez 2012, Montana, and Wyoming. An additional 1994). In 2005 and again in 2008, 2013a, 2014, 2015, 2016, entire). section 10(j) rules governing 177 wolves were documented in the In addition to the annual post- management of the nonessential NRM portions of Oregon and delisting assessments, previous rules (74 experimental wolf populations were Washington at the end of 2015. FR 15123, April 2, 2009, and 77 FR revised to clarify terms and allow Non-human related wolf mortalities 55530, September 10, 2012) have limited increases in management may be biased low because a relatively adequately described wolf population- flexibility to mitigate wolf conflicts (for small percentage of wolves in the NRM level responses to various mortality further information see 70 FR 1286, had known fates. Nonetheless, an factors in the NRM up through 2008. January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, average of 3 percent of known wolf Regulated harvest and lethal control of 2008). The information provided below mortalities were due to non-human depredating wolves account for the for the delisted NRM wolf population causes (e.g., natural and unknown majority of the known wolf mortalities includes wolves that inhabit the three causes) through 2008 (USFWS et al. in the NRM since 2009 (see above); wolf recovery areas in the NRM States 2000–2009, entire). Although the therefore, the following discussion of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and variability in the range of non-human focuses on these two types of mortality. does not include wolves that have related wolf mortalities declined, the The management of wolf populations naturally recolonized portions of percent of non-human related wolf through regulated harvest had never Oregon and Washington within the mortalities dropped slightly to an been attempted in the lower 48 United NRM unless specifically noted. average of 2 percent of the minimum States until 2009 when the NRM States After wolf reintroduction, a rapid known population annually between of Idaho and Montana conducted the increase in the number and distribution 2009 and 2015 (USFWS et al. 2010– first regulated wolf hunts. To highlight of wolves occurred due to the 2016, entire). Given the low level of the adaptive style of management that availability of high-quality, suitable non-human related wolf mortalities Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming use to wolf habitat in the NRM. Between 1995 documented in the NRM, even assuming maintain a recovered wolf population in and 2008, wolf populations in the NRM the estimate is biased low, we conclude the NRM DPS, even though State

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69798 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

objectives include reducing wolf zones (WMZ). Hunting was the only WMZs; (2) on December 31, 2011, in the population growth rates, we have legal form of take, and the bag limit was Beaverhead and Island Park WMZs; and included a significant amount of detail one wolf per hunter. Successful hunters (3) on June 30, 2012, in the Lolo and regarding the regulatory framework the were required to report the harvest of a Selway WMZs. Hunting bag limits were States have used to regulate wolf wolf within 24 hours of take and present increased to two wolves per calendar harvest. This information also the skull and hide to an IDFG regional year. Trapping was also approved by the demonstrates wolf population-level office or conservation officer for IDFG Commission as a legal form of take responses and that harvest levels inspection and to have the hide tagged and was permitted in five WMZs. generally do not increase under with an official State export tag within Trappers were required to attend a wolf gradually less restrictive regulations in 5 days of harvest. Seasons began in two trapper education class prior to some States. Lethal take of depredating WMZs on September 1, another two purchasing wolf trapping tags. Trapping wolves by private individuals accounts WMZs opened on September 15, and seasons began November 15, 2011, and for a relatively small percentage of total the remaining eight WMZs opened were open through March 31, 2012. wolves removed in the NRM annually October 1, 2009; all WMZs remained Certified trappers could purchase up to for conflict-related issues. Thus, in open until March 31, 2010, or until three wolf trapping tags per season, and addition to agency control of harvest limits were reached in that trappers were permitted to use hunting depredating wolves, the total number of specific WMZ. By the end of 2009, 5 of tags on trapped wolves. Regardless of wolves lethally removed for depredating the 12 WMZs were closed after harvest method of take, the mandatory reporting livestock includes wolves killed legally limits were met. An additional two period for successful hunters and by private individuals in depredation WMZs met harvest limits prior to the trappers was extended to 72 hours, and situations unless specifically noted. season closing on March 31, 2010. A they still had to present the hide and Although most of the wolves in Oregon total of 181 wolves were harvested skull to an IDFG conservation officer or and Washington inhabit the NRM DPS during the 2009–2010 season, and a regional office within 10 days for portion of each State and account for the minimum count of 870 wolves were inspection and tagging. As part of post- majority of the wolf mortalities in any documented at the end of calendar year delisting monitoring for Idaho, the given year, mortality rates presented 2009 (see table 3). Service evaluated regulatory changes to below for these States are based on Prior to the start of the 2010–2011 Idaho’s wolf harvest seasons to assess statewide totals unless specified wolf hunting season, a court order the level of impact to wolves in the otherwise. For further information placed wolves back under Federal State and determined that, although related to the regulatory framework protections (75 FR 65574, October, 26, harvest would likely increase over the within each State in the NRM, see the 2010), so no wolf hunting occurred first year of regulated take, these Management in the NRM DPS and the during that hunting season. changes did not pose a significant threat Wolves were again delisted in Idaho Post-Delisting Management in the West to wolves in Idaho and would ensure in May 2011 (76 FR 25590, May 5, Coast States sections of this rule as well wolf numbers remained well above 2011). Similar to the 2009–2010 hunting as previous rules (74 FR 15123, April 2, minimum recovery levels (Cooley 2011, season, a primary objective with harvest 2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10, entire). From this point forward in this was to reverse wolf population growth 2012). section of the rule, Idaho wolf harvest at the State level while limiting harvest Regulated Harvest in Idaho—The totals are presented based on the in some WMZs to conserve wolves and Idaho Department of Fish and Game calendar year rather than the hunting/ (IDFG) has expressed its commitment to maintain adequate connectivity to wolf trapping season. In calendar year 2011, maintaining a viable, self-sustaining populations in Montana and Wyoming. 200 wolves were legally harvested in wolf population above minimum As a result, some WMZ modifications Idaho (173 by hunting and 27 by Federal recovery levels, while occurred, as well as significant changes trapping), and 768 wolves were minimizing conflicts (Idaho Legislative to season rules and regulations that documented in the State as of December Wolf Oversight Committee [ILWOC] were approved by the IDFG 31, 2011 (see table 3). 2002, p. 4). Additional goals of wolf Commission. Harvest regulations in management in Idaho are to ensure WMZs that bordered Montana and Regulatory changes for the 2012–2013 connectivity with wolf populations in Wyoming were conservative compared wolf season were designed to increase neighboring States and Provinces and to to other WMZs in Idaho to limit take, especially in those areas that had manage wolves as part of the native potential harvest effects during peak lower hunter/trapper success and where resident wildlife resource, similar to periods of wolf dispersal. Harvest limits high levels of wolf-ungulate or wolf- management of other large carnivores in were established in five WMZs where livestock conflicts occur. Trapping was the State (ILWOC 2002, p. 18). The State IDFG expected high hunter success permitted in one additional WMZ in the has indicated that it will only allow based on results and experience gained 2012–2013 season for a total of six wolf harvest as long as wolves remain during the 2009–2010 season and where WMZs where trapping was permitted. federally delisted and as long as 15 or it was important to maintain Bag limits were increased in 6 of 13 more packs are documented in the State. connectivity between wolf populations WMZs from 2 to 5 hunting tags per Wolves were removed from Federal in adjacent States. In the eight hunter per calendar year and from 3 to protections in Idaho in 2009 (74 FR remaining WMZs, where IDFG expected 5 trapping tags per trapper per season. 15123, April 2, 2009), and IDFG lower hunter success based on results The remaining WMZs continue to determined that the first regulated, and experience gained during the permit two hunting tags per individual public hunt of wolves could begin later previous season or where high levels of (trapping is not permitted in these that fall. wolf-ungulate or wolf-livestock conflicts WMZs). Season structure was similar to IDFG provided recommendations for occur, no harvest limits were set. the previous season except that the the 2009–2010 wolf hunting season to Seasons in all WMZs opened on August season was extended in the Beaverhead the IDFG Commission, which approved 30, 2011, and closed when the harvest and Island Park WMZs to January 31 the recommendations. The total limit was reached in any of the 5 WMZs (from December 31) and the start of the statewide harvest limit was 220 wolves that had harvest limits or (1) on March hunting season on private land in the distributed across 12 wolf management 31 of the following year for 9 of 13 Panhandle WMZ was changed to begin

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69799

on July 1 rather than August 31. beginning in 2016 and experimented were documented, and Ausband et al. Although the Service expected harvest with other metrics to evaluate (2015, pp. 418–420) noted a decline in to increase over previous years, we population trends (see Wolf Population pup survival that may have affected determined it was unlikely that these and Human-Caused Mortality In Idaho recruitment after wolf hunts began in regulatory changes would result in Summary section). One of these Idaho, the implementation of regulated Idaho’s wolf population nearing techniques estimated that a minimum of harvest has stabilized wolf population minimum recovery levels (Cooley 2012, 81 packs was extant in Idaho during growth in the State, at least between the entire). During calendar year 2012, 329 2016 (IDFG 2017, p. 6). years of 2009 to 2015 (mean population wolves were legally harvested in Idaho, The 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 wolf growth rate: 0 percent; range: ¥11 and 722 wolves were documented in the seasons saw additional changes, some of percent to 17 percent). While minimum State at the end of 2012 (see table 3). which were designed to reduce the counts were not conducted by IDFG Relatively minor changes were population by increasing the number of after 2015, metrics that estimated the approved for the 2013–2014 wolf season wolves that could be harvested in Idaho. number of packs in the State in 2016 and included harvest on private land Some changes that occurred were: (IDFG 2017, p. 6), similarities in total year-round in one WMZ and the Extending the mandatory reporting harvest in 2016 and 2017, along with a extension of the season end date to June period for successful hunters and slight increase in 2018, combined with 30 in 2 WMZs (a total of four WMZs trappers from 3 days to 10 days; removal regulations providing for increased now close on this date). Trapping of wolf harvest limits statewide; and no hunter/trapper opportunities, indicates seasons were permitted in 3 additional longer using WMZs to set regulations for that the wolf population in Idaho has WMZs, resulting in 9 out of 13 WMZs specific regions of the State (instead, not deviated significantly from the 786 that allowed trapping. The Service hunt units are grouped based on season wolves that were documented in the determined no official review was start and end dates as well as any State at the end of 2015 (see table 3). necessary for these regulatory changes special regulations that pertain to Although not directly comparable to a because they would not likely result in specific units). Idaho contains a total of minimum count, IDFG estimated that a significant increase in harvest (Cooley 99 hunt units, and 25 of these had year- approximately 1,000 wolves existed in 2013, entire). A total of 356 wolves were round hunting seasons on private land Idaho at the end of 2019 (IDFG, pers. harvested during the 2013 calendar only; most other hunting seasons began comm., 2020). year, a modest increase over 2012 totals, on August 1 or 30 and ended on March In an analysis of Idaho wolf harvest with 659 wolves documented in the 31, April 30, or June 30. Trapping statistics through 2014, hunting State at the end of 2013 (see table 3). seasons began either October 10 or removed more male than female wolves, Idaho regulations were changed for November 15 and closed on March 15 pups were trapped in equal proportions the 2014–2015 wolf season to increase or 31. Trapping was not permitted in 38 to other age classes, hunting removed a harvest. The Service determined that the of the 99 hunt units in Idaho. Harvest greater proportion of wolves than changes would not threaten Idaho’s wolf increased slightly over previous years, trapping, and there was little change in population (Cooley 2014, entire). Bag with 281 wolves harvested in 2017 and hunter/trapper effort over time limits were increased statewide to five 329 wolves during calendar year 2018. (Ausband 2016, entire). Another tags per hunter per calendar year or five No minimum counts or wolf abundance analysis noted that most wolves in tags per trapper per season; trappers estimates were collected during 2017 Idaho were harvested in October, were permitted to use hunting tags for and 2018. incidental to deer and elk hunting trapped wolves. Five WMZs had year- The 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 wolf seasons, and that more harvest round hunting seasons on private seasons saw minor adjustments to opportunities through increased bag property only, and hunting seasons hunting and trapping regulations. limits and extended season lengths did closed on June 30 for three WMZs and Hunting and trapping seasons were not necessarily result in increased portions of two other WMZs. Trapping similar to the previous 2 seasons; harvest between 2012 and 2016 because was permitted in 12 of 13 WMZs (with however, trapping was permitted in all most hunters harvested a single wolf specific regulations for most WMZs), hunt units except 2 (down from 38 hunt (IDFG 2017, entire). and trap start dates were moved up to units previously). Bag limits also The levels of harvest mortality October 10 (from November 15) for 3 changed from the previous two seasons experienced by Idaho’s wolf population WMZs. Harvest limits remained for 5 of and again within the 2019–2020 hunting through 2016 appears to be additive to 13 WMZs. A total of 256 wolves were season. Current bag limits are a harvest other forms of mortality, which legally harvested in Idaho during the limit of 15 wolves per hunter per indicates that it can be an effective tool 2014 calendar year, with 770 wolves calendar year and 15 wolves per trapper to manipulate wolf abundance in the documented in the State at the end of per trapping season; trappers continue state (Horne et al. 2019a, p. 40). 2014 (see table 3). to be permitted to use hunting tags for However, after initial high rates of Beginning with the 2015–2106 season, trapped wolves. Wolf harvest totals for harvest post-delisting, wolf harvest rates regulations were set for 2-year periods, calendar year 2019 were not available as moderated between 2012 and 2016, although the IDFG Commission could of this writing; however, using an array resulting in average pack sizes similar to make emergency regulatory changes of remote cameras and a modeling those observed pre-delisting (Horne et anytime during that period if necessary. framework, IDFG estimated that al. 2019a, pp. 38–41). Similarly, both Very few, minor changes occurred approximately 1,000 wolves existed in recruitment and dispersal rates did not during this biennium compared to the the State at the end of 2019 (IDFG, pers. change appreciably from pre-harvest previous season. As a result, harvest comm., 2020, USFWS 2020, p. 16), levels (Horne et al. 2019a, pp. 38–41). was very similar to 2014 with 256 which is well above the recovery target Harvest regulations were changed in wolves harvested during calendar year of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves. Idaho during the years of this study and 2015 and 267 wolves harvested during On average, harvest has removed beyond in an attempt to increase 2016. A minimum count of 786 wolves approximately 21 percent of Idaho’s harvest. However, increased hunter was documented in Idaho at the end of known wolf population annually opportunity has not resulted in 2015 (see table 3). IDFG transitioned between 2009 and 2015. Although significant and continuous increases in away from providing minimum counts annual variations in minimum counts wolf harvest. In fact, following an initial

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69800 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

period of high harvest rates that had agency-directed lethal control, this 659 to 786 wolves between 2010 and some effect on wolf demographics (see designation allowed for opportunistic 2015 (see table 3). above for discussion), wolf harvest has harassment of wolves by livestock Beginning in 2016, after Idaho’s post- subsequently had minimal overall effect producers and allowed lethal take of delisting monitoring period ended, on the dynamics of wolf populations in wolves that were observed attacking IDFG transitioned away from providing Idaho through 2016 (Horne et al. 2019a, livestock or dogs on private or lawfully minimum counts of known wolves and pp. 37–41). occupied public lands. Wolves that towards the use of multiple other Depredation Control in Idaho—Wolf- occupied the northwest Montana methods to track population trends. livestock depredation management in recovery area in the NRM, which These include genetic sampling of Idaho is guided by Idaho Statute (I.S.) includes a portion of Idaho north of U.S. wolves for genetic analysis at den and 36–1107 and the provisions in the Idaho Interstate 90, were classified as rendezvous sites (Stansbury et el. 2014, Wolf Conservation and Management endangered and were afforded full entire), mandatory checks of all Plan (ILWOC 2002). I.S. 36–1107 protections under the Act. harvested wolves, incidental authorizes the IDFG Director or his The total number of wolves removed observations by the public and agency designated authorities to control, trap, in lethal control actions includes take personnel, monitoring the location and and/or remove animals doing damage to from agency actions to mitigate number of lethal control actions or destroying any property. Section (c) conflicts, take by private citizens under authorized by IDFG, and limited wolf of the statute applies specifically to a permit or when wolves were killed in tracking via radio transmitters (IDFG wolves and encourages the use of the act of attacking or molesting 2017, pp. 5–6). More recently, a novel nonlethal methods to prevent or livestock, and wolves removed under application of genetic data used minimize conflict risk. It also permits the IDFG Policy for Avian and biological samples collected from owners of livestock or domestic Mammalian Predator Management harvested wolves to estimate a animals, their employees, agents, or (2000) when wolves were under State minimum number of reproductive packs agency personnel to lethally remove management authority unless otherwise that existed in the State in a given year wolves molesting or attacking livestock specified. Minimum wolf counts are (Clendenin et al. 2020, entire). A without the need for a permit from available for Idaho only through 2015, minimum of 52 and 63 reproductive IDFG. A permit is needed from IDFG to while records of wolves lethally packs were subjected to harvest in Idaho lethally remove wolves not attacking or removed in conflicts are available in 2014 and 2015, respectively, which molesting livestock or domestic animals through 2016 (see table 3). Although the was similar to what was documented by or pursuant to IDFG wolf harvest rules. total number of wolves removed in IDFG during those years (Clendenin et Any wolf taken under this authority conflict situations was higher in Idaho al. 2020, pp. 6–10). Additional analyses must be reported to IDFG within 10 under State authority (2009 and 2011– conducted by IDFG using remote days and becomes the property of the 2015; n = 465) when compared to a cameras deployed across the State state. similar time period under Federal during summer indicated that 81 packs Under the IDFG Policy for Avian and management (2004–2008 and 2010; n = existed in the State in 2016 (IDFG 2017, Mammalian Predator Management 325), the annual average percent of p. 6). Comparing these results to those (IDFG 2000), where there is evidence wolves lethally removed did not change of Clendenin et al. (2020, entire) that predation is a significant factor and remained at 7 percent of the indicates that not all Idaho packs are inhibiting prey populations from minimum known population. Between subjected to harvest in all years. achieving management objectives, 2011 and 2016, 107 wolves were More recently, using an array of management actions to mitigate the removed under predation management remote cameras and a modeling effects of predators may be developed in plans to benefit ungulate populations. framework, IDFG estimated that a predation management plan. Initial Wolf-caused sheep depredations approximately 1,000 wolves existed in management options may include dominate Idaho wolf-livestock conflicts, the State at the end of 2019 ((IDFG, pers. habitat improvements, changes to and although there has been annual comm. 2020). Although not comparable regulations governing take of the variability, a general downward trend in to previous wolf surveys that used affected species, or regulatory changes the number of wolf-sheep conflicts has minimum counts, continued refinement that increase hunter/trapper opportunity occurred since 2009 (IDFG 2016, pp. of the methodology and estimation of for predators. If these methods are 12–14). Cattle depredations have also the abundance of wolves in the State implemented and do not achieve the generally declined since 2009. using the modeling framework will desired management objective, predator Wolf Population and Human-caused allow for annual evaluations of management may be used to reduce Mortality in Idaho Summary—Between abundance and trends over time. Based predator populations where predator 1999 and 2008, the rate of human- on these more recent methods that effects are most significant. To date, caused mortality in Idaho was 9 percent, evaluate population trends (genetic predator management plans have been which allowed the wolf population to analysis of harvested wolves) and developed for five elk management increase at a rate of approximately 22 provide a population estimate zones in Idaho with wolves being one percent annually. Since 2009, when (modeling), the wolf population in of, if not the primary, targeted predator wolves were federally delisted and Idaho appears to be resilient to the (IDFG 2011, IDFG 2014a, IDFG 2014b, primarily under State management increased level of human-caused IDFG 2014c). authority (the exception being August mortality in the State, indicating that Between 2008 and 2011, the Federal 2010 to May 2011), human-caused Idaho wolves remain well above status of wolves in Idaho changed on mortality increased to 29 percent recovery levels of 10 breeding pairs and several occasions. While wolves in annually, which was one of a multitude 100 wolves and continue to be widely Idaho were under Federal management of factors that likely contributed to the distributed across the state. authority, they were managed under a stabilization of the wolf population in Regulated Harvest in Montana— nonessential experimental population Idaho between 2009 and 2015. Although Regulated public harvest of wolves in regulation in the central Idaho (south of some variation in annual wolf Montana was first endorsed by the I–90) and the GYA recovery areas (73 FR abundance was documented, minimum Governor’s Wolf Advisory Council in 4720, January 28, 2008). In addition to counts of wolves in Idaho ranged from 2000 and included in Montana’s Wolf

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69801

Conservation and Management Plan. again removed from Federal protections harvested during the 2011–2012 season, Wolf hunting in Montana can be in Montana in 2009 (74 FR 15123, April equaling 75% of the total quota, with 3 implemented only when wolves are 2, 2009), and MFWP conducted the first of 14 WMUs closing due to quotas being federally delisted and under State regulated, public hunt of wolves that met (MFWP 2012, entire). Year-end management authority and when greater fall using the same regulations that were counts by MFWP documented a than 15 breeding pairs were developed for the 2008 season described minimum of 653 wolves in the State, documented in the State the previous above. A total of 72 wolves were while patch occupancy modeling year. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks harvested, and seasons closed statewide estimated that 971 wolves existed across (MFWP) developed wolf harvest on November 16. Post-hunt evaluations Montana at the end of 2011 (see table 3). strategies that maintain a recovered wolf indicated no biological threats to the The 2012–2013 wolf hunting season population, maintain connectivity with wolf population in Montana resulted saw significant changes to season other subpopulations of wolves in from the harvest, and, as expected, most structure and regulations that were Idaho, Wyoming and Canada, minimize hunters harvested wolves designed to increase harvest and reduce wolf-livestock conflicts, reduce wolf opportunistically while deer and/or elk wolf numbers in the State to a impacts on low or declining ungulate hunting (MFWP 2010, entire). Year-end management goal of 425 wolves, more populations and ungulate hunting counts by MFWP documented a than twice the Federal recovery goal. opportunities, and effectively minimum of 524 wolves in the State, First, some hunt areas were reorganized communicate to all parties the relevance while patch occupancy modeling to better direct or limit harvest in and credibility of the harvest while estimated that 847 wolves existed across certain locations increasing the total acknowledging the diversity of opinions Montana at the end of 2009 (see table 3; number of WMUs to 17. Other changes and values among interested parties. also see USFWS 2020, p. 16 and the included a statewide general season The Montana public has the opportunity final paragraph of this section for an rather than a statewide quota with for input regarding wolf harvest explanation of why minimum wolf quotas remaining in WMU 110 and 316 recommendations throughout a public counts and modeled estimates differed). only, which border Glacier and Prior to the 2010 season, wildlife season-setting process prior to adoption Yellowstone National Parks, managers in Montana refined the WMU of season regulations by the MFWP respectively; a hunting season closing Commission. structure in the State to better distribute date of February 28; a trapping season To prepare for the potential that harvest resulting in the creation of 14 that would be open from December 15 wolves would be delisted and legal WMUs, primarily distributed across the public harvest could be implemented, western half of Montana where wolves through February 28; an increase in the MFWP developed wolf harvest exist. With input provided from regional overall bag limit to three wolves per recommendations that would achieve personnel, a general consensus resulted hunter/trapper per season; consistent desired management objectives. The in a desired objective to reduce wolf with State statute, the use of electronic recommendations were approved, with numbers within biological limits calls to take wolves; and a change in the some modifications, by the MFWP without jeopardizing Federal recovery mandatory reporting period from 12 to Commission in early 2008. Three wolf targets of at least 10 breeding pairs and 24 hours after harvest or upon returning management units (WMU), and one 100 wolves. Using similar modeling to the trailhead for backcountry hunters/ subunit, were established each with a exercises as previous years and an trappers. All wolf trappers were harvest limit or quota. Wolf hunting objective of reversing wolf population required to attend a wolf trapping seasons opened September 15 and growth, a total quota of 186 wolves educational course to become certified remained open until December 31 or distributed across the 14 WMUs was prior to purchasing a wolf trapping until harvest limits were reached, approved by the MFWP Commission. license and were required to have a whichever occurred first. Hunters could Prior to the start of the 2010 wolf minimum pan tension of 8 pounds in harvest one wolf per calendar year. hunting season, a court order placed MFWP Regions 1 and 2 to minimize Successful hunters were required to wolves back under Federal protections nontarget captures. In February 2013, report their kill within 12 hours of (75 FR 65574, October 26, 2010), so no the Governor signed House Bill 73, harvest and present the skull and hide wolf hunting season took place. which included language that for inspection by MFWP within 10 days. Wolves were again delisted in authorized the use of electronic calls MFWP Commission had authority to Montana in May 2011 (76 FR 25590, and the sale of multiple wolf hunting initiate emergency season closures if May 5, 2011). Similar to previous years, licenses. As a result, these MFWP conditions warranted. a primary objective with harvest was to Commission provisions that were Hunting quotas were developed reverse wolf population growth. As a approved earlier became effective through an evaluation of population result, archery-only and early back- immediately upon the Governor’s parameters including wolf population country rifle seasons were proposed, signing. As part of post-delisting status and trends, pack distribution, pup and a quota increase to 220 wolves monitoring for Montana, the Service production, and all mortality factors. distributed across all WMUs was evaluated these regulatory changes to Modeling exercises assessed risk and recommended by MFWP and approved Montana’s wolf hunting and trapping harvest effects on Montana’s wolf by the MFWP Commission. Wolf harvest seasons to assess the level of impact to population, and all assumptions were was not progressing as expected during wolves in the State and determined that, made conservatively. Resulting harvest the early parts of the hunting seasons although harvest would likely increase limits were considered biologically (121 wolves harvested and 2 of 14 WMU over previous years, these changes did conservative (Sime et al. 2010, p. 18) quotas met by December 31, 2011), so not pose a significant threat to wolves and included a statewide total of 75 MFWP proposed a season extension in Montana and would ensure wolf wolves distributed across the three through January 31, 2012, or until WMU numbers remained well above minimum WMUs. quotas were met. After a public recovery levels (Sartorius 2012, entire; Due to litigation resulting from comment period, the MFWP Jimenez 2013b, entire). A total of 225 Federal delisting efforts in 2008 (see 73 Commission approved and adopted a wolves were harvested during the 2012– FR 10514, February 27, 2008), no public season extension through February 15, 2013 wolf season, with the majority of harvest occurred in 2008. Wolves were 2012. A total of 166 wolves were hunters and trappers harvesting a single

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69802 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

wolf (MFWP 2013, entire). Year-end The Confederated Salish and Kootenai restrictive harvest regulations, total wolf counts by MFWP documented a Tribes (CSKT) of the Flathead harvest has remained relatively minimum of 625 wolves in the State, Reservation regulate wolf harvest on consistent since 2013 (range: 205–259 while patch occupancy modeling their Tribal lands. The CSKT defined wolves), and the patch occupancy estimated that 915 wolves existed across three wolf hunting and trapping zones modeled estimated wolf population Montana at the end of 2012 (see table 3). on their reservation where, according to appears to have stabilized around 800 to The 2013–2014 wolf hunting and the 2018–2019 regulations, seasons 900 wolves since 2014. trapping season saw some minor begin on September 1 and end on either Depredation Control in Montana— changes to seasons that included the March 31 or April 30 of the following The 2001 Montana Legislature passed general (hunting) season being extended year, or until harvest limits are reached Senate Bill 163 (SB163), which to March 15, an increased bag limit of in each zone, whichever occurs first. amended several statutes in Montana five wolves in any combination of Bag and harvest limits are 1 wolf per Title 87 pertaining to fish and wildlife general or trapping per hunter/trapper hunter/trapper, with a maximum species and oversight and Title 81 per season, and the creation of WMU harvest of 5 wolves total in the Mission related to the Montana Department of 313 (with a separate quota) north of Mountain Zone and 2 wolves per Livestock (MDOL) and their Yellowstone National Park. Trappers hunter/trapper with a maximum harvest responsibilities related to predator were also required to have a minimum of 10 wolves in the Northwest and control (MFWP 2002, pp. 6–9). SB163 pan tension of 10 pounds in MFWP South Zones. Trappers are required to called for the removal of wolves from Regions 1–5 to reduce incidental complete a Wolf Trapper Training Class the Montana list of endangered species capture of nontarget species. A total of prior to obtaining a Tribal trapping concurrent with Federal delisting. After 230 wolves were harvested during the permit. Successful hunters/trappers removal as State endangered, wolves 2013–2014 season, with hunters taking must present the hide and skull for were classified as a species in need of 143 wolves and trappers taking another inspection and sample collection within management, which allowed MFWP and 87. Even with the increased bag limits, 7 days of take. Wolves harvested on the the MFWP Commission to establish the majority of successful hunters and Flathead Reservation are included in regulations to guide management of the trappers took one wolf (MFWP 2014, Montana totals described above and in species. SB163 amended Montana entire). Year-end counts by MFWP table 3. Statute 87–3–130, which relieved a documented a minimum of 627 wolves The Blackfeet Nation provides gray person from liability for the taking of a wolf hunting opportunities for its Tribal wolf if it was attacking, killing, or in the State, while patch occupancy members and descendants. The threatening to kill a person, livestock, or modeling estimated that 1,088 wolves Blackfeet Nation is divided into 4 a domestic dog. SB163 also removed existed across Montana at the end of hunting zones and wolf hunting is wolves from the list of species classified 2013 (see table 3). allowed in Zones 2 and 3 only; no wolf as ‘‘predatory in nature,’’ which are Other than some minor quota changes hunting is permitted in Zones 1 or 4, systematically controlled by MDOL. As to those WMUs that border Glacier and and wolf trapping is not authorized in a result, MDOL would work Yellowstone National Parks, the only any hunting zone. Hunters may cooperatively with MFWP to control significant change that has occurred purchase up to three gray wolf hunting wolves in a manner consistent with a since the 2013–2014 wolf hunting and licenses each season. Seasons start on wolf management plan approved by trapping season was the decision by the the third Saturday in October and close both agencies. MFWP Commission prior to the 2017– on March 31 of the following year. The primary goal of wolf management 2018 seasons to visit wolf season Successful hunters must report harvest in Montana is to maintain a viable wolf structure every other year rather than and have animals inspected by a game population and address wolf-livestock every year to allow for discussion of warden within 24 hours of take. All conflicts (MFWP 2002, p. 50). MFWP ungulate and wolf seasons at the same harvest totals from the Blackfeet Nation encourages the use of preventative and Commission meeting. Wolf harvest in are included in the Montana totals nonlethal methods and actively Montana remained similar to the described above and in table 3. participates and cooperates in many previous two seasons when 206 and 210 Regulated public harvest of wolves in preventive conflict reduction programs wolves were harvested during the 2014– Montana has removed an average of 22 (Inman et al. 2019, p. 14; Wilson et al. 2015 and 2015–2016 seasons, percent (range: 10–31 percent) of 2017, p. 247). Current rules and respectively (MFWP 2015, entire; Montana’s minimum known wolf regulations to address wolf-livestock MFWP 2016, entire). A slight upward population during those years that conflicts provide more opportunity for trend has been observed since with 247 harvest occurred and minimum counts livestock producers and/or private wolves being harvested in the 2016– were documented (2009, 2011–2017 in landowners to address wolf-related 2017 season, 255 in 2017–2018, and 295 table 3). The minimum known number conflicts. Nonlethal harassment is in 2018–2019 (MFWP 2017, entire; of wolves in Montana also gradually allowed at all times; however, if MFWP 2018, pp. 13–14; Inman et al. declined as regulations became less nonlethal methods do not discourage 2019, pp. 9–10). Meanwhile, the restrictive with the objective of wolves from harassing livestock, minimum known number of wolves in reversing wolf population growth in landowners may request a special kill Montana has ranged between 477 and Montana. Although harvest may have permit from MFWP that is valid on 633 animals since 2014, while patch been a contributing factor, it is also lawfully occupied public and private occupancy modeling estimates have possible that reduced wolf monitoring lands. SB163 also provides ranged between 814 and 981 wolves in the State resulted in lower minimum authorization for livestock producers to during the same time period (see table counts. When wolf harvest was kill a wolf without a permit if it is 3 for further information). The overall evaluated using patch occupancy threatening, attacking, or killing general trend in method of take was modeling estimates, which were not livestock on either public or private similar to previous years with hunters influenced by changes to MFWP survey lands. If private citizens kill a wolf with taking approximately two-thirds and effort over time, harvest accounted for or without a permit, they are required to trappers taking one-third of all the removal of between 7 and 22 percent report the incident to MFWP as soon as harvested wolves in Montana. of the population annually. Despite less possible, or within 72 hours, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69803

surrender the carcass to MFWP primarily under Federal authority, 512 4 of the past 5 years (the outlier being authorities. If a livestock depredation is wolves were removed to address an estimate of 981 wolves in 2015). documented, nonlethal or lethal control conflicts with livestock. As a percentage Regulated Harvest in Wyoming— may be implemented, as appropriate, by of the minimum known population Wyoming Statute 23–1–304 provides providing recommendations to the during that time period, an average of 15 authority for the Wyoming Game and livestock producer or through agency percent of Montana’s wolf population Fish Commission (WGFC) to promulgate actions. was removed to address wolf-livestock rules and regulations related to the Between 2008 and 2011, the Federal conflicts annually. When wolves were management of wolves in Wyoming status of wolves in Montana changed on primarily under State management where they are classified as trophy game several occasions. While wolves were authority, 597 wolves were removed animals. Per WGFC Chapter 21 under Federal management authority, between 2009 and 2017 (excluding regulations that govern the management wolves throughout most of Montana 2010; MFWP switched to reporting wolf of wolves in Wyoming, wolves are were managed under a revised section population estimates based on patch classified as trophy game animals in the 10(j) rule for the central Idaho and GYA northwest part of the State, where the occupancy modeling estimators only nonessential experimental wolf majority of the wolves reside, and beginning in 2018 so no minimum population in the NRM (73 FR 4720, predators in the remainder of Wyoming. count was available for 2018). Although January 28, 2008). In addition to agency- Wolf harvest is regulated by WGFC directed lethal control, this allowed for a greater number of wolves were lethally Chapter 47 regulations in the wolf opportunistic harassment of wolves by removed under State authority, the trophy game management area livestock producers and allowed take of average percentage of wolves removed (WTGMA), whereas wolves may be wolves that were observed attacking annually declined to 9 percent of the taken by any legal means year-round livestock or dogs on private or lawfully minimum known wolf population and without limit in the predator area occupied public lands. Wolves that during this time period. Since 2013, the as provided by Wyoming Statute 23–2– occupied the northwest Montana percent of Montana’s wolf population 303(d), 23–3–103(a), 23–3–112, 23–3– recovery area in the NRM were removed for depredation control has not 304(b), 23–3–305, and 23–3–307. Wolf classified as endangered and were exceeded 8 percent, and was as low as hunting regulations within the WTGMA afforded full protections under the Act. 5 percent of the minimum known are evaluated and revised annually The Blackfeet Nation and CSKT wolf population in 2015. Using population based on current population objectives management plans each provide similar estimates based on patch occupancy and past years’ demographic and management responses based on modeling, the percentage of the wolf mortality information. An internal potential wolf conflict scenarios that population removed annually to resolve review and an extensive public input may occur on their respective wolf-livestock conflicts has not process occur prior to finalization of reservations (see table 1 in Blackfeet exceeded 5 percent since 2013 and has WGFC Chapter 47 regulations. Tribal Business Council [BTBC] 2008, p. been as low as 3 percent in 2015. Wolves were federally delisted in the 7; see table 1 in CSKT 2015, p. 11). In Wolf Population and Human-caused NRM on March 28, 2008 (73 FR 10514, most instances, initial management Mortality in Montana Summary—Since February 27, 2008). In anticipation of responses will emphasize preventative 2009, despite increases in both human- the first regulated wolf hunt in and nonlethal methods to resolve caused and total mortality, the wolf Wyoming history, the Wyoming Game conflicts (BTBC 2008, pp. 6–7; CSKT population in Montana has continued to and Fish Department (WGFD) drafted Chapter 47 regulations to guide the 2008 2015, pp. 10–11). If these methods are increase on average 2 percent annually unsuccessful at resolving the conflict, wolf hunting season. A total mortality based on both minimum counts and more aggressive techniques, including limit of 25 wolves was distributed patch occupancy modeling (POM) agency-directed lethal control, may be across 4 wolf hunt areas in the WTGMA, estimates. Between 2009 and 2017, the implemented until the conflict is and seasons began October 1 and ended rate of human-caused mortality in resolved. Wolves removed through November 15 in 1 hunt area and Montana was 32 percent and ranged lethal control actions to resolve November 30 in the remaining 3 hunt livestock conflicts on these reservations between 23 and 41 percent of the areas, or when the mortality limit was have been included in the Montana minimum known population. When reached in that specific hunt area, totals referenced below. other causes of mortality were included, whichever occurred first. Firearms and In Montana, most livestock total mortality generally equaled 1 to 2 archery were the only legal forms of depredations occur on private land percentage points higher than human- take, and the bag limit was one wolf per (Inman et al. 2019, p. 11; DeCesare et al. caused mortality. Wolf abundance hunter per calendar year. Successful 2018, pp. 5–11), and, although a slight estimates using POM was higher than hunters were required to report their increase has occurred in recent years, a minimum counts of known individuals, take within 24 hours of harvest and general overall downward trend in the and as a result, estimated mortality rates were also required to present the hide number of verified wolf depredations were lower for the POM estimated wolf and skull to a WGFD employee within has occurred since 2009 (Inman et al. population in Montana (table 3). Based 5 days of harvest for inspection and 2019, p. 1). This general downward on POM estimates, the rate of human- sample collection. On July 18, 2008, the trend in the number of depredations has caused mortality ranged between 17 and U.S. Federal Court in Missoula, tracked closely with the time period 29 percent and averaged 23 percent Montana, issued a preliminary wolves have been under State since 2009. When other forms of injunction that immediately reinstated management authority in Montana. A mortality were included, total mortality the protections of the Act for gray concurrent decline in the percentage of in Montana averaged 24 percent since wolves in the NRM, pending the Montana wolves lethally removed in 2009 based on POM population issuance of a court opinion. On October depredation control actions (includes estimates. The wolf population in 14, 2008, the court vacated the final agency and private citizen removals) has Montana appears to be resilient to these delisting rule and remanded it back to also occurred in Montana. Between the levels of human-caused and total the Service. As a result, no regulated years of 2002 to 2008 plus 2010, mortality and, based on POM, has wolf hunting occurred in Wyoming corresponding to the years wolves were stabilized between 800–900 animals in during the 2008 season. However, when

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69804 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

wolves were federally delisted between of 277 wolves documented in the and the WRR by the end of the calendar March 28 and July 18, 11 wolves were entirety of Wyoming at the end of 2012 year. All other regulations being the taken in the predator area (Jimenez et al. (see table 3). same as previous years, a total wolf 2009, p. 31). Chapter 47 regulations for the 2013 mortality limit of 44 wolves was Wolves remained under Federal wolf hunting season were approved by distributed across 12 wolf hunt areas in protections and were managed by the the WGFC in July 2013. Total mortality the WTGMA. Mortality limits were met Service in Wyoming until 2012 when limits within the WTGMA were in 10 of 12 wolf hunt areas prior to wolf they were removed from the List (77 FR designed to reduce the Wyoming wolf hunting end dates, and a total of 44 55530, September 10, 2012). In population, outside national parks and wolves were harvested (43 legal, 1 anticipation of potential delisting in the WRR, to 160 wolves by the end of illegal; WGFD et al. 2018, p. 14). 2012, Chapter 47 regulations for wolf the calendar year (WGFD et al. 2014, p. Mortality limits were exceeded in three hunting seasons were approved by the 19). Total mortality limits were again hunt areas because two wolves were WGFC in April 2012. To better direct distributed across the 12 wolf hunt areas harvested on the same day when a quota harvest to areas with a greater potential and, compared to 2012 mortality limits, of one wolf remained in those areas. for wolf-livestock or wolf-ungulate were reduced by half to a total of 26 More females than males were conflict while concurrently providing wolves that could legally be taken harvested, but sex and gender of for lower harvest in core areas where within the WTGMA. One hunt area had harvested wolves were similar (WGFD potential conflict was low, WGFD a mortality limit of zero and, thus, never et al. 2018, p. 14). An additional 33 opened during the 2013 season. All designated 11 wolf hunt areas within wolves were harvested in the predator other regulations remained unchanged the WTGMA along with a 12th hunt area where harvest of males and females from the 2012 season. A total of 24 area as a seasonal WTGMA where was similar, but more adults were wolves (23 legal, 1 illegal) were wolves are classified as a trophy game harvested compared to other age classes harvested during the wolf hunting animal from October 15 through the last (WGFD et al. 2018, p. 16). A minimum season, with 8 of 11 open wolf hunt day of February, but are classified as of 238 wolves were documented in areas reaching mortality limits and predators outside of this time period. Wyoming outside of YNP and the WRR, closing before the season end dates Mortality limits were developed for with an additional 109 wolves (WGFD et al. 2014, p. 21). Again, little each hunt area with an objective to documented in YNP and WRR, for a difference was observed between the reduce the Wyoming wolf population, total of 347 wolves documented in the gender and sex of harvested wolves, but entirety of Wyoming at the end of 2017 outside of national parks and the Wind young wolves outnumbered adults in River Indian Reservation (WRR), to (see table 3). As part of post-delisting the 2013 harvest. An additional 39 monitoring, the Service evaluated the approximately 172 wolves and 15 wolves were taken in the predator zone, breeding pairs by the end of the status of the wolf population in and voluntary submission of tissue Wyoming and determined that wolf calendar year. A total WTGMA samples was high (WGFD et al. 2014, p. mortality limit of 52 wolves was numbers remained well above recovery 24). A minimum of 199 wolves were targets of at least 10 breeding pairs and distributed across the 12 wolf hunt documented in Wyoming outside of areas, and both legal and illegal harvest 100 wolves statewide, and no significant YNP and the WRR, with an additional threats were identified that would during open seasons counted towards 107 wolves documented in YNP and mortality quotas. Wolf hunting seasons jeopardize the recovered status of WRR, for a total of 306 wolves wolves in Wyoming (Becker 2018a, opened in most hunt areas on October documented in the entirety of Wyoming entire). 1 (October 15 in the seasonal WTGMA) at the end of 2013 (see table 3). and ended on December 31 or when the On September 23, 2014, the United The objective of the 2018 wolf mortality quota was reached, whichever States District Court for the District of hunting season was to reduce the wolf came first, in all hunt areas. Although Columbia vacated the 2012 final rule (77 population in Wyoming, outside of take was not regulated in the predator FR 55530, September 10, 2012), which national parks and the WRR, to 160 area, successful hunters were required delisted wolves in Wyoming. Thus, wolves by the end of the calendar year. to report the take of any wolf or wolves wolves in Wyoming were immediately A number of moderate changes to the in this area within 10 days of harvest. placed back under the Federal 2018 wolf hunting regulations were Bag limits, method of take, and protections of the Act and were again approved by the WGFC in July 2018. To reporting requirements were the same as managed by the Service. On April 25, better direct hunter effort, two new hunt under the 2008 wolf hunting 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the areas were delineated from existing regulations. Mortality limits were District of Columbia Circuit reversed the hunt areas, which created a total of 14 reached in 6 of 12 wolf hunt areas prior vacatur of the 2012 final rule for wolves hunt areas within the WTGMA. to season end dates, and a total of 42 in Wyoming. In response, the Service Mortality limits were combined for hunt wolves (41 legal, 1 illegal) was published a direct final rule (82 FR areas 6 and 7 as well as hunt areas 8, harvested in the WTGMA (WGFD et al. 20284, May 1, 2017) again removing the 9, and 11 because packs that use these 2013, p. 19). Twenty-five additional protections of the Act for wolves in areas regularly cross back and forth wolves were harvested in the predator Wyoming and reverting management across hunt area boundaries. Total wolf area (WGFD et al. 2013, p. 21). In the authority back to State, Tribal, and harvest limits within the WTGMA were WTGMA, the age distribution of Federal authority dependent upon increased to 58 wolves, and hunting harvested wolves was nearly equal jurisdictional boundaries. As a result of seasons opened 1 month earlier on between adults, subadults, and pups, the changes in legal status, no wolf September 1 in all hunt areas, with the and approximately equal numbers of hunting occurred in Wyoming between exception of the seasonal WTGMA. males and females were harvested 2014 and 2016. Hunters could purchase up to two wolf (WGFD et al. 2013, p. 19). A minimum Regulations for the 2017 wolf hunting tags per calendar year, thus could of 186 wolves were documented in season were approved by the WGFC in harvest up to two wolves per calendar Wyoming outside of YNP and the WRR, July 2017. The primary objective was to year. Reporting requirement changes with an additional 91 wolves reduce the wolf population to a total of included: (1) Successful hunters have 3 documented in YNP and WRR for a total 160 wolves outside of national parks days to present the skull and hide of a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69805

harvested wolf to a designated WGFD minimum of 201 wolves were Council approved the first regulated employee or location for registration documented in Wyoming outside of wolf hunting season. A total harvest and (2) if a wolf is harvested in a YNP and the WRR, with an additional limit of six wolves was distributed designated wilderness area, the pelt and 110 wolves documented in YNP and evenly across two hunt areas. The wolf skull will be presented to a designated WRR, for a total of 311 wolves hunting season began on December 1, WGFD employee or location within 3 documented in the entirety of Wyoming 2019, and closed on February 28, 2020, days of returning from the wilderness or at the end of 2019 (see table 3). or until the harvest limit was reached in within 10 days of the harvest date, Wyoming has done, and continues to either hunt area, whichever occurred whichever occurs first. do, a suitable job of adaptively first. Mandatory reporting was required The Service evaluated these managing harvest using wolf within 48 hours of harvest. No wolves regulatory changes and determined that demographic information including were harvested on the WRR during the they were unlikely to significantly minimum counts and levels of other 2019–2020 season (WGFD et al. 2020, increase harvest or jeopardize mortality factors from past years. p. 24). Wyoming’s wolf population (Becker Adaptive management will continue to As described previously, the Federal 2018b, entire). Four of 14 hunt areas met be an important part of wolf status of wolves in Wyoming has mortality limits prior to season ending management in Wyoming due to a lower changed on several occasions since dates with 2 hunt areas recording no abundance of wolves in the State 2009. Overall, during those years when harvest. A total of 43 wolves (39 legal, compared to Idaho and Montana and wolves were under State management 4 illegal) were harvested during the because recent data indicates that a authority (including 2008 and 2014 hunting season with harvest distributed greater proportion of juvenile wolves when wolves were legally harvested in more equally across all 4 months when have been harvested during the months the predator area, but no regulated compared to previous seasons (WGFD et of September and October compared to hunting season occurred in the WTGMA al. 2019, p. 17). Sex of harvested wolves November and December when adults due to litigation), an average of 12 was nearly equal, but a higher number and subadults make up the majority of percent of Wyoming’s wolf population of adults were taken in 2018 compared harvest (WGFD et al. 2020, p. 17). was removed annually through harvest. to younger age classes (WGFD et al. Contrary to what Ausband (2016, p. 501) If 2008 and 2014 are removed (the years 2019, p. 17). Forty-two additional demonstrated for juvenile wolves taken that harvest was limited to the predatory wolves were taken in the predator area during the trapping season in Idaho, this animal area) and we evaluate regulated of Wyoming with adults being the indicates that juvenile wolves in harvest only, an average of 15 percent of primary age class of wolves taken Wyoming are more vulnerable to hunter the wolf population in Wyoming was (WGFD et al. 2019, p. 18). A minimum harvest, at least during the early months removed annually through harvest. of 196 wolves were documented in of hunting seasons. Continued high Based on WGFD’s adaptive management Wyoming outside of YNP and the WRR, rates of juvenile mortality could affect approach to managing wolves and wolf with an additional 90 wolves recruitment (Ausband et al. 2015, pp. harvest, wolf populations in Wyoming documented in YNP and WRR, for a 418–420), resulting in population have remained well above minimum total of 286 wolves documented in the declines if wolf populations are not recovery levels since 2002, regardless of entirety of Wyoming at the end of 2018 monitored closely and adaptively whether they have been under State or (see table 3). After evaluating wolf managed to ensure they remain above Federal management authority. population parameters for 2018, the minimum recovery levels. We anticipate Depredation Control in Wyoming— Service concluded that Wyoming’s wolf monitoring by WGFD will be sufficient Federal wolf management in Wyoming population remained well above the to detect significant changes in was guided by a nonessential recovery targets of at least 10 breeding population status and that regulatory experimental population special rule pairs and 100 wolves statewide with no changes will be made to address any under section 10(j) of the Act (59 FR significant threats identified (Becker concerns as necessary. 60266, November 22, 1994). After 2019, entire). Pending the Governor’s signature, the wolves were relisted in 2008, wolf The objective of the 2019 wolf WGFC recently approved Chapter 47 management in the central Idaho and hunting season was to stabilize the wolf wolf harvest recommendations for the GYA recovery areas of the NRM reverted population in Wyoming, outside of 2020–2021 season. The two primary back to special rules published for the national parks and the WRR, at 160 regulatory changes for the upcoming nonessential experimental population of wolves by the end of the calendar year. season included an increase in the total wolves (73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008) The WGFC approved a mortality limit of harvest limit to 52 wolves within the because all States and some Tribes 34 wolves distributed across the 14 hunt WTGMA and a September 15 season within these recovery areas had Service- areas within the WTGMA. The only start date for all hunt areas (with the approved wolf plans (see description of significant change was that the season exception of hunt area 12, which will take allowed under the 2008 10(j) rules in hunt area 13 was extended to March continue to open October 15). Although described above). However, after 31, 2020, or until the harvest limit was increased harvest limits could result in reexamining Wyoming’s laws and wolf reached, whichever came first, to continued high levels of juvenile management plan, the Service deemed increase hunting opportunity. Twenty- harvest, later season start dates may them unsatisfactory for the continued six wolves were harvested (25 legal, 1 reduce the number of juvenile wolves conservation of wolves in the State (74 illegal) during the hunting season with harvested during the initial months of FR 15123, April 2, 2009). As a result, similar numbers of male and female the season. All other regulations are the Federal wolf management in Wyoming wolves as well as age classes taken. same as previous years. (outside of YNP and WRR) reverted back However, the temporal distribution of On the WRR, wolves are classified as to the more restrictive special rules harvest was heavily skewed towards the a trophy game animal where legal take under section 10(j) of the Act published months of September and October, with could occur during a regulated hunting in 1994 (59 FR 42108, August 16, 1994). zero wolves taken in December (WGFD or trapping season. Regulated take was Under the 1994 10(j) rule, landowners et al. 2020, pp. 15–17). Twenty-three not permitted on the WRR until 2019 on their private land and owners of additional wolves were taken in the when the Eastern Shoshone and domestic livestock (defined as cattle, predatory animal area during 2019. A Northern Arapaho Joint Business sheep, horses, and mules) lawfully

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69806 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

using public lands could Permits may be issued for a period of up 21 Section 6(c) provides WGFD opportunistically harass wolves in a to 45 days or until the number of wolves authorization to lethally remove wolves non-injurious manner. Livestock specified on the permit, up to two should it be determined that they are producers were also able to legally take wolves, are killed, whichever occurs causing unacceptable impacts to adult wolves on their private property if first. Permits may be renewed if deemed wildlife or when wolves displace elk they were caught in the act of killing, necessary. Lethal take permits will be from State-managed feedgrounds. wounding, or biting livestock, provided issued only within the WTGMA. Displaced elk may result in damage to the incident was reported within 24 In Wyoming, lethal control of privately stored crops, commingling hours and there was evidence of the depredating wolves increased with domestic livestock, or human attack. If livestock depredations were concurrent with increases in wolf safety concerns due to their presence on documented, the Service could conduct numbers and distribution as wolves public roadways. To date, no wolves lethal control actions or issue a permit recolonized available suitable habitat have been removed in Wyoming under to a livestock producer or permittee and began to occupy more moderate to these provisions. However, in some grazing public lands to take an adult less suitable habitat. Under Service cases, WGFD has used regulated public wolf or wolves caught in the act of direction, management of depredating harvest of wolves to better direct killing, wounding, or biting livestock. wolves became more aggressive towards sportsmen and -women to areas where This section 10(j) rule applied to wolf chronically depredating packs in the it was believed wolves may be causing management in Wyoming between April mid to late 2000s, which moderated the negative impacts to wildlife. 2009 and September 2012 and again number of depredations and subsequent Since 2008, dependent on the Federal between September 2014 and April wolf removals so that the number of status of wolves in Wyoming, wolf 2017. depredations no longer tracked with management on the WRR has been When wolves were under State wolf population growth. Between 1995 guided by the amended 2008 10(j) rules management authority in Wyoming, and 2008, as a percentage of the total for the nonessential experimental Wyoming Statute (W.S.) 23–1–304 wolf population, 8 percent of the known population of wolves in the Greater provided authority for the WGFC to Wyoming wolf population was removed Yellowstone Area (73 FR 4720, January promulgate rules and regulations related annually. From 2009 to the present, the 28, 2008) or the provisions of a Service- to the management of wolves in percentage of Wyoming’s known wolf approved WRR wolf management plan Wyoming where they are classified as population lethally removed to resolve (Eastern Shoshone and Northern trophy game animals. WGFC Chapter 21 conflicts with livestock has increased Arapaho Tribes 2008, entire). Under regulations guide the management of slightly to 11 percent, but has been more Federal or Tribal management authority, wolves in the State within the WTGMA. variable with a slightly higher lethal take by private citizens or Through education and outreach percentage of wolves removed under agencies is authorized if a wolf or provided by WGFD, emphasis is Federal authority (13 percent; range: 8– wolves are caught in the act or if it is directed towards conflict prevention 22 percent) when compared to State deemed necessary to resolve repeated and minimization of depredation risk management authority (11 percent; conflicts with livestock. To date, a (WGFC 2011, p. 30). However, when range: 7–12 percent). As has been single wolf has been removed within the depredations do occur, agency response observed in Montana, since 2017 when external boundaries of the WRR to is evaluated on a case-by-case basis and Federal protections were most recently mitigate conflicts with livestock. This may include no action, nonlethal removed for wolves in Wyoming, the wolf was included in the above totals control if it is deemed appropriate or the total number of wolves and the when discussing lethal wolf control in landowner requests it, capture and percentage of the population lethally Wyoming. radio-collaring a wolf or wolves, removed to resolve livestock conflicts Wolf Population and Human-caused issuance of a lethal take permit to the has declined to 30 wolves, which equals Mortality in Wyoming Summary—As property owner, or agency-directed approximately 7 percent of the expected, during those years when lethal control. The use of lethal force to minimum known wolf population in wolves were removed from Federal resolve wolf-livestock conflicts by 2019 (WGFD et al. 2020, p. 3). Similarly, protections, human-caused mortality WGFD and their designated agents or the total number of damage claims and increased in Wyoming as WGFD private citizens is authorized under compensation payments for wolf-caused implemented regulated harvest to W.S. 23–1–304, W.S.23–3–115, and livestock losses has declined as wolves manage wolf populations within the WGFC Chapter 21 regulations. However, have been under State management WTGMA. The WGFD set a population lethal control will not be used, and any authority (WGFD 2020a, p. 16). objective of 160 wolves within the take permits that have been issued may Generally, Wyoming has a higher WTGMA and has adaptively managed be revoked, if wolf removal threatens percentage of packs involved in harvest to achieve this objective. Since the recovered status of wolves in the livestock depredations annually with 2009, during those years when wolves State. more depredations occurring on public were federally listed (including years Under W.S. 23–3–115 and WGFC lands than Idaho or Montana (WGFD et when harvest occurred under predator Chapter 21 Section 6(a), any wolf in the al. 2020, pp. 20–21). Seasonal trends in status only), the average rate of human- act of doing damage to private property depredations are similar to other States caused mortality was 14 percent. The may be taken and killed by the owner that have a high percentage of livestock average rate increased to 28 percent provided the carcass is not removed seasonally grazed on public lands where annually during those years when from the site of the kill so an a slight increase in depredations occurs WGFD managed wolf populations with investigation can be completed and take during early spring, coinciding with regulated public harvest. This is reported within 72 hours. If livestock calving season, followed by a slight management resulted in an overall depredations have been confirmed, drop then an increase during the late negative growth rate for the wolf WGFD or their authorized agents may summer months of July, August, and population in Wyoming during those conduct lethal control efforts to mitigate September (WGFD et al. 2020, pp. 21– years wolves were under State authority conflicts. WGFD may also issue a lethal 22). (an approximate 5 percent population take permit to the owner of the livestock In addition to wolf control for decline on average during those years or domestic animals, or their designees. livestock depredations, WGFC Chapter when wolves were federally delisted).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69807

This gradual decline was expected as Phase I guidelines in the Oregon Wolf Wolf Population and Human-caused WGFD began to use harvest to meet wolf Conservation and Management Plan and Mortality in Oregon Summary—Known population objectives within the associated rules, whereas wolves in the human-caused mortality from all causes WTGMA (77 FR 55553, September 10, East Wolf Management Zone (EWMZ) has resulted in the death of 40 wolves 2012). However, the observed decline is are managed under Phase II guidelines. in Oregon since 2009. On average, not expected to last because WGFD will Wolves remain federally protected in human-caused mortality, inclusive of all continue to adaptively manage harvest the entirety of the WWMZ, whereas sources, removes approximately 4 to stabilize the wolf population at 160 wolves in the EWMZ are federally percent of the total wolf population in wolves within the WTGMA (WGFD et protected in half of the management Oregon each year (range: 0 to 13 al. 2020, p. 14), as has been evidenced zone and are under State management percent), which represents the lowest by a slight increase in the statewide authority in the other half (see figure 1, rate of human-caused mortality among minimum wolf count in 2019 (see table ODFW 2020, p. 3). Nonlethal methods States in the NRM. Since 2010, human- 3). Minor variations around the average will be prioritized to address wolf caused mortality has not exceeded 10 number of wolves removed in agency conflicts with livestock regardless of percent of the statewide wolf population control actions, combined with other wolf population status (ODFW 2019, p. in any given year, which has provided forms of mortality (i.e., illegal take, 45); however, lethal control may be Oregon wolves the opportunity to natural causes, vehicle collisions, and authorized only in the eastern half of increase at an average rate of 27 percent unknown causes), can influence the EWMZ where they are under State annually. As suitable wolf habitat in the whether or not desired population management authority per OAR 635– northeast part of the State has become objectives are achieved within the 110–0030. increasingly saturated, population WTGMA, so annual adjustments to Under Phase III wolf management growth has slowed somewhat and has harvest limits will continue to be made (OAR 635–110–0030), lethal force may ranged between 10 to 15 percent growth accordingly in order to achieve WGFD be used by property owners, livestock since 2017. Dispersing wolves from management objectives and still producers, or their designated agents to resident Oregon packs have recolonized maintain the recovered status of wolves kill a wolf that is in the act of biting, portions of western Oregon as well as in Wyoming. wounding, killing, or chasing livestock northern California and southeastern Managers in YNP and the WRR have or working dogs. If nonlethal methods Washington. not set population objectives and have, were implemented following In 2015, using an individual-based for the most part, allowed wolves to depredation events, but were population model and vital rate naturally regulate. As a result, the unsuccessful at deterring recurrent number of wolves in YNP appear to estimates obtained from the literature depredations, ODFW may also issue a have reached an equilibrium and have for established or exploited wolf lethal take permit of limited duration to fluctuated slightly around 100 wolves populations, ODFW documented a 0, 3, a livestock producer to kill a wolf. for the past 10 years, while the number and 5 percent chance of conservation Similarly, ODFW, or their agents, may of wolves on the WRR has varied failure (defined as fewer than 4 breeding conduct lethal removal on private and between 10 and 20 over the same time pairs) over a 5-, 10-, and 50-year period, public lands to minimize recurrent period. Regardless of how different respectively (ODFW 2015a, pp. 30–33). depredation risk. If wolves are taken by agencies manage wolves, wolf Further simulations suggested that as private citizens, take must be reported populations have remained well above the wolf population in Oregon the Federal recovery targets of at least to ODFW within 24 hours. The ODFW continued to increase, the risk of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves Commission may also authorize conservation failure concurrently statewide, and we expect them to stay controlled take in specific areas to declined. Rates of human-caused above this level because various address long-term, recurrent mortality up to 15 percent resulted in jurisdictions in the State continue to depredations or significant wolf- positive population growth, while rates coordinate to manage for a sustainable ungulate interactions. of 20 percent caused population population of wolves in Wyoming. Since 2009, agency-directed lethal declines (ODFW 2015a, pp. 30–33). Regulated Harvest in Oregon—No control has resulted in the removal of 16 These rates of human-caused mortality regulated hunting or trapping of wolves wolves in Oregon over an 11-year were in addition to natural and other is authorized in Oregon. period. Additionally, two wolves have causes of mortality that were held Depredation Control in Oregon—In been legally taken by livestock constant and estimated at 12 percent. Oregon, an integrated approach to producers or their designated agents This resulted in a total mortality rate of minimize wolf depredation risk has when they were caught in the act of 27 to 32 percent with which Oregon’s been implemented that incorporates attacking livestock in 2016 (ODFW wolf population would continue to both proactive and corrective measures. 2017, p. 11) and a herding dog in 2019 increase or slightly decrease, The primary objective of ODFW when (ODFW 2020, p. 11). As a percentage of respectively. These total mortality rates addressing wolf-livestock conflicts is to the total population of wolves in and their effects on wolf population continue to implement a three-phased Oregon, lethal control of depredating growth in Oregon are comparable to approach based on population wolves has removed an average of 2 wolf populations elsewhere (see NRM objectives that minimizes conflicts with percent of Oregon’s wolf population discussion above and USFWS 2020, p. livestock while ensuring conservation of annually (range: 0 to 13 percent). This 8). The rates of human-caused and total wolves in the State (ODFW 2019, p. 44). amount is much lower than was mortality in Oregon’s wolf population This phased approach to wolf documented in Idaho, Montana, and are currently well below the thresholds management emphasizes preventive and Wyoming during Service-directed wolf described above and are estimated at 4 nonlethal methods in Phase I and recovery in the NRM. No wolves have and 5 percent, respectively (see table 3). provides for increased management been removed in Oregon as a result of Mortality rates at this level provide flexibility when the wolf population is ODFW issuing a permit to a landowner ample opportunity for continued in Phase III. Presently, wolves or a livestock producer after two positive population growth and inhabiting the West Wolf Management confirmed depredations or by controlled recolonization of suitable habitat in the Zone (WWMZ) are managed under take through Commission authorization. State.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69808 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Regulated Harvest in Washington—To livestock producers to implement wolves have been killed by owners of date, the Washington Department of conflict prevention measures suitable to domestic animals under the caught-in- Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has not each producers’ operation. Interested the-act rule, two each in 2017 and 2019. authorized and implemented regulated livestock producers may also enter into The goal of wolf-livestock conflict wolf harvest in the delisted portion of a Depredation Prevention Cooperative management on the Colville Reservation the State; however, the Confederated Agreement with WDFW, which is to resolve conflicts before they Tribes of the Colville Reservation provides a cost-share for the become chronic (Colville Confederated (CTCR) and Spokane Tribe of Indians implementation of conflict prevention Tribes Fish and Wildlife Department (STI) initiated regulated wolf harvest for tools (WDFW et al. 2020, p. 24). [CCTFWD] 2017, p. 24). Potential Tribal members on Tribal lands only In the eastern one-third of livestock depredations on the Colville beginning in 2012 and 2013, Washington where wolves are federally Reservation will be investigated by respectively. Seasons have gradually delisted and under the management CCTFWD personnel. The CCTFWD become less restrictive to allow for authority of WDFW, State law (RCW personnel will work with livestock increased hunter opportunity on CTCR 77.12.240) provides WDFW authority to owners proactively and reactively to Tribal lands. In 2019, the CTCR adopted implement lethal control to resolve prevent and/or resolve conflicts as they wolf hunting regulations that allowed repeated wolf-livestock conflicts when arise (CCTFWD 2017, p. 24). To date, no for year-round harvest with no bag other methods were deemed wolves have been removed to resolve limits (CCT Code Title 4 Natural unsuccessful in deterring depredations. conflicts with livestock on the Colville Resources and Environment, Chapter 4– The WDFW wolf-livestock and Reservation. 1, and Resolution 2019–255). Trapping interaction protocol provides specific The effect of agency-directed and is also permitted and seasons begin on guidelines for when lethal control may private individual lethal control on November 1 and close February 28 with be implemented (WDFW 2017, pp. 14– Washington’s wolf population has been no bag limits on amount of take. As of 15). When lethal control is relatively minor to date. Overall, the December 31, 2019, 12 wolves have implemented, WDFW uses an percentage of wolves removed annually been legally harvested on CTCR lands incremental removal approach followed through lethal control in Washington is since 2012. by an evaluation period to determine less than what was documented in the Regulated wolf harvest is also allowed the effectiveness of any control action core of the NRM in the years following for Tribal members on the Spokane (WDFW 2017, p. 15). wolf reintroduction. In Washington, as a Indian Reservation in Washington. As Under State law (RCW 77.36.030 and percent of the minimum known stated previously, regulated wolf harvest RCW 77.12.240), administrative rule population, an average of 4 percent of began in 2013 and, similar to CTCR, has (WAC 220–440–080), and the provisions the total statewide wolf population has been designed to increase hunter of the Wolf Conservation and been removed due to conflicts with opportunity, although the level of take Management Plan, WDFW may permit a livestock annually (range: 0 to 12 has remained relatively low. At present, livestock producer or their authorized percent; see table 3). annual allowable take is a maximum of employees in the federally delisted Analyses of factors that contribute to 10 wolves that may be harvested within portion of the State to lethally remove wolf-livestock conflicts in Washington the calendar year. If the maximum wolves caught in the act of attacking indicate that, in general, areas having a allowable take is reached, the season livestock on private property or lawfully high abundance of livestock (Hanley et will close until the start of the next used public grazing allotments after a al. 2018a, pp. 8–10) or high densities of calendar year. Trapping and/or snaring documented livestock depredation both wolves and livestock (Hanley et al. on the Spokane Reservation is allowed caused by wolves. Furthermore, WAC 2018b, pp. 8–11) are at higher risk for by special permit only, issued by the 220–440–080 provides authority for conflict. Also, persistent wolf presence STI Department of Natural Resources, owners of domestic animals and their has not been documented in some and is open from October 1 through immediate family members or Washington counties with the highest February 28. Between 2013 and 2019, 10 designated agents to kill one gray wolf risk of wolf-livestock conflicts based on wolves have been legally harvested on without a permit in the delisted part of cattle abundance alone (Hanley et al. the Spokane Indian Reservation. Washington if the wolf is attacking their 2018a, p. 10), thus the potential exists Despite less restrictive regulations for animals (caught-in-the-act rule). Any for increased levels of conflict as wolves harvest on Tribal lands in Washington, wolf removed under these provisions continue to recolonize portions of the the total number of wolves legally must be reported to WDFW within 24 State. Similar to Wyoming, but contrary harvested has been relatively low and hours of take and the carcass must be to what has been documented in has had minimal impact on wolf surrendered to the agency. Montana and Idaho, most livestock populations in the State (see table 3). Lethal control of depredating wolves depredations in Washington have Since 2012 when regulated take began, was first used to mitigate wolf conflicts occurred on public grazing allotments an average of 3 percent of the total with livestock in 2012 when WDFW (Hanley et al. 2018a, pp. 8–10) where statewide wolf population in removed 7 wolves. Between 2013 and greater challenges exist to minimize Washington has been legally harvested 2019, as Washington’s wolf population conflict risk. annually (range: 0 to 4 percent). continued to increase in number and Wolf Population and Human-caused Depredation Control in Washington— expand in range, WDFW has used lethal Mortality in Washington Summary— A primary goal of wolf management in control to resolve wolf conflicts with Since 2008 when wolves were first Washington is to minimize livestock livestock in 5 of 7 years. In total, 31 documented in Washington, human- losses in a way that continues to wolves have been removed by WDFW caused mortality has been responsible provide for the recovery and long-term due to conflicts with livestock between for the average removal of 9 percent of perpetuation of a sustainable wolf 2008, when wolves were first the known wolf population annually; population (Wiles et al. 2011, p. 14). documented in the State, and 2019. and has fluctuated between 6 percent Nonlethal management of wolf conflicts No wolves have been legally removed and 11 percent of the known population is prioritized in the State (Wiles et al. under authority of a lethal take permit annually since 2013 (see table 3). Over 2011, p. 85; WDFW 2017, pp. 2–9). issued to a livestock producer after a a similar time period, the mean total WDFW personnel work closely with documented depredation. However, four wolf mortality rate has been 10 percent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69809

and ranged between 7 percent and 13 recent years (WDFW et al. 2020, pp. 12– Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast percent since 2013 (see table 3). 20). Since 2010, wolf populations have recovery area, but, to date, confirmation According to the Washington Wolf increased an average of 26 percent of a resident pack has not occurred. Conservation and Management Plan, annually as dispersing wolves Slow recolonization of this recovery wolf recovery will be achieved when a originating from both inside and outside area was anticipated by WDFW (Wiles minimum of 15 breeding pairs are of Washington continue to recolonize et al. 2011, p. 69). Factors that may be equitably distributed across 3 wolf vacant suitable habitat in the State. contributing to the lack of documented, recovery areas in the State for 3 Population growth has been most rapid resident wolves in southwest consecutive years or when 18 breeding in the eastern Washington recovery area Washington may include its distance pairs are documented for a single year due to its proximity to large wolf from large wolf population centers and (Wiles et al. 2011, pp. 58–70). Analyses populations in the NRM and Canada. the availability of intervening suitable indicate that once recovery is achieved, However, as suitable habitat in eastern habitat between it and those population Washington’s wolf population would be Washington has become increasingly relatively resilient to increases in saturated with wolves, statewide centers. However, with continued human-caused mortality provided a low population growth has declined in positive population growth and level of dispersal from outside the State recent years (WDFW et al. 2020, pp. 12– relatively low levels of human-caused continues (Maletzke et al. 2015, p. 7). 20) and has ranged between 3 and 15 mortality, substantial opportunities Concurrent with increased rates of percent since 2017. Increases in wolf remain for dispersing wolves to human-caused mortality, wolf numbers abundance and distribution continue at recolonize vacant suitable habitat in and distribution have continued to a moderate pace in the North Cascades Washington even though this may occur increase in Washington, although the recovery area. Documentation of at a slower pace than some expect. rate of increase has slowed somewhat in dispersing individuals continues in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69810 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 ER03NO20.019 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69811

Effects on Wolf Social Structure and from increased human-caused mortality experimental field studies that evaluate Pack Dynamics by increasing reproductive output potential factors contributing to Although wolf populations typically (Schmidt et al. 2017, pp. 14–18). This observed increases in stress and their have a high rate of natural turnover could partially explain the fact that the associated positive or negative effects on (Mech 2006a, p. 1482), increased reduction in pack sizes observed in wildlife populations are warranted human-caused mortality may negatively Idaho after wolf hunts began was short- (Boonstra 2012, p. 10). affect the pack dynamics and social lived, as pack sizes rebounded to levels Overall, gray wolf pack social structure of gray wolves. However, we documented prior to the initiation of structure is very adaptable and resilient. do not expect these effects will have a hunting seasons and mid-year Breeding members can be quickly replaced from either within or outside significant impact at the population recruitment of young was similar during the pack, and pups can be reared by level due to the life-history periods of harvest versus without another pack member should their characteristics of gray wolves. In most (Horne et al. 2019a, pp. 37–38). In parents die (USFWS 2020, p. 7). instances, only the dominant male and another study, breeding female turnover Consequently, wolf populations can female in a pack breed. Consequently, increased polygamy within packs while rapidly overcome severe disruptions, the death of one or both of the breeders breeding male turnover reduced such as intensive human-caused may negatively affect the pack (via recruitment of female pups, although mortality or disease, provided reduced pup survival/recruitment or the mechanisms for the latter were immigration from either (or both) within pack dissolution) or the population as a unknown (Ausband et al. 2017b, pp. the affected population or from adjacent whole (by reduced recruitment, reduced 1097–1098). Mortality of breeding gray wolves was more likely to lead to pack populations occurs (Bergerud and Elliot dispersal rates, or a reduction or 1998, pp. 1554–1559; Hayes and reversal of population growth), but these dissolution and reduced reproduction when mortality occurred very near to, or Harestad 2000, pp. 44–46; Bassing et al. effects are context-dependent. The 2019, entire). Although we acknowledge availability of replacement breeders and during, the breeding season (Borg et al. 2014, p. 8, Ausband et al. 2017a, pp. 4– that breeder loss can and will occur in the timing of mortality can moderate the the future regardless of Federal status, consequences of breeder loss on both 5) and when pack sizes were small (Brainerd et al. 2008, p. 94; Borg et al. we conclude that the effects of breeder the pack and the population (Brainerd et loss on gray wolves in the lower 48 al. 2008, entire; Borg et al. 2014, entire; 2014, pp. 5–6). Nonetheless, harvest had no effect on the frequency of breeder United States is likely to be minimal as Schmidt et al. 2017, entire; Bassing et al. long as adequate regulatory mechanisms 2019, entire). In populations that are at turnover in Idaho (Ausband et al. 2017b, p. 1097) and little evidence of pack are in place to ensure a sufficiently large or near carrying capacity, where breeder population is maintained. replacement and subsequent dissolution was found in a heavily reproduction occurs relatively quickly, harvested wolf population with frequent The Role of Public Attitudes population growth rate and pack breeder loss in southwestern Alberta In general, human attitudes toward distribution and occupancy is largely (Bassing et al. 2019, pp. 584–585). wolves vary depending upon how unaffected by breeder loss (Borg et al. Bryan et al. (2015, pp. 351–354) individuals value wolves in light of real 2014, pp. 6–7; Bassing et al. 2019, pp. indicated that high rates of human- or perceived risks and benefits 582–584). Breeder replacement and caused mortality resulted in (Bruskotter and Wilson 2014, entire). An subsequent reproduction in colonizing physiological changes to wolves that individual who views wolves as populations greater than 75 wolves was increased levels of cortisol as well as threatening is likely to have a more similar to that of core populations at or reproductive hormones. The authors negative perception than an individual near carrying capacity, whereas small suggest these results were indicative of who believes wolves are beneficial. This recolonizing populations (<75 wolves) social disruptions to the pack that perception may be directly influenced took about twice as long to replace affected the rate of female pregnancy or by an individual’s proximity to wolves breeders and subsequently reproduce psuedopregnancy and the number of (Houston et al. 2010, pp. 399–401; (Brainerd et al. 2008, pp. 89, 93). interindividual interactions among male Holsman et al. 2014, entire; Carlson et Therefore, the effects of breeder loss wolves (Bryan et al. 2015, pp. 351–352). al. 2020, pp. 4–6), personal experiences may be greatest on small recolonizing However, it was unknown if these with wolves (Houston et al. 2010, pp. gray wolf populations. In some cases physiological changes affected overall 399–401; Browne-Nunez et al. 2015, pp. where extremely high rates of human- fitness (i.e., reproductive and 62–69), or indirect factors such as social caused mortality were intentionally population performance) of the affected influences (e.g., news and social media, used to drastically reduce wolf wolf population or if other factors internet, friends, relatives) and populations, immigration from contributed equally to, or more than, governmental policies (Houston et al. neighboring areas was found to be the wolf harvest (Bryan et al. 2015, pp. 351– 2010, pp. 399–401; Treves and most important determinant in the 354). Boonstra (2012, entire) suggested Bruskotter 2014, p. 477, Browne-Nunez speed with which wolf populations that chronic stress in wildlife was rare, et al. 2015, pp. 62–69; Olson et al. 2014, recovered (Bergerud and Elliot 1998, pp. but could be considered adaptive in that entire; Chapron and Treves 2016, p. 5; 1554–1559, 1562; Hayes and Harestead it benefits the affected species, which Lute et al. 2016, pp. 1208–1209; Carlson 2000, pp. 44–46). allows it to adapt to changing et al. 2020, pp. 4–6). Consequently, In the short term, increased human- conditions to maintain, or improve, wolves often invoke deep-seated issues caused mortality can result in lower long-term fitness. Indeed, Bryan et al. related to identity, fear, knowledge, natality rates (the number of pups (2015, p. 351) suggested that the empowerment, and trust that are not produced) and pup survival in physiological changes observed in the directly related to the issues raised in individual packs due to an overall stressed wolf population could be this rulemaking (Naughton-Treves et al. reduction in pack size and the loss of considered adaptive and beneficial to 2003, pp. 1507–1508; Madden 2004, p. one or both breeders (Schmidt et al. the wolf when dealing with the specific 250; Madden and McQuinn 2014, pp. 2017, pp. 14–18; Ausband et al. 2017a, stressors. Due to the inherent challenges 100–102; Browne-Nunez et al. 2015, p. pp. 4–6). However, wolf populations associated with interpreting the specific 69; Carlson et al. 2020, pp. 4–6). Due to respond to decreased densities resulting causes and effects of stress in wildlife, these known human attitudes, in our

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69812 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

1978 rule reclassifying wolves, we wolves may still be disliked) and the it may be perceived by some as more acknowledged that regulations belief that State management provides flexible than Federal regulation, prohibiting the killing of wolves, even more opportunities for an individual to whereas other segments may continue to wolves that may be attacking livestock assist with wolf population management prefer Federal management due to a and pets, could create negative are two factors, of many, that may perception that it is more protective. sentiments about wolves and their slowly increase tolerance for wolves. State wildlife agencies have professional recovery under the protections of the Although general trends in overall staff dedicated to disseminating Act. We acknowledge that public attitudes towards wolves are most often accurate, science-based information attitudes towards wolves vary with obtained through surveys, Browne- about wolves and wolf management. demographics, change over time, and Nunez et al. (2015, p. 69) cautioned that They also have experience in managing can affect human behavior toward these surveys often do not capture the wildlife to maintain long-term wolves, including poaching (illegal complexity of attitudes that more sustainable populations with killing) of wolves (See Kellert 1985, personal survey techniques, such as enforcement staff to enforce State 1990, 1999; Nelson and Franson 1988; focus groups, allow. Furthermore, wildlife laws and regulations. To be Kellert et al. 1996; Wilson 1999; Decker et al. (2006, p. 431) stressed the more inclusive of constituents with Browne-Nun˜ ez and Taylor 2002; importance of providing details about different values, several States, Williams et al. 2002; Manfredo et al. situational context when evaluating including Washington and Wisconsin, 2003; Naughton-Treves et al. 2003; human attitudes towards specific have convened advisory committees to Madden 2004; Mertig 2004; Chavez et wildlife management actions. engage multiple stakeholder groups in al. 2005; Schanning and Vazquez 2005; Human attitudes may be indicative of discussing and addressing present and Beyer et al. 2006; Hammill 2007; behavior (Bruskotter and Fulton 2012, future management in their respective Schanning 2009; Treves et al. 2009; pp. 99–100). Thus, it has been theorized States (WDFW 2020, entire; WI DNR Wilson and Bruskotter 2009; Shelley et that if tolerance for a species is low or 2020, entire). As the status and al. 2011; Treves and Martin 2011; declining, the likelihood for illegal management of the gray wolf evolves, Treves et al. 2013; Madden and activity towards that species may continued collaboration between McQuinn 2014; Hogberg et al. 2016; increase. Individual attitudes and managers and researchers to monitor Lute et al. 2016). behaviors may then be manifested by public attitudes toward wolves and their actions directed towards the species. In management will help guide State Surveys have indicated that overall the case of wolves, if an individual feels conservation actions. public support for legal, regulated wolf they have limited management options hunting is relatively high, but negative to mitigate a real or perceived conflict, Human-Caused Mortality Summary attitudes about wolves persist and they may be more likely to act illegally Despite human-caused wolf mortality, overall tolerance for wolves remains low in an attempt to address the conflict. wolf populations have continued to (Browne-Nunez 2015 pp. 62–69; Indeed, using empirical data from increase in both number and range since Hogberg et al. 2016, pp. 49–50; Lute et Wisconsin, researchers studied trends in the mid-to-late 1970s (Smith et al. 2010, al. 2016, pp. 1206–1208; Lewis et al. the illegal killing of wolves and entire; O’Neil et al. 2017, entire; 2018, entire). Hogberg et al. (2016, p. 50) documented that rates of illegal take of Stenglein et al. 2018, entire). Although documented an overall decline in wolves in the State was higher during legal mortality (primarily in the form of tolerance for wolves after public harvest periods of less management flexibility legal harvest and lethal control) will occurred in Wisconsin, which indicates (e.g., during periods when wolves were increase in the Great Lakes area after that hunting may not be the most federally protected) when compared to delisting, as has occurred within the effective policy to increase tolerance for more flexible State management that NRM states of Idaho, Montana, and the species (Epstein 2017, entire). permitted lethal control of depredating Wyoming, we do not expect that this However, Hogberg et al. (2016, p. 50) wolves as a mitigation response (Olson will have a significant effect on the wolf also documented that 36 percent of et al. 2014, entire). Another study population in this area. We also do not respondents self-reported an increase in contradicted these results and indicated expect to see significant increases in their tolerance towards wolves after that illegal take of wolves increased human-caused mortality in the West wolf hunting began in Wisconsin. during periods of State management in Coast States primarily because those Similarly, a survey conducted in Wisconsin and Michigan because, the States have regulatory mechanisms in Montana (Lewis et al. 2018, entire) authors argued, the perceived value of place that balance wolf management found that while overall tolerance wolves declined as agencies increased and wolf conservation. Similarly, we do remained low compared to a similar culling activities (Chapron and Treves not expect that current, or potentially survey from 2012, it had slightly 2016, entire). However, this analysis has increased, levels of human-caused increased over time as the State has since been refuted by Olson et al. (2017, mortality post-delisting will have a continued to manage wolves primarily entire) and Pepin et al. (2017, entire). significant effect on the recolonization through public harvest. Furthermore, Furthermore, Stein (2017, entire) and establishment of wolves in the statements made by interviewees reanalyzed the same data but included central Rocky Mountain States due to regarding hunting and trapping of variation in reproductive rates and the life-history characteristics of wolves wolves in Montana indicate that, if concluded that the use of lethal and their ability to recolonize vacant those management options were no depredation control to mitigate wolf- suitable habitat. Furthermore, the longer available to them, their tolerance livestock conflicts decreased the central Rocky Mountain States have and acceptance of the species would likelihood of illegal take. existing laws and regulations to likely decline, resulting in increased Strong emotions and divergent conserve wolves, and Utah has a polarization of opinions about wolves viewpoints about wolves and wolf management plan that will be (Mulder 2014, p. 68). These studies management will continue regardless of implemented post-delisting to guide suggest that the passage of time (which the Federal status of the species. We wolf management in the State. Based on may be considered equivalent to an expect that some segments of the public knowledge gained about wolf individual getting used to having will be more tolerant of wolf population responses to increases in wolves on the landscape even though management at the State level because human-caused mortality during past

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69813

delisting efforts in the Great Lakes area, once occupied or transited most of the population estimates and population as well as the currently delisted NRM United States, except the Southeast. To targets provided by State wildlife wolf population, we expect to see an identify areas of suitable wolf habitat in agencies, as well as land management initial population decline followed by the lower 48 United States, researchers activities that might affect prey fluctuations around an equilibrium have used models that relate the populations (see below). Prey resulting from slight variations in birth distribution of wolves to characteristics availability is a primary factor in and death rates. Further, compensatory of the landscape. These models have sustaining wolf populations. Each State mechanisms in wolf populations shown the presence of wolves is within wolf-occupied range manages its provide some resiliency to perturbations correlated with prey density, livestock wild ungulate populations sustainably. caused by increased human-caused density, landscape productivity, winter States employ an adaptive-management mortality. Wolves have evolved rainfall, snow, topography, road density, approach that adjusts hunter harvest in mechanisms to compensate for human density, land ownership, habitat response to changes in big game increased mortality, which makes patch size, and forest cover (e.g., population numbers and trends when populations resilient to perturbations. Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. 284–292; necessary, and predation is one of many Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan Mladenoff et al. 1999, pp. 41–43; Carroll factors considered when setting seasons. will use adaptive management to et al. 2006, p. 542; Oakleaf et al. 2006, We acknowledge the continued spread respond to wolf population fluctuations pp. 558–559; and Hanley et al. 2018a, of chronic wasting disease (CWD) to maintain populations at sustainable pp. 6–8). Aside from direct and indirect among cervids in North America and levels well above Federal recovery measures of prey availability and provide some additional information requirements defined in the Revised livestock density, these environmental here regarding our current state of Recovery Plan. Because wolf population variables are proxies for the likelihood knowledge of this emerging disease and numbers in each of these three States of wolf-human conflict and the ability of potential impacts to wolf prey. CWD is are currently much higher than Federal wolves to escape human-caused a contagious prion disease that affects recovery requirements, we expect to see mortality. Therefore, predictions of hoofed animals, such as deer, elk, and some reduction in wolf populations in suitable habitat generally depict areas moose, is neurodegenerative, rapidly the Great Lakes area when they are with sufficient prey, where human- progressive, and always fatal (reviewed delisted as States implement lethal caused mortality is likely to be by Escobar et al. 2020, entire). Prions are depredation control and decide whether relatively low due to limited human the proteinaceous infection agents to institute wolf hunting seasons with access, high amounts of escape cover, or responsible for prion diseases (Escobar the objective of stabilizing or reversing relatively low numbers of wolf-livestock et al. 2020, p. 2) that are hardy in the population growth. However, the States conflicts. We consider suitable habitat environment and can remain infective have plans in place to achieve their goal to be areas containing adequate wild for years to decades (reviewed by of maintaining wolf populations well ungulate populations (e.g., elk and Escobar et al. 2020, p. 8). CWD was first above Federal recovery targets (see Post- deer), adequate habitat cover, and areas identified in a Colorado research facility delisting Management). with low enough wolf-human conflict in the 1960s, and in wild deer in 1981 The 2019 State management plan for (which generally precipitates human- (CDC 2020, unpaginated). CWD Oregon and the 2016 plan for California caused wolf mortality) to allow continues to spread in North America do not include population-management populations to persist (see Mech 2017, (Escobar et al. 2020, p. 24) and is goals (Oregon Department of Fish and pp. 312–315). currently confirmed in 24 States (CDC Wildlife (ODFW) 2019, p. 17; California Much of the area currently occupied 2020, unpaginated). Within the current Department of Fish and Wildlife by wolves corresponds to what is range of the gray wolf, CWD has been (CDFW) 2016a, p. 12). While the 2011 considered suitable wolf habitat in the confirmed in Montana, Wyoming, Washington State management plan lower 48 United States as modeled by Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and does not include population- Oakleaf et al. (2006, entire), Carroll et al. Michigan (CDC 2020, unpaginated). management goals, it includes recovery (2006, entire), Mladenoff et al. (1995, objectives intended to ensure the entire), and Mladenoff et al. (1999, While CWD has caused population reestablishment of a self-sustaining entire). Habitat and population models declines of deer and elk in some areas population of wolves in Washington indicate that, if human-caused wolf (e.g., Miller et al. 2008, pp. 2–6; (Wiles et al. 2011, p. 9). We expect these mortality can be sufficiently limited, Edmunds et al. 2016, p. 12; DeVivo et States will manage wolves through wolves will likely continue to al. 2017, entire), the prevalence of the appropriate laws and regulations to recolonize areas of the Pacific disease across the landscape is not ensure recovery objectives outlined in Northwest (Maletzke et al. 2015, entire; evenly distributed and there is still their respective wolf management plans ODFW 2015b, entire) and California much to learn about CWD prevalence, are achieved. The State management (Nickel and Walther 2019, pp. 386–389); the spatial distribution of the disease, plan for Utah, which will be and could become established in the transmission, and the elusive properties implemented when wolves are federally central and southern Rocky Mountains of prions (Escobar et al. 2020, pp. 7–13). delisted statewide, will guide (Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27, 31–32), and State wildlife agencies—all of whom management of wolves until 2030 or the Northeast (Mladenoff and Sickley have a vested interest in maintaining until at least two breeding pairs occur 1998, p. 3). While it is also possible for robust populations of deer, elk, and in the State for two consecutive years, wolves to recolonize other non-forested moose—have developed surveillance or until the assumptions of the plan portions of their historical range in the strategies and management response change. For additional information on Midwest (Smith et al. 2016, entire), plans to minimize and mitigate this management plans and objectives in relatively high densities of livestock and threat to cervids to the maximum extent California, Oregon, Washington, and limited hiding cover for wolves (forests) practicable (CPW 2018, entire; MFWP Utah, see Post-delisting Management. in this region are likely reasons that 2019a, entire; WGFD 2020b, entire; MI wolves have failed to recolonize this DNR and MDARD 2012, entire; WI DNR Habitat and Prey Availability area (Smith et al. 2016, pp. 560–561). 2010, entire; MN DNR 2019, entire; Gray wolves are habitat generalists In addition to suitable habitat, we IDFG 2018, entire). Simulation models (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 163) and assessed prey availability based on predict that predation by wolves and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69814 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

other carnivores can lead to a significant 129–136). Research in the Upper suitable wolf habitat. However, the reduction in the prevalence of CWD Peninsula of Michigan indicates that, in common practice in more recent studies infections across the landscape (see some areas with low road densities, low is to use road density to predict Hobbs 2006, p. 8; Wild et al. 2011, pp. deer density appears to limit wolf probabilities of persistent wolf pack 82–88), thereby slowing its spread, occupancy (Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 1667– presence in an area. Areas with road partially because large carnivores 1668) and may prevent recolonization of densities less than 0.7 mi per mi2 (0.45 selectively prey on CWD-infected portions of the Upper Peninsula. In km per km2) are estimated to have a individuals (Krumm et al. 2010, p. 210). Minnesota, a combination of road greater than 50 percent probability of However, in areas of high disease density and human density is used by wolf pack colonization and persistent prevalence, prion epidemics can Minnesota Department of Natural presence, and areas where road density negatively affect local prey populations Resources (MN DNR) to model suitable exceeded 1 mi per mi2 (0.6 km per km2) even with selective predation pressure habitat. Areas with a human density up have less than a 10 percent probability (Miller et al. 2008, p. 2). How prey to 20 people per mi2 (8 people per km2) of occupancy (Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. populations are altered by the are suitable if they also have a road 288–289; Mladenoff and Sickley 1998, emergence of CWD at larger geographic density less than 0.8 mi per mi2 (0.5 km p. 5; Mladenoff et al. 1999, pp. 40–41). scales remains to be determined (Miller per km2). Areas with a human density The predictive ability of this model was et al. 2008, p. 2). While some have of less than 10 people per mi2 (4 people questioned (Mech 2006b, entire; Mech speculated that wolves and other per km2) are suitable if they have road 2006c, entire) and responded to carnivores may be vectors for spreading densities up to 1.1 mi per mi2 (0.7 km (Mladenoff et al. 2006, entire), and an the disease—or, conversely, slowing the per km2) (Erb and Benson 2004, table 1). updated analysis of Wisconsin pack spread of the disease—neither has been Smith et al. (2016, p. 560) relied mainly locations and habitat was completed empirically shown in the wild (Escobar on road density and human population (Mladenoff et al. 2009, entire). This et al. 2020, p. 10). density to assess potential wolf habitat model maintains that road density is across the central United States, and still an important indicator of suitable Great Lakes Area: Suitable Habitat thus may show exaggerated potential for wolf habitat; however, lack of Various researchers have investigated wolf colonization, especially in the agricultural land is also a strong habitat suitability for wolves in the western Great Plains that lack forest predictor of habitat that wolves occupy. central and eastern portions of the cover. Wisconsin researchers view areas United States. Most of these efforts have Road density is a useful parameter with greater than 50 percent probability focused on using a combination of because it is easily measured and of wolf pack colonization and human density, density of agricultural mapped, and because it correlates persistence as ‘‘primary wolf habitat,’’ lands, deer density or deer biomass, and directly and indirectly with various areas with 10 to 50 percent probability road density, or have used road density forms of other human-caused wolf as ‘‘secondary wolf habitat,’’ and areas alone to identify areas where wolf mortality. A rural area with more roads with less than 10 percent probability as populations are likely to persist or generally has a greater human density, unsuitable habitat (Wisconsin become established (Mladenoff et al. more vehicular traffic, greater access by Department of Natural Resources (WI 1995, pp. 284–285; 1997, pp. 23–27; hunters and trappers, more farms and DNR) 1999, pp. 47–48). 1999, pp. 39–43; Harrison and Chapin residences, and more domestic animals. The territories of packs that do occur 1997, p. 3; 1998, pp. 769–770; As a result, there is a greater likelihood in areas of high road density, and hence Mladenoff and Sickley 1998, pp. 1–8; that wolves in such an area will with low expected probabilities of Wydeven et al. 2001, pp. 110–113; Erb encounter humans, domestic animals, occupancy, are generally near areas of and Benson 2004, p. 2; Potvin et al. and various human activities. These more suitable habitat that are likely 2005, pp. 1661–1668; Mladenoff et al. encounters may result in wolves being serving as a source of wolves, thereby 2009, pp. 132–135; Smith et al. 2016, hit by motor vehicles, being subjected to assisting in maintaining wolf presence pp. 559–562). government control actions after in the higher road density areas (Mech To a large extent, road density has becoming involved in depredations on 1989, pp. 387–388; Wydeven et al. 2001, been adopted as the best predictor of domestic animals, being shot p. 112). It appears that essentially all habitat suitability in the Midwest due to intentionally by unauthorized suitable habitat in Minnesota is now the connection between roads and individuals, being trapped or shot occupied, range expansion has slowed, human-caused wolf mortality. Several accidentally, or contracting diseases and the wolf population within the studies demonstrated that wolves from domestic dogs (Mech et al. 1988, State has stabilized (Erb and Benson generally did not maintain breeding pp. 86–87; Mech and Goyal 1993, p. 2004, p. 7; Erb and DonCarlos 2009, pp. packs in areas with a road density 332; Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. 282, 57, 60; Erb et al. 2018, pp. 5, 8). This greater than about 0.9 to 1.1 linear mi 291). Stenglein et al. (2018, p. 106) suitable habitat closely matches the per mi2 (0.6 to 0.7 km per km2) (Thiel demonstrated that in the core of wolf areas designated as Wolf Management 1985, pp. 404–406; Jensen et al. 1986, range and in high-quality habitat, Zones 1 through 4 in the Revised pp. 364–366; Mech et al. 1988, pp. 85– survival rate ranged 0.78–0.82. At the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, p. 72), 87; Fuller et al. 1992, pp. 48–51). Work edge of wolf range and into more which are identical in area to Minnesota by Mladenoff and associates indicated marginal habitat, survival rates declined Wolf Management Zone A (MN DNR that colonizing wolves in Wisconsin to 0.49–0.61 (Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 2001, appendix III). preferred areas where road densities 106). Also, natural mortality was more Recent surveys for Wisconsin wolves were less than 0.7 mi per mi2 (0.45 km prevalent in core habitat, whereas there and wolf packs show that wolves have per km2) (Mladenoff et al. 1995, p. 289). was a shift to a prominence of recolonized the areas predicted by Later work showed that during early human-caused mortality in more habitat models to have low, moderate, colonization wolves selected some of marginal habitat (Stenglein et al. 2018, and high probability of occupancy the lowest road density areas, but as the p. 107). (primary and secondary wolf habitat). wolf population grew and expanded, Some researchers have used a road The late-winter 2017–2018 Wisconsin wolves accepted areas with higher road density of 1 mi per mi2 (0.6 km per km2) wolf survey identified packs occurring densities (Mladenoff et al. 2009, pp. of land area as an upper threshold for throughout the central Wisconsin forest

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69815

area (Wolf Management Zone 2) and habitat patch size in his calculations. consistently at relatively high densities across the northern forest zone (Zone 1), Both of these area estimates are well (DelGiudice et al. 2009, p. 162). with highest pack densities in the below the minimum area described in Conservation of white-tailed deer and northwest and north-central forest (WI the Revised Recovery Plan, which states moose in the Great Lakes area is a high DNR 2018, entire). In Michigan, wolf that 10,000 mi2 (25,600 km2) of priority for State conservation agencies. surveys in winter 2017–2018 continue contiguous suitable habitat is needed for As MN DNR points out in its wolf- to show wolf pairs or packs (defined by a viable isolated gray wolf population, management plan (MN DNR 2001, p. Michigan DNR as two or more wolves and half that area (5,000 mi2 or 12,800 25), it manages ungulates to ensure a traveling together) in every Upper km2) is needed to maintain a viable wolf harvestable surplus for hunters, Peninsula County (MI DNR 2018, population that is subject to wolf nonconsumptive users, and to minimize entire). immigration from a nearby population conflicts with humans. To ensure a Habitat suitability studies in the (USFWS 1992, pp. 25–26). Therefore, harvestable surplus for hunters, MN Upper Midwest indicate that the only continuing wolf immigration from the DNR must account for all sources of large areas of suitable or potentially Upper Peninsula may be necessary to natural mortality, including loss to suitable habitat areas that are currently maintain a future northern Lower wolves, and adjust hunter harvest levels unoccupied by wolves are located in the Peninsula population. when necessary. For example, after northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan Based on the above-described studies severe winters in the 1990’s, MN DNR (Mladenoff et al. 1997, p. 23; Mladenoff and the guidance of the 1992 Revised modified hunter harvest levels to allow et al. 1999, p. 39; Potvin 2003, pp. 44– Recovery Plan, the Service has for the recovery of the local deer 45; Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1239). concluded that suitable habitat for population (MN DNR 2001, p. 25). In One published Michigan study (Gehring wolves in the western Great Lakes area addition to regulating the human and Potter 2005, p. 1239) estimates that can be determined by considering four harvest of deer and moose, MN DNR this area could support 46 to 89 wolves factors: Road density, human density, also plans to continue to monitor and improve habitat for these species. while another study estimated that 110– prey base, and area. An adequate prey 480 wolves could exist in the northern Land management activities carried base is an absolute requirement. In Lower Peninsula (Potvin 2003, p. 39). A out by other public agencies and by much of the western Great Lakes area, recent study that assessed potential den private landowners in Minnesota’s wolf with the exception of portions of the habitat and dispersal corridors in the range, including timber harvest and Upper Peninsula of Michigan where northern Lower Peninsula determined prescribed fire, incidentally and deep snow causes deer to congregate that 736 mi2 (1,906 km2) of high-quality significantly improves habitat for deer, (yard-up) during winter, thereby den habitat existed in the region, but the the primary prey for wolves in the State. limiting deer distribution and landscape has low permeability for wolf Approximately one-half of the availability, white-tailed deer densities movement (Stricker et al. 2019, pp. 87– Minnesota deer harvest is in the Forest are well above management objectives 88). The northern Lower Peninsula is Zone, which encompasses most of the separated from the Upper Peninsula by set forth by the States, causing the other occupied wolf range in the State the Straits of Mackinac, whose 4-mile factors to become the determinants of (Cornicelli 2008, pp. 208–209). There is (6.4-km) width freezes during mid- and suitable habitat. Road density and no indication that harvest of deer and late-winter in some years. In recent human density frequently are highly moose or management of their habitat years there have been two documented correlated; therefore, road density is will significantly depress abundance of occurrences of wolves in the northern often used as a predictor of habitat these species in Minnesota’s primary Lower Peninsula, but there has been no suitability. However, areas with higher wolf range. indication of persistence beyond several road density may still be suitable if the In Wisconsin, the statewide post-hunt months. Prior to those occurrences, the human density is very low, so a white-tailed deer population estimate last recorded wolf in the Lower consideration of both factors is for 2017 was approximately 1,377,100 Peninsula was in 1910. sometimes useful (Erb and Benson 2004, deer, approximately 2 percent higher These northern Lower Peninsula p. 2). Finally, although the territory of than in 2016 (Stenglein 2017, pp. 1–4). patches of potentially suitable habitat individual wolf packs can be relatively In the Northern Forest Zone of the State, contain a great deal of private land, are small, packs are not likely to establish the post-hunt population estimate has small in comparison to the occupied territories in areas of small, isolated ranged from approximately 250,000 deer habitat on the Upper Peninsula and in patches of suitable habitat. to more than 400,000 deer since 2002, Minnesota and Wisconsin, and are Great Lakes Area: Prey Availability with an estimate of 405,300 in 2017. intermixed with agricultural areas and Three consecutive mild winters and areas of higher road density (Gehring Deer (prey) decline, due to succession limited antlerless harvest may explain and Potter 2005, p. 1240). The Gehring of habitat and severe winter weather, the population growth in the northern and Potter study (2005, p. 1239) was identified as a threat at the time of deer herd in 2017. The Central Forest predicted 850 mi2 (2,198 km2) of listing. Wolf density is heavily Zone post-hunt population estimates suitable habitat (areas with greater than dependent on prey availability (for have been largely stable since 2009 at a 50 percent probability of wolf example, expressed as ungulate 60,000–80,000 deer on average, with an occupancy) in the northern Lower biomass, Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 170– estimate of 79,000 in 2017. The Central Peninsula. Potvin (2003, p. 21), using 171), and the primary prey of wolves in Farmland Zone deer population has deer density in addition to road density, the Great Lakes area is white-tailed deer, increased since 2008, and the 2017 post- believes there are about 3,090 mi2 (8,000 with moose being the second most hunt deer population estimate was km2) of suitable habitat in the northern important prey (DelGiudice et al. 2009, 368,100. For a third year in a row, the Lower Peninsula. Gehring and Potter pp. 162–163). Prey availability is high in 2017 post-hunt deer population estimate (2005, p. 1239) exclude from their the Great Lakes area; white-tailed deer in the Southern Farmland Zone calculations those northern Lower populations in the region have exceeded 250,000 deer. Peninsula low-road-density patches that fluctuated (in response to natural Because of severe winter conditions are less than 19 mi2 (50 km2), while environmental conditions) throughout (persistent, deep snow) in the Upper Potvin (2003, pp. 10–15) does not limit the wolf recovery period, but have been Peninsula, deer populations can

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69816 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

fluctuate dramatically from year to year. 84; and northwest Wyoming (see figure West Coast States: Suitable Habitat In 2016, the MI DNR finalized a new 1 in 73 FR 63926, October 28, 2008). In Washington, wolves are expected deer-management plan to address The current distribution of wolves in to persist in habitats with similar ecological, social, and regulatory shifts. the northern Rocky Mountains generally characteristics to those identified by An objective of this plan is to manage mirrors Oakleaf et al.’s (2006, p. 559) Oakleaf et al. (2006 in Wiles et al. 2011, deer at the appropriate scale, prediction of suitable habitat, indicating p. 50) and as described above. Several considering impacts of deer on the that it is a reasonable approximation of modeling studies have estimated landscape and on other species, in where suitable habitat exists. potentially suitable wolf habitat in addition to population size (MI DNR Washington with most predicting NRM DPS: Prey Availability 2016, p. 16). Additionally, the Michigan suitable habitat in northeastern wolf-management plan addresses We refer the reader to our 2009 and Washington, the Blue Mountains, the maintaining a sustainable population of Cascade Mountains, and the Olympic wolf prey (MI DNR 2015, pp. 29–31). 2012 final delisting rules (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September Peninsula. Total area estimates in these Short of a major, and unlikely, shift in studies range from approximately deer-management and harvest strategies, 10, 2012), which contain analyses of 16,900 mi2 (43,770 km2) to 41,500 mi2 there will be no shortage of prey for prey availability in the northern Rocky (107,485 km2) (Wiles et al. 2011, pp. 51, Wisconsin and Michigan wolves for the Mountains. A summary of those analyses, with updated information on 53; Maletzke et al. 2015, p. 3). foreseeable future. The Oregon Department of Fish and ungulate numbers and references to Wildlife (ODFW) developed a map of NRM DPS: Suitable Habitat ungulate management plans, is provided ‘‘potential gray wolf range’’ as part of its We refer the reader to our 2009 and below. 2012 final delisting rules (74 FR 15123, recent status review of wolves in Oregon Wild ungulate prey in the NRM is April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September (ODFW 2019, Appendix D). The model composed mainly of elk, but also 10, 2012), which contain detailed used predictors of wolf habitat analyses of suitable wolf habitat in the includes deer, moose, and—in the including land-cover type, elk range, northern Rocky Mountains. A summary Greater Yellowstone Area—bison. human population density, road of those analyses is provided below. Bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and density, and land types altered by The northern Rocky Mountains pronghorn antelope also are common humans; they chose to exclude public contain some of the best remaining but relatively unimportant as wolf prey. land ownership because wolves will use suitable habitat for wolves in the In total, State population estimates forested cover on both public and Western United States (Carroll et al. indicate that, in Idaho, there are private lands (ODFW 2019, p. 147). 2006, figure 6). The region contains approximately 100,000 elk (IDFG 2014d, Approximately 41,256 mi2 (106,853 relatively large blocks of undeveloped p. 1), between 250,000 to 325,000 mule km2) were identified as potential wolf public lands and some of the largest deer (IDFG 2019a, p. 1), and an range in Oregon. The resulting map blocks of wilderness in the coterminous unknown, but large, number of white- coincides well with the current United States. Suitable wolf habitat in tailed deer (IDFG 2019b, entire); in distribution of wolves in Oregon. The the region is characterized by public Montana, there are approximately ODFW estimates that wolves occupy land with mountainous, forested habitat 134,000 elk (MFWP 2020a, p. 3), over 31.6 percent of the potential wolf range that contains abundant year-round wild 300,000 mule deer (MFWP 2020b, p. 1), in the east management zone (the ungulate populations, low road density, and almost 200,000 white-tailed deer majority of wolves here are under State low numbers of domestic livestock that (MFWP 2020c, p. 1); and, in management) and 2.7 percent of are only present seasonally, few Yellowstone National Park, there are potential wolf range in the western domestic sheep, low agricultural use, approximately 10,000–20,000 elk in management zone (all wolves here are under Federal management) (ODFW and few people (Carroll et al. 2006, pp. summer, 4,000 elk in winter (NPS 2019, p. 153). 536–548; 2006, pp. 27–31; Oakleaf et al. 2020a, entire), tens of thousands of elk Habitat models developed for the 2006, pp. 555–558). Unsuitable wolf outside of YNP in northwest Wyoming habitat is typically the opposite (i.e., northern Rocky Mountains (e.g., Oakleaf (WGFD 2019a, b, c, d, entire), 5,000 private land, flat open prairie or desert, et al. 2006, entire; Larsen and Ripple bison (NPS 2020b, entire), and an low or seasonal wild ungulate 2006, entire; Carroll et al. 2006, entire) additional 396,000 mule deer in the populations, high road density, high may have limited applicability to numbers of year-round domestic State (Mule Deer Working Group 2018, California due to differences in livestock including many domestic p. 1). The States in the NRM have geography, distribution of habitat types, sheep, high levels of agricultural use, successfully managed resident ungulate distribution and abundance of prey, and many people). populations for decades. Since we potential restrictions for movement, and Based on a wolf habitat model delisted the NRM, these States have human habitation (CDFW 2016b, pp. (Oakleaf et al. 2006, pp. 555–559) that continued to maintain relatively high 154, 156). Despite these challenges, considered roads accessible to two- densities of ungulate populations along CDFW used these models to determine wheel and four-wheel drive vehicles, with a large, well distributed, and that wolves are most likely to occupy topography (slope and elevation), land recovered wolf population. State three general areas: (1) The Klamath ownership, relative ungulate density ungulate management plans commit Mountains and portions of the northern (based on State harvest statistics), cattle them to maintaining ungulate California Coast Ranges; (2) the southern (Bos sp.) and sheep density, vegetation populations at densities that will Cascades, the Modoc Plateau, and characteristics (ecoregions and land continue to support a recovered wolf Warner Mountains; and (3) the Sierra cover), and human density, there is an population well into the foreseeable Nevada Mountain Range (CDFW 2016b, estimated 65,725 mi2 (170,228 km2) of future (For examples of State ungulate p. 20). These areas were identified as suitable habitat in Montana, Idaho, and management plans and adaptive harvest having a higher potential for wolf Wyoming. Generally, suitable habitat is strategies, see IDFG 2014d, 2019a, occupancy based on prey abundance, located in western Montana west of I– 2019b, entire; MFWP 2001, 2014, amount of public land ownership, and 15 and south of I–90; Idaho north of I– entire). forest cover, whereas other areas were

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69817

less suitable due to human influences fluctuations in habitat suitability as a enter Utah from Idaho and Wyoming (CDFW 2016b, p. 156). Using a different result of logging, burning, and grazing. were via the Bear River Range and approach and modeling technique, Across the West, including California, Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Nickel and Walther (2019, pp. 387–398) mule deer populations have been in the northern part of the State. A wolf largely affirmed CDFW’s conclusions declining since the late 1960s due to habitat suitability model was developed regarding areas maintaining a high multiple factors including loss of for Utah to identify areas most likely to potential for wolf recolonization. As habitat, drought, predation, and support wolf occupancy in the State wolves continue to expand into competition with livestock, but, as (Switalski et al. 2002, pp. 11–15). The California, models may be refined to noted above, deer are a secondary prey model evaluated five habitat better estimate habitat suitability and when elk are present (CDFW 2016b, p. characteristics that included estimates the potential for wolf occupancy. 147). of prey abundance, estimates of road density, proximity to year-round water West Coast States: Prey Availability Central Rocky Mountains: Suitable sources, elevation, and topography. Habitat The Washington Department of Fish Although the resulting model identified and Wildlife recently conducted a Models developed to assess habitat primarily forested and mountainous Wildlife Program 2015–2017 Ungulate suitability and the probability of wolf areas of Utah as suitable wolf habitat, an Assessment to identify ungulate occupancy indicate that Colorado area over 13,900 mi2 (36,000 km2), it populations that are below management contains adequate habitat to support a was highly fragmented as a result of objectives or may be negatively affected population of wolves, although the high road densities. Nonetheless, six by predators (WDFW 2016, entire). The number of wolves the State could relatively large core areas of contiguous assessment covers white-tailed deer, support is variable.—Based on mule habitat were identified that ranged in mule deer, black-tailed deer, Rocky deer and elk biomass, a pack size of size from approximately 127 mi2 to Mountain elk, Roosevelt elk, bighorn between 5 and 10 wolves, and a 2,278 mi2 (330 km2 to 5,900 km2) sheep, and moose (WDFW 2016, p. 12). reduction in available winter range due (Switalski et al. 2002, p. 13). Although Washington defines an at-risk ungulate to increased snow depths, Bennett these estimates should be considered population as one that falls 25 percent (1994, pp. 112, 275–280) estimated that maximums, it was estimated that the six below its population objective for 2 the probable wolf population size in core areas have the potential to support consecutive years and/or one in which Colorado would range between 407 and up to 214 wolves and the entirety of the harvest decreases by 25 percent 814 wolves. Carroll et al. (2003, entire) Utah could theoretically support over below the 10-year-average harvest rate examined multiple models to evaluate 700 wolves (Switalski et al. 2002, pp. for 2 consecutive years (WDFW 2016, p. suitable wolf habitat, occupancy, and 15–16). Without concerted efforts to 13). Based on available information, the the probability of wolf persistence given minimize human-caused mortality and 2016 report concludes that no ungulate various landscape changes and potential with low levels of immigration from populations in Washington were increases in human density in the neighboring populations, wolves considered to be at-risk (WDFW 2016, p. southern Rocky Mountains, which recolonizing Utah would likely exist in 13). included portions of southeast small numbers and increase slowly, In Oregon, 20 percent of Roosevelt elk Wyoming, Colorado, and northern New which could elevate local extinction populations are at or above management Mexico. Using a resource selection risk (Switalski et al. 2002, p. 16). objectives; however, the populations function (RSF) model developed for An analysis similar to that of Carroll within the western two-thirds of Oregon wolves in the Greater Yellowstone et al. (2003, entire) was conducted for are generally stable (ODFW 2019, p. 66). Ecosystem and projecting it to Colorado, the entirety of the Western United States Rocky Mountain elk are above Carroll et al. (2003, pp. 541–542) and indicated that high-quality wolf management objectives in 63 percent of identified potential wolf habitat across habitat exists in Colorado and Utah, but populations and are considered to be north-central and northwest Colorado that wolves recolonizing Colorado and stable or increasing across the State and also in the southwestern part of the Oregon would be most vulnerable to (ODFW 2019, p. 66). Mule deer and State. RSF model predictions indicate landscape changes because these areas black-tailed deer populations peaked in that Colorado could support an lack, and are greater distances from, the mid-1900s and have since declined, estimated 1,305 wolves with nearly 87 large core refugia (Carroll et al. 2006, likely due to human development, percent of wolves occupying public pp. 33–36). The authors proposed that changes in land use, predation, and lands in the State. Carroll et al. (2003, habitat improvements, primarily in the disease (ODFW 2019, p. 66). White- entire) also used a dynamic model that form of road removal or closures, could tailed deer populations, including incorporated population viability mitigate these effects (Carroll et al. 2006, Columbian white-tailed deer, are small, analysis to evaluate wolf occupancy and p. 36). Switalski et al. (2002, pp. 12–13) but are increasing in distribution and persistence based on current conditions and Carroll et al. (2003, p. 545) also abundance (ODFW 2019, p. 69). In as well as potential changes resulting cautioned that model predictions may Oregon, deer are a secondary prey item from increased road and human be inaccurate because they did not when elk are present (ODFW 2019, pp. densities in the future. The dynamic account for the presence of livestock 57, 61). model based on current conditions and the potential use of lethal removal In California, declines of historical predicted similar distribution and wolf to mitigate wolf conflicts, which may ungulate populations were the result of population estimates as the RSF model; affect wolf persistence and distribution overexploitation by humans dating back however, as predicted, as road and in some areas of Colorado and Utah. to the 19th century (CDFW 2016b, p. human densities increased in Colorado, 147). However, elk distribution and the availability of suitable habitat and Central Rocky Mountains: Prey abundance have increased due to the estimated number of wolves that Availability implementation of harvest regulations, habitat could support declined (Carroll Colorado Parks and Wildlife manages reintroduction efforts, and natural et al. 2003, pp. 541–543). ungulate populations using Herd expansion (CDFW 2016b, p. 147). Mule An evaluation by Switalski et al. Management Plans which establish deer also experienced overexploitation, (2002, p. 9) indicated that the most population objective minimums and but were also more likely subject to likely avenues for dispersing wolves to maximums for each ungulate herd in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69818 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

State (Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2019, annually (Utah Division of Wildlife vagility (the ability of an organism to unpaginated). The Herd Management Resources 2019, unpaginated). This move about freely and migrate) (Fuller Plans consider both biological and estimate is 82 percent of the long-term et al. 2003, p. 163; Boitani 2003, pp. social factors when setting herd statewide objective of 453,100 mule 328–330). Further, much of the area objective ranges. All of the following deer. The biggest threats to mule deer in occupied by gray wolves occurs on information on ungulates is from the Utah are habitat degradation and loss public land where wolf conservation is 2019 Colorado Parks and Wildlife combined with unfavorable weather a priority and conservation plans have ungulate summary report (Colorado conditions (Utah Division of Wildlife been adopted to ensure continued wolf Parks and Wildlife 2019, entire). Similar Resources 2019, unpaginated). Elk persistence (see Federal Lands to other western States, mule deer in populations in Utah have increased discussion under Management in the Colorado have declined due to a from an average of slightly over 60,000 NRM DPS and Post-delisting multitude of factors since the 1970s to from 1995 to 2005 to an average Management) (73 FR 10538, February a statewide population estimate of estimate of slightly over 80,000 between 27, 2008). 433,100 animals in 2018, which was 2012 and 2017 (Bernales et al. 2018, pp. Prey availability is an important factor well below the minimum statewide 104–105). The 2017 statewide elk in maintaining wolf populations. Native population objective of 500,450. In population estimate was 80,955 elk, ungulates (e.g., deer, elk, and moose) are 2018, of 54 mule deer herds in the State, which is marginally higher than the the primary prey within the range of 23 were below their population population objective of 78,215 elk. gray wolves in the lower 48 United objective minimum with the western Moose are relatively recent migrants to States. Each State within wolf-occupied part of the State being the most affected. Utah, first being documented in the range manages its wild ungulate In contrast, elk populations in Colorado early 1900s. Since that time, moose have populations sustainably. States employ are stable with a winter population dispersed, or been transplanted, to an adaptive-management approach that estimate of 287,000 elk in 2018. occupy suitable habitats primarily in the adjusts hunter harvest in response to Although 22 of 42 elk herds are above north half of the State. In Utah, moose changes in big game population the maximum population objective, the are susceptible to habitat limitations numbers and trends when necessary, ratio of calves per 100 cows (a measure caused by increasing densities and, as a and predation is one of many factors of overall herd fitness) has been on the result, are proactively managed at considered when setting seasons. While decline in some southwestern herd appropriate densities to prevent we are aware of CWD as an emerging units, and research has been initiated to population declines caused by habitat contagious disease threat to deer and determine potential causes. Moose are limitations due to high moose densities elk, the ultimate impact of CWD and its not native to Colorado, so to create (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources prevalence across the landscape are still hunting and wildlife viewing 2017, unpaginated). Moose populations largely unknown. To address this opportunities, Colorado Parks and in Utah are estimated on a 3-year cycle, emerging threat, States have developed Wildlife transplanted moose to the State and as of 2016, an estimated 2,469 robust surveillance and response plans beginning in 1978 and has since moose inhabited the State. Switalski et for CWD to minimize and mitigate transplanted moose on four other al. (2002, p. 18) suggested that a wolf impacts. occasions through 2010. In 2018, the population of 200 animals would not Disease and Parasites have a significant effect on ungulate moose population was estimated at Although disease and parasites were 3,200 animals and continues to increase populations in Utah; however, although the magnitude of effects would be not identified as a threat at the time of as moose expand into new areas of the listing, a wide range of diseases and State. In summary, while deer and elk difficult to predict, some local herd units may be disproportionately affected parasites has been reported for the gray numbers are down from their peak wolf, and several of them have had populations in some parts of Colorado, by wolves. In summary, deer and elk populations in Utah are increasing temporary impacts during the recovery they still number in the hundreds of of the species in the lower 48 United thousands of individuals, and the State (Bernales et al. 2018, pp. 104–105; Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2019, States (Brand et al. 1995, p. 419; WI is actively managing populations to unpaginated), and habitat models DNR 1999, p. 61, Kreeger 2003, pp. 202– meet objectives. In addition, as of the estimate that the State is theoretically 214; Bryan et al. 2012, pp. 785–788; latest estimates, elk numbers exceed capable of supporting several hundred Stronen et al. 2011, entire). Although their population objectives in 22 of 42 wolves if wolf-human conflicts can be some diseases may be destructive to herds (Colorado Parks and Wildlife addressed (Switalski et al. 2002, pp. 15– individuals, most of them seldom have 2019, p. 8). Introduced moose provide 16). long-term, population-level effects an additional potential food resource for (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 176–178; Kreeger wolves in some parts of the State. Habitat and Prey Availability Summary 2003, pp. 202–214). All States that The Utah Division of Wildlife Sufficient suitable habitat exists in the presently have wolf populations also Resources manages ungulate Lower 48 United States to continue to have some sort of disease-monitoring populations by establishing population support wolves into the future. Current program that may include direct objectives at the herd unit level and land-use practices throughout the vast observation of wolves to assess potential directing management efforts, primarily majority of the species’ current range in disease indicators or biological sample through public harvest, to achieve the United States do not appear to be collection with subsequent analysis at a population goals for each herd unit. The affecting the viability of wolves. We do laboratory. Although Washington has summation of herd unit objectives can not anticipate overall habitat changes not submitted biological samples for be considered a statewide objective for will occur at a magnitude that would analysis, samples have been collected the species. Since a population decline affect gray wolves across their range in and laboratory analysis is planned for during the winter of 1992–1993, mule the lower 48 United States, because the future (Roussin 2018, pers. comm.). deer populations in Utah have shown a wolves are broadly distributed in two Also, in the central Rocky Mountain generally increasing overall trend with a large metapopulations and are able to States, Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2018 estimate of 372,500 animals in the withstand high levels of mortality due adopted the recommendations of the State, an average increase of 1.6 percent to their high reproductive capacity and Colorado Wolf Management Working

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69819

Group (see Post De-listing Management) to detect (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 420– debilitating conditions, perhaps to conduct basic monitoring and 421). There have been few documented contributing to their mortality; however, surveillance of wolf health via general cases of mortality from CDV among wild Lyme disease is not considered to be a assessments of captured wolves, wolves; for example, it has been significant factor affecting wolf necropsies performed on dead wolves, documented in two littermate pups in populations (Kreeger 2003, p. 212; Jara and analysis of biological samples Manitoba (Carbyn 1982, pp. 111–112), et al. 2016, p. 13). (Colorado Wolf Management Working in two Alaskan yearling wolves Mange has been detected in wolves Group 2004, p. 37). The Utah Division (Peterson et al. 1984, p. 31), in seven throughout North America (Brand et al. of Wildlife Resources developed Wisconsin wolves (five adults and two 1995, pp. 427–428; Kreeger 2003, pp. guidelines to ensure the proper pups) (Thomas in litt. 2006; Wydeven 207–208). Mange mites (Sarcoptes collection and preservation of biological and Wiedenhoeft 2003, p. 20; scabeii) infest the skin of the host, samples, which can be used to assess Wiedenhoeft et al. 2018, p. 5), and in at causing irritation due to feeding and overall wolf health, disease, and least two wolves in Michigan (Beyer burrowing activities. This causes parasite loads (UDWR 2020, pers 2019, pers. comm.). Carbyn (1982, pp. intense itching that results in scratching comm). 113–116) concluded that CDV was and hair loss. Mortality may occur due Canine parvovirus (CPV) infects partially responsible for a 50-percent to exposure, primarily in cold weather, wolves, domestic dogs (Canis decline in the wolf population in Riding emaciation, or secondary infections familiaris), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), Mountain National Park (Manitoba, (Almberg et al. 2012, pp. 2842, 2848; coyotes, skunks (Mephitis mephitis), Canada) in the mid-1970s. Studies in Knowles et al. 2017, entire; Kreeger and raccoons (Procyon lotor). Canine Yellowstone National Park have shown 2003, pp. 207–208). Mange mites are parvovirus has been detected in nearly that CDV outbreaks can contribute to spread from an infected individual every wolf population in North America short-term population effects through through direct contact with others or including Alaska (Bailey et al. 1995, p. significantly reduced pup survivorship, through the use of common areas. In a 441; Brand et al. 1995, p. 421; Kreeger though these effects may be offset by long-term Alberta wolf study, higher 2003, pp. 210–211; Johnson et al. 1994, other factors influencing reproductive wolf densities were correlated with pp. 270–272; ODFW 2014, p. 7), and success (Almberg et al. 2009, p. 5; increased incidence of mange, and pup exposure in wolves is thought to be Almberg et al. 2012, p. 2848; Stahler et survival decreased as the incidence of almost universal. Nearly 100 percent of al. 2013, pp. 227–229). Serological mange increased (Brand et al. 1995, pp. the wolves handled in Montana evidence indicates that exposure to CDV 427–428). Mange has been shown to (Atkinson 2006, pp. 3–4), Yellowstone is high among some wolf populations— temporarily affect wolf population National Park (Smith and Almberg 2007, 29 percent in northern Wisconsin and growth-rates in some areas (Kreeger p. 18), Minnesota (Mech and Goyal 79 percent in central Wisconsin from 2003, p. 208), but not others (Wydeven 1993, p. 331), and Oregon (ODFW 2017, 2002 to 2003 (Wydeven and et al. 2009b, pp. 96–97). In Montana and p. 8) had blood antibodies indicating Wiedenhoeft 2003, pp. 23–24, table 7) Wyoming, the percentage of packs with nonlethal exposure to CPV. Clinical and 2004 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft mange fluctuated between 3 and 24 CPV is characterized by severe 2004, pp. 23–24, table 7), and similar percent annually from 2003 to 2008 hemorrhagic diarrhea and vomiting, levels in Yellowstone National Park (Jimenez et al. 2010, pp. 331–332; which leads to dehydration, electrolyte (Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18). Atkinson 2006, p. 5; Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 19). In packs with the most imbalances, debility, and shock and Exposure to CDV was first documented may eventually lead to death. severe infestations, pup survival in Oregon in 2016 (n=3; ODFW 2017, p. Based on data collected 1973–2004 in appeared low, and some adults died 8), but no mortalities or clinical signs of northeastern Minnesota, Mech et al. (Jimenez et al. 2010, pp. 331–332); the disease were observed. The (2008, p. 824) concluded that CPV however, evidence indicates infestations continued strong recruitment in reduced pup survival, subsequent do not normally become chronic Wisconsin and elsewhere in North dispersal, and the overall rate of because wolves often naturally American wolf populations, however, population growth of wolves in overcome them. Minnesota (a population near carrying indicates that while distemper may Dog-biting lice (Trichodectes canis) capacity in suitable habitat). After the cause population-level decreases in the commonly feed on domestic dogs, but CPV became endemic in the population short term, it is not likely a significant can infest coyotes and wolves (Schwartz (around 1979), the population cause of mortality over longer periods et al. 1983, p. 372; Mech et al. 1985, p. developed immunity and was able to (Almberg et al. 2009, p. 9; Brand et al. 404). The lice can attain severe withstand severe effects from the 1995, p. 421). infestation levels, particularly in pups. disease (Mech and Goyal 1993, pp. 331– Lyme disease, caused by a spirochete The worst infestations can result in 332). These observed effects are bacterium, is spread primarily by deer severe scratching, irritated and raw skin, consistent with results from studies in ticks (Ixodes dammini). Host species substantial hair loss particularly in the smaller, isolated populations in include humans, horses (Equus groin, and poor condition. While no Wisconsin and on Isle Royale, Michigan caballus), dogs, white-tailed deer, mule wolf mortality has been confirmed, (Wydeven et al. 1995, entire; Peterson et deer, elk, white-footed mice death from exposure and/or secondary al. 1998, entire), but indicate that CPV (Peromyscus leucopus), eastern infection following self-inflicted trauma also had only a temporary effect in a chipmunks (Tamias striatus), coyotes, caused by inflammation and itching larger population. and wolves. A study of wolves in may be possible. Dog-biting lice were Canine distemper virus (CDV) is an Wisconsin found exposure to Lyme confirmed on two wolves in Montana in acute disease of carnivores that has been disease in 65.6 percent of individuals, 2005, on a wolf in south-central Idaho known in Europe since the sixteenth with exposure increasing during the in early 2006 (USFWS et al. 2006, p. 15; century and infects canids worldwide period from 1985 to 2011 (Jara et al. Atkinson 2006, p. 5; Jimenez et al. 2010, (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). This disease 2016, pp. 5–9). Clinical symptoms have pp. 331–332), and in 4 percent of generally infects pups when they are not been reported in wolves, but based Minnesota wolves in 2003 through 2005 only a few months old, so mortality in on impacts seen in other mammals, (Paul in litt. 2005), but their infestations wild wolf populations might be difficult individuals can likely experience were not severe. Dog-biting lice

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69820 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

infestations are not expected to have a al. 2008, entire). Reintroduced and been shown to have high genetic significant impact even at a local scale. naturally expanding populations in the diversity, low levels of inbreeding, and Other diseases and parasites, northern Rocky Mountains showed low connectivity with the large Canadian including rabies, canine heartworm, levels of inbreeding even in the wolf population to the north (Forbes blastomycosis, bacterial myocarditis, Yellowstone and Idaho populations, and Boyd 1996, entire; Gomez-Sanchez granulomatous pneumonia, brucellosis, which were begun with a limited et al. 2018, p. 3602; vonHoldt et al. leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, number of founders (vonHoldt et al. 2008, entire; vonHoldt et al. 2010, hookworm, coccidiosis, canine 2008, entire; vonHoldt et al. 2010, pp. entire). hepatitis, canine adenovirus-1, canine 4416–4417). Moreover, in both the An important factor for maintaining herpesvirus, anaplasmosis, ehrlichiosis, Scandinavian wolves and Mexican genetic diversity can be connectivity or echinococcus granulosus, and oral wolves, many of the effects of effective dispersal between populations papillomatosis have been documented inbreeding depression were mitigated or subpopulations (Raikonnen et al. in wild wolves, but their impacts on by relatively small influxes of additional 2013, entire; Wayne and Hedrick 2011, future wild wolf populations are not wolves (i.e., new genetic material) into entire). As noted in the final delisting likely to be significant (Almberg et al. the population (Vila et al. 2003, entire; rule for the northern Rocky Mountains, 2009, p. 4; Almberg et al. 2012, pp. Fredrickson et al. 2007, entire; vonHoldt connectivity was an important factor in 2847, 2849; Brand et al. 1995, pp. 419– et al. 2008, p. 262; vonHoldt et al. 2010, ensuring the long-term viability of that 429; Bryan et al. 2012, pp. 785–788; p. 4421; Akesson et al. 2016, entire; metapopulation (74 FR 15123, April 2, Hassett in litt. 2003; Jara et al. 2016, p. Wayne and Hedrick 2011, entire). 2009). Similarly, the potential lack of 13; Johnson 1995, pp. 431, 436–438; Harding et al. (2016, p. 154), in an connectivity between Wyoming’s Knowles et al. 2017, entire; Mech and examination of recovery goals for population and the rest of the Kurtz 1999, pp. 305–306; Thomas in litt. Mexican wolves, provides a list of wolf metapopulation in the northern Rocky 1998, Thomas in litt. 2006, WI DNR populations that experienced notably Mountains was noted as a concern in 1999, p. 61; Foreyt et al. 2009, p. 1208; low numbers but later recovered and are the subsequent delisting rule for Kreeger 2003, pp. 202–214). increasing or stable. Wyoming (77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012). To address those concerns, Idaho Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding Aside from the unique situation on Isle Royale, where infrequent migrations and Montana each signed a There were no genetic concerns for to the island appear to have been too Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) the gray wolf identified at the time of limited to reduce the effects of with the Service that committed to listing. Improved genetic techniques inbreeding depression (Hedrick et al. monitoring and managing the since then have vastly improved our 2014, entire; Hedrick et al. 2019, entire), population to ensure sufficient understanding of population genetics connectivity (Groen et al. 2008, entire). and the potential consequences of range we are not aware of any instances of inbreeding or inbreeding depression Wyoming signed a nearly identical and population contraction and MOU in 2012, prior to the final rule expansion. For example, research has within the lower 48 United States, though there are indications that delisting wolves there (Talbott and firmly established that genetic issues Guertin 2012, entire). With each MOU, such as inbreeding depression can be a inbreeding may have occurred during the course of recovery in the Great Lakes a range of management options, up to significant concern in small wild and including translocation of populations, with potentially serious area (Fain et al. 2010, p. 1760). Although Leonard et al. (2005, entire) individual wolves, was made available implications for population viability to address any noted deficiencies in examined historical genetic diversity (Frankham 2010, entire). Inbreeding is effective dispersal, thereby mitigating and concluded that a significant amount caused by the mating of close relatives concerns of negative genetic effects due has likely been lost, current populations and can result in increased prevalence to delisting those wolves. Such have high levels of genetic diversity in or expression of deleterious mutations measures have not been necessary since the Great Lakes area (Koblmu¨ ller 2009, within a population, leading to various the MOUs were signed, and are unlikely p. 2322; Fain et al. 2010, p. 1758; negative effects on fitness, referred to as to become necessary in the future, as Gomez-Sanchez et al. 2018, p. 3602), inbreeding depression (see Robinson et natural dispersal within the including an analysis of samples from al. 2019, entire, and references therein). metapopulation has been and is Inbreeding depression, as evidenced Minnesota that indicated large effective 4 expected to remain sufficient. by physiological anomalies or other population sizes over a long period Connectivity has been investigated in effects on fitness, has been documented (Robinson et al. 2019. p. 2). In fact, other parts of the species’ range as well. in wild wolf populations, including likely due to connectivity with wolves In the Great Lakes area, dispersal and Scandinavian wolves (Vila et al. 2003, in Canada, there is no evidence of a interbreeding appears to be occurring entire; Raikkonen et al. 2013, entire; population bottleneck in Minnesota. both among Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Akesson et al. 2016, p. 4746), Mexican Instead, the range reduction and Michigan and also between these States wolves (Asa et al. 2007, entire; subsequent expansion seems to more and the population in Canada (Fain et Fredrickson et al. 2007, entire; Robinson accurately resemble contraction of a al. 2010, p. 1758; Wheeldon et al. 2010, et al. 2019, entire), and Isle Royale larger range rather than an isolated p. 4438). In the West Coast States, wolves (Hedrick et al. 2019, entire; bottleneck (Koblmu¨ ller et al. 2009, p. wolves have dispersed from Montana, Robinson et al. 2019, entire). In each of 2322; Rick et al. 2017, p. 1101). Idaho, and the Greater Yellowstone area these cases, the population size or Similarly, wolves in Washington, to form packs in Oregon and number of founders was very small, and Oregon, and California can trace most of Washington (Jimenez et al. 2017, entire; the population was completely or nearly their ancestry to populations in the Hendricks et al. 2018, entire), while completely isolated over several northern Rocky Mountains that have individuals from Oregon and generations. Washington have dispersed both within Although inbreeding depression has 4 Effective population size is the size of an and across their respective State borders idealized, randomly mating population that been documented in wolves, there are experiences genetic drift, or the random loss of as well as to California, other northern signs that wolves are adept at avoiding alleles, at the same rate as the population of Rocky Mountains States, and Canada to inbreeding when possible (vonHoldt et interest. join existing packs or to find a mate and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69821

form a new pack (USFWS 2020, pp. 16– would not likely be widespread or September 10, 2012). The best available 18). In addition, the presence of impact the larger population. The information does not indicate that any admixed coastal/northern Rocky maintenance of genetic diversity could research conducted since the 2012 rule Mountain individuals in Washington also be enhanced in core populations significantly changes that analysis. indicates that coastal wolves or their due to moderate increases in human- Cumulative Effects admixed progeny have dispersed caused mortality that results in more successfully from Canada into the State social openings being created and filled When threats occur together, one may (Hendricks et al. 2018, entire) and are by dispersing individuals. Moreover, the exacerbate the effects of another, living in Washington’s interior. genetic isolation of peripheral packs or causing effects not accounted for when Delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48 individual wolves is not likely to impact threats are analyzed individually. Many United States may have the effect of the larger metapopulations from which of the threats to the gray wolf in the reducing connectivity among the more those individuals originated. lower 48 United States and gray wolf central areas of the large Management plans in place in States in habitat discussed above are interrelated metapopulations in the Great Lakes area the Great Lakes area, for example, will and could be synergistic, and thus may or the Western United States and more likely ensure that connectivity within cumulatively affect the gray wolf in the peripheral areas in those or other States. those areas remains sufficiently high to lower 48 United States beyond the Such a reduction might be caused by avoid potential genetic impacts. extent of each individual threat. For increased mortality of dispersing example, a decline in available wild individuals (Smith et al. 2010, p. 627) Effects of Climate Change prey could cause wolves to prey on or of individuals in established packs on Effects of climate change were not more livestock, resulting in a potential the periphery of occupied range (O’Neil identified as threats at the time of increase in human-caused mortality. et al. 2017b, p. 9525; Stenglein et al. listing. There is research indicating that However, although the types, 2018, pp. 104–106; Mech et al. 2019, pp. climate change could affect gray wolves magnitude, or extent of cumulative 62–63) and could result in decreased through impacts to prey species impacts are difficult to predict, the best genetic diversity and increased (Hendricks et al. 2018, unpaginated; available information does not likelihood of inbreeding in those Weiskopf et al. 2019, entire) or demonstrate that cumulative effects are peripheral packs if they become increased exposure to diseases such as occurring at a level sufficient to isolated. Rick et al. (2017, entire) Lyme disease (Jara et al. 2016, p. 13), negatively affect gray wolf populations examined genetic diversity and but the best available information does within the lower 48 United States. We structuring in Minnesota prior and then not indicate that climate change is anticipate that the threats described following a year of harvest during the causing negative effects to the viability above will be sufficiently addressed period when wolves were delisted in of the gray wolf in the lower 48 United through ongoing management measures the State. The results showed no States, or that it is likely to do so in the that are expected to continue post- difference in genetic diversity, a slight future. delisting and into the future. The best increase in large-scale genetic Vulnerability to climate change is scientific and commercial data available structuring, and some differences in the often gauged by factors such as indicate that the vast majority of gray geography of effective dispersal. physiological tolerance, habitat wolves occur within one of two Because the study contained only 2 specificity, and adaptive capacity, widespread, large, and resilient years of data, however, it is difficult to which includes dispersal capability metapopulations and that threat draw conclusions about long-term (Dawson et al. 2011, p. 53). Throughout factors—either individually or effects or to discern the cause or causes their circumpolar distribution, gray cumulatively—are not currently of the observed differences. wolves persist in a variety of ecosystems resulting, nor are they anticipated to We acknowledge that some level of with temperatures ranging from ¥70 °F result, in reductions in gray wolf genetic effects to wolf populations is to 120 °F (¥57 °C to 49 °C) (Mech and numbers or habitat at a level sufficient likely to occur following delisting and Boitani 2003, p. xv). Gray wolves are to significantly affect gray wolf may include changes in genetic highly adaptable animals and are populations within the lower 48 United diversity or population structuring efficient at exploiting food resources States. (Allendorf et al. 2008, entire). These available to them. Although Weiskopf et Ongoing and Post-Delisting State, changes, however, are not likely to be of al. (2019, entire) noted that the ungulate Tribal, and Federal Wolf Management such a magnitude that they pose a community in the Great Lakes area may significant threat to the species. shift as moose decline and deer increase In addition to considering threats to Available evidence indicates that due to climate change, there is no the species, our analysis of a species continued dispersal, even at a lower indication that prey would become status under section 4 of the Act must rate, within and among areas of the limiting for wolves. In assessing climate also account for those efforts made by lower 48 United States should be change impacts to wildlife in the States, Tribes, or others to protect the adequate to maintain sufficient genetic northern Rocky Mountains, McKelvey species. Evaluating these efforts is diversity for continued viability. and Buotte (2018, p. 360) note that particularly important for the gray wolf Increased effects to smaller, peripheral wolves, because of their generalist, because the primary threat to their populations are certainly possible as adaptable life history, are not likely to viability is unregulated human-caused wolves continue to disperse and be strongly affected by climate. Despite mortality. States, Tribes, and Federal recolonize areas within their historical the likelihood of wolves being exposed land management agencies have range, but evidence of inbreeding to the effects of climate change, due to extensive authorities to regulate human- avoidance (vonHoldt et al. 2008, entire) their life history and plasticity or caused mortality of wolves. Below, we and the demonstrated benefits of even adaptability, we do not expect that gray evaluate ongoing State, Tribal, and relatively low numbers of effective wolves will be negatively impacted. For Federal management of wolves in the dispersers (Wayne and Hedrick 2011, a full discussion of potential impacts of recovered NRM DPS, as well as entire; Vila et al. 2003, entire; Akesson climate change on wolves, see the final anticipated State, Tribal, and Federal et al. 2016, entire) indicate that delisting rule for the gray wolf in management of wolves that we are instances of inbreeding depression Wyoming (77 FR 55597–55598, delisting in this final rule. Due to recent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69822 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

information confirming the presence of recovery levels into the foreseeable when there are 15 or more packs in a group of six wolves in extreme future (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). A Idaho to help mitigate conflicts with northwest Colorado, and their proximity similar determination was made for livestock producers or big game to and potential use of habitats within Wyoming in 2012 (77 FR 55530, populations. Utah, we include evaluations of the September 10, 2012). The three States The IDFG manages both ungulates Colorado Wolf Management agreed to manage above the recovery and carnivores, including wolves, to Recommendations and the Utah Wolf level, and to adapt their management maintain viable populations of each. Management Plan. strategies and adjust allowable rates of Ungulate harvest focuses on human-caused mortality should the maintaining sufficient prey populations Management in the NRM DPS population be reduced to near recovery to sustain quality hunting and healthy, As part of both the 2009 and 2012 levels per their management objectives. viable wolf and other carnivore delisting rules (74 FR 15123, April 2, State management has maintained wolf populations. In addition, the Mule Deer 2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10, numbers well above minimal recovery Initiative and the Clearwater Elk 2012), the Service determined that the levels and, combined with wolves’ Initiative were implemented in the mid- States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming reproductive and dispersal capabilities, 2000s to improve populations of both had laws, regulations, and management has maintained the recovered status of species. These improvements provide plans in place that met the requirements the NRM DPS. The State laws and benefits to carnivores and hunters. of the Act to maintain their respective management plans balance the level of Idaho’s regulatory framework of State wolf populations within the NRM DPS wolf mortality, primarily human-caused laws, wolf management plans, and above recovery levels into the mortality, with the wolf population implementing regulations maintains the foreseeable future. Similarly, Tribal and growth rate to achieve desired wolf population well above recovery Federal agency plans were also population objectives. Management by minimums, assuring maintenance of the determined to contribute to the recovery the NRM States maintains a robust wolf State’s numerical and distributional of the gray wolf in those States. In this population in each core recovery area share of a recovered NRM wolf section we provide a brief summary of because they each contain manmade or population well into the future. past and present management of gray natural refugia from human-caused Montana—In Montana, statutes and wolves in the NRM States of Idaho, mortality (e.g., National Parks, administrative rules categorize the gray Montana, and Wyoming. We also wilderness areas, and remote Federal wolf as a ‘‘Species in Need of include relevant updates to Tribal plans lands) that guarantee those areas remain Management’’ under the Montana that apply exclusively to the eastern the stronghold for wolf breeding pairs Nongame and Endangered Species one-third of both Washington and and source of dispersing wolves in each Conservation Act of 1973 (MCA 87–5– Oregon, areas previously delisted due to State. Similarly, State ungulate 101 to 87–5–123). Classification as a recovery. Other State and Federal management plans provide a ‘‘Species in Need of Management’’ and management that applies statewide in commitment to maintain ungulate the associated administrative rules Washington and Oregon is included in populations at densities that will under Montana State law create the the Post-delisting Management section continue to support a recovered wolf legal mechanism to protect wolves and of this final rule. Specific information population, as well as recreational regulate human-caused mortality on regulated harvest and other sources opportunities for the public, well into (including regulated public harvest) of human-caused mortality are the future. beyond the immediate defense of life/ described in the Human-Caused Idaho—Wolves in Idaho are managed property situations. Illegal human- Mortality section of this final rule. under the 2002 Idaho Wolf Conservation caused mortality is prosecuted under State law and regulations issued by State Management and Management Plan (IWCMP; Idaho Wolf Legislative Wolf Oversight Montana’s Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Before the delisting of wolves in the Committee 2002, entire). The gray wolf (MFWP) Commission. At present, the NRM DPS, it was long recognized that was classified as endangered by the MFWP Commission evaluates wolf the future conservation of a delisted State until March 2005, when the Idaho hunting regulations every other year to wolf population in the NRM depended Fish and Game Commission (IDFG allow for discussion of ungulate and almost solely on State regulation of Commission) reclassified the gray wolf wolf seasons at the same Commission human-caused mortality. In 1999, the as a big game animal (74 FR 15168, meeting (see Human-Caused Mortality Governors of Idaho, Montana, and April 2, 2009). Hunting and trapping are section of this final rule). Wyoming agreed that regional both legal means of taking gray wolves In August 2003, MFWP completed a coordination in wolf management throughout Idaho (IDFG 2017, p. 4). The Final EIS pursuant to the Montana planning among the States, Tribes, and IWCMP states that wolves will be Environmental Policy Act and other jurisdictions was necessary. They protected against illegal take as a big recommended that the Updated signed a memorandum of understanding game animal in Idaho (Idaho Wolf Advisory Council alternative be selected (MOU) to facilitate cooperation among Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee as Montana’s Final Gray Wolf the three States to develop adequate 2002, p. 19). Conservation and Management Plan State wolf management plans so that Under the IWCMP, IDFG is the (MFWP 2003, entire). The Record of delisting could proceed. In this primary manager of wolves, and as Decision (ROD) was amended in 2004, agreement, which was renewed in April such, will maintain a minimum of 15 to select the ‘‘Contingency’’ alternative 2002, all three States committed to packs of wolves to maintain a margin of to allow flexibility while wolves were maintain at least 10 breeding pairs and safety over the Service’s minimum still federally listed and to provide a 100 wolves per State. recovery target of 10 breeding pairs and transition to State management upon In 2009, the Service determined that 100 wolves. IDFG is committed to Federal delisting (MFWP 2004, entire). Idaho and Montana had State laws, managing wolves as a native species in Under the management plan, the wolf management plans, and regulations that the State to maintain a viable self- population is maintained above the met the requirements of the Act to sustaining population that will not recovery level of 10 breeding pairs and maintain their respective wolf require relisting under the Act. Public 100 wolves by managing for at least 15 populations within the NRM DPS above harvest is used as a management tool breeding pairs and 150 wolves. Wolves

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69823

are not deliberately confined to any jurisdictions, the Service agreed to share of a recovered NRM wolf specific geographic areas of Montana, allow WGFD to maintain a minimum of population well into the future. nor is the population size deliberately 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves Tribal Management and Conservation of capped at a specific level. However, within the WTGMA. Yellowstone Wolves wolf numbers and distribution are National Park (YNP) and the Wind River managed adaptively based on ecological Indian Reservation combined would In the NRM DPS, there are factors, wolf population status, conflict maintain at least 5 breeding pairs and 50 approximately 20 Tribes and about mitigation, and social tolerance. The wolves, so that the totality of 12,719 mi2 (32,942 km2) (3 percent) of plan and Administrative Rules commit Wyoming’s wolf population is managed the area is Tribal land. Of the Tribes MFWP to implement its management at or above 15 breeding pairs and 150 within the NRM DPS, the Wind River, framework in a manner that encourages wolves (which provides the buffer above Blackfeet, Flathead, and The connectivity among resident wolves in the 10 breeding pair and 100 wolf Confederated Tribes of the Colville Montana as well as wolf populations in recovery level). Further, Wyoming wolf Indian Reservations have wolf Canada, Idaho, and Wyoming to management regulations commit to the management plans. Currently, a small maintain metapopulation structure in management of wolves so that genetic number of wolf packs have their entire the NRM. Overall, wolf management diversity and connectivity issues do not territories on Tribal lands in the NRM includes population monitoring, routine threaten the population. To accomplish DPS. While Tribal lands provide habitat analysis of population health, this, WGFC Chapter 21 regulations for wolf packs in the NRM, these lands management in concert with prey provide for a seasonal expansion of the represent a small proportion of the populations, law enforcement, control WTGMA from October 15 through the overall recovered wolf population in the of domestic animal/human conflicts, end of February to facilitate natural NRM DPS. However, Tribes have implementation of a wolf-damage dispersal of wolves between Wyoming various treaty rights, such as wildlife mitigation and reimbursement program, and Idaho (WGFC 2011, figure 1, pp. 2, harvest, in areas of public land where research, information dissemination, 8, 52). many wolf packs live. The NRM States agreed to incorporate Tribal harvest into and public outreach. Wolves that are classified as predators their assessment of the potential surplus The MFWP has and will continue to are regulated by the Wyoming of wolves available for public harvest in manage wild ungulates according to Department of Agriculture under title each State, each year, to ensure that the Commission-approved policy direction 11, chapter 6 of the Wyoming Statutes. wolf population is maintained above and species management plans. MFWP Under this statute, wolves may be taken recovery levels. The exercise of Tribal strives to manage ungulates in a way year-round by any legal means without treaty rights to harvest wolves does not that continues to provide for a license, but any harvest must be significantly impact the wolf population recreational hunting opportunities yet reported to WGFD within 10 days of maintains sufficient prey to support the or reduce it below recovery levels due take. As we have previously concluded full suite of large carnivores in the State to the small portion of the wolf (73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR including a recovered wolf population. population that could be affected by The Montana wolf plan and 15123, April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, Tribal harvest or Tribal harvest rights. regulatory framework is designed to September 10, 2012), wolf packs are Specific information on regulated maintain a recovered wolf population unlikely to persist in portions of harvest and other sources of human- and minimize conflicts with other Wyoming where they are designated as caused mortality on Tribal lands are traditional activities in Montana’s predatory animals. However, the described in the Human-Caused landscape. Montana continues to WTGMA is large enough to support Mortality section of this final rule. implement the commitments it has Wyoming’s management goals and a Below we describe past and present made in its current laws, regulations, recovered wolf population. management of gray wolves on Tribal and wolf plan to provide the necessary To ensure the goal of at least 10 lands in the NRM States of Idaho, regulatory mechanisms to assure breeding pairs and at least 100 Montana, and Wyoming. We also maintenance of the State’s numerical individuals in the area directly under include relevant updates to Tribal plans and distributional share of a recovered State management is not inadvertently that apply exclusively to the eastern NRM wolf population well into the compromised, Wyoming maintains an one-third of both Washington and future. adequate buffer above minimum Oregon, areas previously delisted due to Wyoming—The Wyoming Game and population objectives. A large portion of recovery. Fish Department (WGFD) and Wyoming Wyoming’s wolf population exists in Wind River Indian Reservation—The Game and Fish Commission (WGFC) areas outside the State’s control (e.g., Wind River Indian Reservation (WRR) manage wolves under the 2011 YNP and the Wind River Indian typically contains a small number of Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan Reservation). The wolf populations in wolves relative to the remainder of (WGFC 2011, entire), as amended in YNP and the Wind River Indian Wyoming (approximately 10–20 wolves 2012 (WGFC 2012, entire). Under this Reservation further buffer the annually for the past 10 years). The plan, wolves in the northwestern population above the minimum WRR adopted a wolf management plan portion of the State are managed as recovery goal, ensuring the State meets in 2007 (Eastern Shoshone and Northern trophy game animals year-round in the the required management level of 15 Arapaho Tribes, 2007, entire) and Wolf Trophy Game Management Area breeding pairs and 150 wolves. updated it in 2008 (Eastern Shoshone (WTGMA), which encompasses The Wyoming wolf plan is used by and Northern Arapaho Tribes, 2008, approximately 15,000 mi2 (38,500 km2). WGFD and WGFC in setting annual entire). Wolves are managed as game Wolves are designated as predatory hunting quotas and limiting controllable animals on the Wind River Indian animals in the remainder of the State. sources of mortality (see Human-Caused Reservation (Eastern Shoshone and Wolf harvest in the WTGMA is Mortality section). Wyoming’s Northern Arapaho Tribes 2008, pp. 3, 9). regulated by WGFC Chapter 47 regulatory framework, including the The Eastern Shoshone and Northern regulations. Because wolf management wolf plan, State statutes, and Arapaho Tribes govern this area and the in northwest Wyoming falls under regulations, assures maintenance of the Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal Fish and different Federal, State, and Tribal State’s numerical and distributional Game Department manage wildlife on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69824 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

the WRR with assistance from the minimizing wolf-human conflict while Flathead Indian Reservation wolf plan Service’s Fish and Wildlife incorporating cultural values and beliefs does not specify maximum or minimum Conservation Office in Lander, (BTBC 2008, p. 3). For example, low population sizes. Rather it is driven by Wyoming. levels of conflict with a high wolf wolf behavior and the level of conflict. Wyoming claims management population will be tolerated without For example, low levels of conflict with authority of non-Indian fee title lands resulting in efforts to reduce the wolf a high wolf population will be tolerated and on Bureau of Reclamation lands population (BTBC 2008, p. 4). Lethal without efforts to reduce the wolf within the external boundaries of the control may be used for wolves that population (CSKT 2015, p. 9). Lethal WRR. Thus, wolves are classified as repeatedly kill livestock (BTBC 2008, control may be used for wolves that game animals within about 80 percent pp. 4–5). threaten human safety or kill livestock of the reservation and as predators on The objectives of the plan are: (1) or domestic animals (CSKT 2015, p. 9). the remaining 20 percent (Hnilicka in Provide training for Tribal game However, trapping and hunting of litt. 2020). To date, predator status has wardens and Blackfeet Fish and wolves is not part of the management had minimal impact on wolf Wildlife Department personnel; (2) plan, but it may be considered by the management and abundance on the incorporate culture and traditions into Tribal Council in the future (CSKT WRR because these inholdings tend to wolf management; (3) educate Blackfeet 2015, p. 9). be concentrated on the eastern side of Reservation residents on wolf biology, The Flathead Indian Reservation wolf the reservation in habitats that are less ecology, and management; (4) management plan will be reviewed at suitable for wolves (Eastern Shoshone investigate and resolve wolf-human the end of 5 years of implementation and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2008, p. 5, conflicts; (5) report and record wolf- (CSKT 2015, p. 15). We are not aware figure 1). human conflicts; (6) mitigate losses of any updates or revisions to the plan Under the plan, any enrolled member associated with wolf activity; (7) at this time. Management of wolves on can shoot a wolf in the act of attacking conduct effective monitoring of the wolf the Flathead Indian Reservation, in livestock or dogs on Tribal land, plan and revise as needed; and (8) coordination with State and Federal provided the enrolled member supplies collect wolf population status and agencies, is expected to continue to evidence of livestock or dogs recently health information (BTBC 2008, pp. 3– contribute to the long-term persistence (less than 24 hours) wounded, harassed, 4). These objectives appear to be of wolves in Montana. molested, or killed by wolves, and a consistent with the goal of the plan for Confederated Tribes of the Colville designated agent is able to confirm that long-term persistence of wolves on the Reservation—The Confederated Tribes the livestock or dogs were wounded, Blackfeet Reservation. of the Colville Reservation is located in harassed, molested, or killed by wolves Flathead Indian Reservation—The north-central Washington. At the end of (Eastern Shoshone and Northern Confederated Salish and Kootenai 2019, the minimum wolf count was 37 Arapaho Tribes 2008, p. 8). The plan Tribes Tribal Wildlife Management wolves in five packs on the Colville also allows the Tribal government to Program finalized a wolf management Reservation (WDFW et al. 2020, p. 3). remove ‘‘wolves of concern’’ defined as plan for the Flathead Indian Reservation The CCTFWD Gray Wolf Management wolves that attack livestock, dogs, or in western Montana in 2015 (CSKT Plan was finalized in 2017 and guides livestock herding and guarding animals 2015, entire). Wolf activity on the management and conservation of gray once in a calendar year or any domestic reservation is concentrated in the wolf populations and their prey on the animal twice in a calendar year (Eastern western half and southern boundary Colville Reservation (CCTFWD 2017, p. Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes (CSKT 2015, p. 7), with at least three 5). The goals of the plan include 2008, p. 8). packs using portions of the reservation. developing a strategy for maintaining As described above, the WRR alone is These wolves are included in totals viable wolf populations while also not considered essential to maintaining reported in Montana’s annual reports. maintaining healthy ungulate a recovered wolf population in The management of wolves is populations to support the cultural and Wyoming, but through cooperative coordinated with State and Federal subsistence needs of Tribal members management among the tribes, WGFD, agencies with the goal of long-term and their families (CCTFWD 2017, p. and YNP, the goal is to continue to persistence of wolves in Montana and 20). The plan also seeks to resolve wolf- maintain a recovered wolf population preventing the need for Federal livestock conflicts early to avoid into the future. relisting, while minimizing conflicts escalation (CCTFWD 2017, p. 24). Blackfeet Indian Reservation—Wolves between wolves and humans and Under the CCTFWD wolf plan, on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation adverse impacts to big game (CSKT management actions include: (1) exist on the Reservation’s western 2015, p. 8). Monitor gray wolf populations; (2) boundary, which has a high predicted The objectives of the plan are: (1) monitor ungulate response to gray wolf probability of use (MFWP 2019b, p. 8). Include cultural beliefs of Tribes into recolonization; (3) educate Tribal The Blackfeet Tribe Wolf Management wolf management; (2) develop members and general public about Plan was finalized in 2008 (BTBC 2008, management prescriptions with wolf wolves; (4) use population goals to entire). Wolves on the Blackfeet ecology and behavior in mind; (3) develop an annual harvest allocation; Reservation are classified as big game educate residents of the reservation on (5) investigate, document, provide animals and are managed by Blackfeet wolf ecology and management; (4) work support to reduce resource or property Fish and Wildlife Department similar to cooperatively with State and Federal damage; (6) report annual wolf other wildlife species on the reservation agencies to monitor and manage wolf management; (7) establish a wildlife (BTBC 2008, p. 4). The plan does not conflicts regionally; (5) monitor and parts distribution protocol; (8) specify maximum or minimum manage wolf impacts on ungulates; (6) coordinate on regional wolf population sizes. Rather it is driven by monitor, manage, and minimize wolf- management concerns; and (9) review wolf behavior and the level of conflict. livestock conflicts; and (7) include and/or modify Tribal Codes to actively The goal of the plan is to manage wolves human safety as a potential management manage gray wolves (CCTFWD 2017, on the Blackfeet Reservation in Montana concern (CSKT 2015, p. 8) pp. 30–32). to provide for their long-term Similar to management on the With the subsistence culture of the persistence. This is accomplished by Blackfeet Indian Reservation, the Colville Tribal members, the impacts of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69825

wolves on ungulate populations are an Wilderness Study Areas (which are a new advisory committee and use a important aspect of the plan (CCTFWD generally Forest Service lands), the public process to help inform the 2017, p. 20). As such, if wolves are Forest Service typically defers to States update. determined to be a significant source of on hunting decisions (16 U.S.C. 480, The Wisconsin Natural Resources reduced ungulate population growth, 528, 551, 1133; 43 U.S.C. 1732(b)). The Board approved the Wisconsin Wolf measures will be considered to preserve primary exception to this deference is Management Plan in October 1999. In the subsistence culture of Colville Tribal the Forest Service’s authority to identify 2004 and 2005 the Wisconsin Wolf Members (CCTFWD 2017, p. 22). areas and periods when hunting is not Science Advisory Committee and the Implementation of the CCTFWD gray permitted (43 U.S.C. 1732(b)). However, Wisconsin Wolf Stakeholders group wolf management plan promotes even these decisions must be developed reviewed the 1999 Plan, and the Science informed decision making to balance in consultation with the States. Thus, Advisory Committee subsequently the benefits wolf recovery and most State-authorized hunting occurs on developed updates and recommended maintenance of existing ungulate State and Federal public lands like modifications to the 1999 Plan. The populations that are important to National Forests, Wilderness Areas, and updates were completed and received Colville Tribal members. Wilderness Study Areas. Bureau of Land final Natural Resources Board approval on November 28, 2006 (WI DNR 2006a, Management on Federal Lands Management lands are managed similarly to Forest Service lands. This entire). Federal lands in the NRM States of final rule does not alter the current In late 1997, the Michigan Wolf Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are management on lands under the Recovery and Management Plan was primarily lands managed by National jurisdiction of the Forest Service or completed and received the necessary Park Service, National Wildlife Refuge Bureau of Land Management. The Forest State approvals. That plan focused on System, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau Service and Bureau of Land recovery of a small wolf population, of Land Management. Wolf management Management have a demonstrated rather than long-term management of a on these lands is similar to that capacity and a proven history of large wolf population, and addressing described previously in our 2009 and providing sufficient habitat for wildlife, the conflicts expected to result as a 2012 delisting rules (74 FR 15123, April including wolves and their prey, and consequence of successful wolf 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10, these lands will continue to be restoration. The Michigan Department 2012) and elsewhere in this final rule. adequately managed for multiple uses of Natural Resources (MI DNR) revised The National Park Service Organic including for the benefit of wildlife. its original wolf plan and created the Act and National Park Service policies 2008 Michigan Wolf Management Plan provide protection following Federal Summary of Management in the NRM in recognition of a shift in its focus from delisting for wolves located within park DPS the recovery of an endangered species to boundaries. Within National Park Past and ongoing State, Tribal, and the management of wolf–human System units, hunting is not allowed Federal management has provided, and conflicts. The 2008 plan addressed the unless the authorizing legislation continues to provide, long-term biological and social issues associated specifically provides for hunting. maintenance of the recovered NRM wolf with wolf management in Michigan at National Wildlife Refuges operate under population. Montana, Idaho, and that time. Since then, wolf management individual Comprehensive Conservation Wyoming implement wolf management in Michigan has continued to evolve, Plans, which guide their management. in a manner that also encourages and the MI DNR again updated its wolf- Hunting wolves is not allowed on connectivity among wolf populations management plan in 2015 (MI DNR National Wildlife Refuge lands (https:// (Groen et al. 2008, entire; WGFC 2011, 2015, entire). The 2015 updates reflect www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/map/). pp. 26–29, 52, 54; Talbott and Guertin the biological and social issues Wolves occurring in National Parks and 2012, entire). The coordination and associated with the increased on National Wildlife Refuges in the management of wolves above population size and distribution of NRM States are monitored in population targets by State, Tribal, and wolves in the State, although the four coordination with the wildlife agencies Federal agencies provides protections principal goals of the 2008 plan remain in those States. Some wolves in the same. The complete text of the against potential unforeseen or protected areas, such as National Park Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota uncontrollable sources of mortality such Service land or the National Wildlife wolf-management plans can be found on that they do not compromise the gray Refuge System, may be vulnerable to our website (see FOR FURTHER wolf’s recovered status in the NRM. hunting and other forms of human- INFORMATION CONTACT). caused mortality when they leave these Post-Delisting Management The following sections discuss the Federal land management units. individual state management plans and Overall, National Park Service and State Management in Minnesota, depredation control that took place National Refuge Lands manage their Wisconsin, and Michigan while gray wolves were listed in the lands in such a way to provide During the 2000 legislative session, State, as well as expected post-delisting sufficient habitat for wildlife, including the Minnesota Legislature passed wolf- depredation control and potential wolves and their prey, and these lands management provisions addressing wolf public harvest. Wolves have also been will continue to be adequately managed protection, taking of wolves, and removed for health and human safety for multiple uses including for the directing the Minnesota Department of concerns while they were listed. The benefit of wildlife. Natural Resources (MN DNR) to prepare number of wolves taken for this purpose Federal law indicates land managed a wolf-management plan. The MN DNR is few in any given year, however, thus by the Forest Service and the Bureau of revised a 1999 draft wolf-management it will not be discussed for individual Land management shall be managed to plan to reflect the legislative action of state summaries. provide habitat for fish and wildlife. 2000, and completed the Minnesota The Minnesota Wolf Management Wilderness areas are afforded the Wolf Management Plan in early 2001 Plan—The Minnesota Plan is based, in highest protections of all Forest Service (MN DNR 2001, entire). The MN DNR part, on the recommendations of a State lands. Within Forest Service lands, plans to update the Wolf Management wolf-management roundtable (MN DNR including Wilderness Areas and Plan in the near future, and will create 2001, Appendix V) and on a State wolf-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69826 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

management law enacted in 2000 (MN (approximately 57,000 mi2 (147,600 for livestock losses has increased to the DNR 2001, Appendix I). In 2000, the km2)) (MN DNR 2001, pp. 19–20 and full market value of the animal, Minnesota legislature passed the Wolf appendix III; USFWS 1992, p. 72). replacing previous caps of $400 and Management Act (Minn. Stat. sections Within Zone A, wolves would receive $750 per animal (MN DNR 2001, p. 24). 97B.645–48). That statute specifically strong protection by the State, unless We do not expect the State’s efforts to requires the MN DNR to adopt a wolf they were involved in attacks on result in the reduction of illegal take of management plan that includes, among domestic animals. The rules governing wolves from existing levels, but we other factors, the goal of ensuring the the take of wolves to protect domestic anticipate that these measures will help ‘‘long-term survival of wolves in animals in Zone B would be less prevent a significant increase in illegal Minnesota.’’ It requires preparation of a protective of wolves than in Zone A (see mortality after Federal delisting. wolf management plan, establishes gray Post-delisting Depredation Control in Under Minnesota law, the illegal wolf zones, prohibits the taking of Minnesota, below). wolves in violation of Federal law, The Minnesota Department of Natural killing of a wolf is a gross misdemeanor prohibits the harassment of gray wolves, Resources plans to allow wolf numbers and is punishable by a maximum fine of and authorizes the destruction of and distribution to naturally expand, $3,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 individual wolves threatening human with no maximum population goal. If year. The restitution value of an illegally life and posing imminent threats to any winter population estimate is below killed wolf is $2,000 (MN DNR 2001, p. cattle or domestic pets. Finally, the Act 1,600 wolves, MN DNR would take 29). The MN DNR has designated three establishes a civil penalty for the actions to ‘‘assure recovery’’ to 1,600 conservation officers who are stationed unlawful take, transport, or possession wolves (MN DNR 2001 p. 19). The MN in the State’s wolf range as the lead of a wolf in violation of Minnesota’s DNR plans to continue to monitor officers for implementing the wolf- game and fish laws. The Wolf wolves in Minnesota to determine management plan (MN DNR 2001, pp. Management Act and the Minnesota whether such intervention is necessary. 29, 32; Stark in litt. 2018). Game and Fish Laws constitute the basis In response to the 2011 delisting of the Depredation Control in Minnesota— of the State’s authority to manage WGL DPS, in 2013 the MN DNR Although federally protected as a wolves. The Plan’s stated goal is ‘‘to increased the frequency of population threatened species in Minnesota, wolves ensure the long-term survival of wolves surveys from every 5 years to every year. that attacked domestic animals have in Minnesota while addressing wolf– Although the agency is evaluating wolf- been killed by designated government human conflicts that inevitably result monitoring methods and optimal employees under the authority of a when wolves and people live in the frequencies, in the short term it plans to regulation (50 CFR 17.40(d)) under same vicinity’’ (MN DNR 2001, p. 2). It continue annual population-size section 4(d) of the Act. However, no establishes a minimum goal of 1,600 estimates. In addition to these statewide control of depredating wolves was wolves in the State. Key components of population surveys, MN DNR annually allowed in Federal Wolf Management the plan are population monitoring and reviews data on depredation-incident Zone 1, comprising about 4,500 mi2 management, management of wolf frequency and locations provided by (7,200 km2) in extreme northeastern depredation of domestic animals, Wildlife Services and winter track- Minnesota (USFWS 1992, p. 72). In management of wolf prey, enforcement survey indices (see Erb 2008, entire) to Federal Wolf Management Zones 2 of laws regulating take of wolves, public help ascertain annual trends in wolf through 5, employees or agents of the education, and increased staffing to population or range (MN DNR 2001, pp. Service (including USDA–APHIS– accomplish these actions. Following 18–19). Wildlife Services) have taken wolves in Federal delisting, MN DNR’s Minnesota (MN DNR 2001, pp. 21–24, response to depredations of domestic management of wolves would differ 27–28) plans to reduce or control illegal animals within one-half mile (0.8 km) of from that which occurred while wolves mortality of wolves through education, the depredation site. Young-of-the-year were listed as threatened under the Act. increased enforcement of the State’s (young produced in one reproductive Most of these differences relate to two wolf laws and regulations, discouraging year) captured on or before August 1 aspects of wolf management: The new road access in some areas, and must be released. The regulations that control of wolves that attack or threaten maintaining a depredation-control allow for this take (50 CFR domestic animals and the program that includes compensation for 17.40(d)(2)(i)(C)) do not specify a implementation of a regulated wolf livestock losses. The MN DNR plans to harvest season. use a variety of methods to encourage maximum duration for depredation The Minnesota Plan divides the State and support education of the public control, but, per State rules, a site may into two wolf-management zones— about the effects of wolves on livestock, be worked for no more than 60 days Zones A and B (see map in MN DNR wild ungulate populations, and human after a verified depredation event. 2001, Appendix 3). Zone A corresponds activities and the history and ecology of During the period from 1980–2018, to Federal Wolf Management Zones 1 wolves in the State (MN DNR 2001, pp. the Federal Minnesota wolf- through 4 (approximately 30,000 mi2 29–30). These are all measures that have depredation-control program euthanized (77,700 km2) in northeastern Minnesota) been in effect for years in Minnesota, between 20 (in 1982) and 215 (in 2012) in the Service’s Revised Recovery Plan although increased enforcement of State wolves annually. The annual averages for the Eastern Timber Wolf, whereas laws against take of wolves would and the percentage of the statewide wolf Zone B constitutes Zone 5 in that replace enforcement of the Act’s take population for 5-year periods are recovery plan (the rest of the State prohibitions. Financial compensation presented in table 4.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69827

TABLE 4—AVERAGE ANNUAL NUMBER OF WOLVES EUTHANIZED UNDER MINNESOTA WOLF DEPREDATION CONTROL AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE STATEWIDE WOLF POPULATION FOR 5 YEAR PERIODS DURING 1980–2017 [Final time period represents 4, rather than 5 years]

1980–1984 1985–1989 1990–1994 1995–1999 2000–2004 2005–2009 2010–2014 2015–2018

Average annual # wolves euthanized ...... 30 49 115 152 128 157 194 194 Average annual % of wolf popu- lation ...... 2.2 3.0 6.0 6.7 4.2 5.4 7.6 7.5 (Erb 2008, p. 4; USDA–Wildlife Services 2010, p. 3; USDA–Wildlife Services 2011, p. 3; USDA–Wildlife Services 2017, p. 3; USDA–Wildlife Services 2018, p. 2).

Since 1980, the lowest annual A and B, as discussed above. The Services 2010, p. 3). There are few percentage of Minnesota wolves killed statewide survey conducted during the livestock in Zone 1; therefore, the under this program was 1.5 percent in winter of 2003–2004 estimated that number of verified future depredation 1982; the highest percentage was 9.4 in there were approximately 2,570 wolves incidents in that Zone is expected to be both 1997 and 2015 (Paul 2004, pp. 2– in Zone A and 450 in Zone B (Erb in litt. low, resulting in a correspondingly low 7; Paul 2006, p. 1; USDA–Wildlife 2005). As discussed in Recovery Criteria number of depredating wolves being Services 2017, p. 3; USDA–Wildlife for the Eastern United States above, the killed there after delisting. Services 2018, p. 2). The periods during Federal planning goal is 1,251–1,400 State law and the Minnesota Plan will which the depredation-control program wolves for Zones 1–4 and there is no also allow for private wolf depredation was taking its highest percentages of minimum population goal for Zone 5 control throughout the State. Any wolves was during the 1990s and the (USFWS 1992, p. 28). person can shoot or destroy a wolf that 2010s. During the 1990s, when wolves In Zone A, wolf depredation control poses ‘‘an immediate threat’’ to euthanized for depredation control will be limited to situations of (1) livestock, guard animals, or domestic averaged around 6 percent of the wolf immediate threat and (2) following animals on lands that he or she owns, population, Minnesota wolf numbers verified loss of domestic animals. In this leases, or occupies. Immediate threat is continued to grow at an average annual zone, if a state-authorized entity verifies defined as ‘‘in the act of stalking, rate of nearly 4 percent (Paul 2004, pp. that a wolf destroyed any livestock, attacking, or killing.’’ This does not 2–7). Wolf populations in the State domestic animal, or pet, and if the include trapping because traps cannot fluctuated during the 2010s, when owner requests wolf control be be placed in a manner such that they wolves euthanized for depredation implemented, trained and certified trap only wolves in the act of stalking, control averaged around 7 percent of the predator controllers or Wildlife Services attacking, or killing. Owners of domestic wolf population. Although wolf may take wolves (specific number to be pets can also kill wolves posing an populations in the State did decline determined on a case-by-case basis) immediate threat to pets under their while wolves were delisted from 2011– within a 1-mile (1.6-km) radius of the supervision on lands that they do not 2014, other management techniques in depredation site (depredation-control own or lease, although such actions are addition to depredation control were area) for up to 60 days. In contrast, in subject to local ordinances, trespass law, also implemented during that time (e.g., Zone B, predator controllers or Wildlife and other applicable restrictions. To regulated harvest), aimed at reducing Services may take wolves (specific protect their domestic animals in Zone wolf numbers while maintaining a number to be determined on a case-by- B, individuals do not have to wait for minimum population level. The past case basis) for up to 214 days after MN an immediate threat or a depredation level of wolf removal for depredation DNR opens a depredation-control area, incident in order to take wolves. At any control has not interfered with wolf depending on the time of year. Under time in Zone B, persons who own, lease, recovery in Minnesota. State law, the MN DNR may open a or manage lands may shoot wolves on Under a Minnesota statute, the control area in Zone B anytime within those lands to protect livestock, Minnesota Department of Agriculture 5 years of a verified depredation loss domestic animals, or pets. They may (MDA) compensates livestock owners upon request of the landowner, thereby also employ a predator controller or for full market value of livestock that providing more of a preventative request assistance from Wildlife wolves have killed or severely injured. approach than is allowed in Zone A, in Services to trap a wolf on their land or An authorized investigator must order to avoid repeat depredation within 1 mile (1.6 km) of their land confirm that wolves were responsible incidents (MN DNR 2001, p. 22). (with permission of the landowner) to for the depredation. The Minnesota Depredation control will be allowed protect their livestock, domestic statute also requires MDA to throughout Zone A, which includes an animals, or pets (MN DNR 2001, pp. 23– periodically update its Best area (Federal Wolf Management Zone 1) 24). The MN DNR will investigate any Management Practices to incorporate where such control has not been private taking of wolves in Zone A (MN new practices that it finds would reduce permitted under the Act’s protection. DNR 2001, p. 23). The Minnesota Plan wolf depredation (Minnesota Statutes Depredation by wolves in Zone 1, will also allow persons to harass wolves 2018, Section 3.737, subdivision 5). however, has been limited to two to four anywhere in the State within 500 yards Post-delisting Depredation Control in reported incidents per year, mostly of of ‘‘people, buildings, dogs, livestock, or Minnesota—When wolves in Minnesota wolves killing dogs. In 2009, there was other domestic pets or animals.’’ are delisted, depredation control will be one probable and one verified Harassment may not include physical authorized under Minnesota State law depredation of a dog near Ely, injury to a wolf. and conducted in conformance with the Minnesota, and in 2010, Wildlife As discussed above, landowners or Minnesota Wolf Management Plan (MN Services confirmed three dogs killed by lessees will be allowed to respond to DNR 2001). The Minnesota Plan divides wolves in Zone 1 (USDA–Wildlife situations of immediate threat by the State into Wolf Management Zones Services 2009, p. 3; USDA–Wildlife shooting wolves in the act of stalking,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69828 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

attacking, or killing livestock or other wolf population in Zone A, the majority 97B.645 Subd. 9). Following Federal domestic animals in Zone A. We of wolf range in Minnesota. Significant delisting, the 2012 Legislature conclude that this action is not likely to changes in wolf depredation control established wolf hunting and trapping result in the killing of many additional under State management will primarily licenses, clarified the authority for the wolves, as opportunities to shoot wolves be restricted to Zone B, which is outside MN DNR to implement a wolf season, ‘‘in the act’’ will likely be few and of the area necessary for wolf recovery and required the start of the season to difficult to successfully accomplish, a (USFWS 1992, pp. 20, 28). Furthermore, be no later than the start of firearms deer conclusion shared by a highly wolves are highly likely to persist in season each year. Three regulated experienced wolf-depredation agent Zone B despite the likely increased take harvest seasons (in 2012, 2013, and (Paul in litt. 2006, p. 5). there. With respect to Zone A, the 2014) were subsequently implemented State law and the Minnesota Plan will Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team in the State while wolves were federally provide broad authority to landowners concluded that the changes in wolf delisted. The harvest was divided into and land managers to shoot wolves at management would be ‘‘minor’’ and three segments: An early hunting season any time to protect their livestock, pets, would not likely result in ‘‘significant that coincided with the firearms deer or other domestic animals on land change in overall wolf numbers.’’ They season, a late hunting season, and a owned, leased, or managed by the found that, despite an expansion of the concurrent late trapping season. In individual in Zone B (as described individual depredation-control areas, 2012, the MN DNR established a total above). Such takings can occur in the depredation control would remain ‘‘very target harvest of 400 wolves (the close absence of wolf attacks on the domestic localized’’ in Zone A. The requirement of the harvest season is to be initiated animals. Thus, the estimated 450 wolves that such depredation-control activities when that target is met) (Stark and Erb in Zone B could be subject to substantial be conducted only in response to 2013, pp. 1–2). During that first reduction in numbers. At the extreme, verified wolf depredation in Zone A regulated season, 413 wolves were wolves could be eliminated from Zone played a key role in the team’s harvested. Based on the results of the B, but this is highly unlikely—the evaluation (Peterson in litt. 2001). While 2012 harvest season, the MN DNR Minnesota Plan states that ‘‘Although wolves were under State management in adjusted the target to 220 wolves for depredation procedures will likely 2007 and 2008, the number of wolves 2013; that year 238 wolves were result in a larger number of wolves killed for depredation control (133 harvested. The 2014 target harvest was killed, as compared to previous ESA wolves in 2007 and 143 wolves in 2008) 250 wolves and 272 were harvested. management, they will not result in the remained consistent with those killed The Minnesota management plan elimination of wolves from Zone B.’’ under the special regulation under requires that population-management (MN DNR 2001, pp. 22–23). While section 4(d) of the Act while wolves measures be implemented in such a way wolves were under State management in were federally listed (105 in 2004; 134 to maintain a statewide late-winter wolf 2007–2008 and in 2011–2014, in 2005; and 122 in 2006). The number population of at least 1,600 animals landowners in Zone B shot six and eight of wolves killed for depredation control (MN DNR 2001, pp. 19–20), well above wolves under this authority, while wolves were under State the planning goal of 1,251 to 1,400 respectively. Fourteen additional management for the second time (2011– wolves for the State in the Revised wolves were trapped and euthanized in 2014) was slightly higher (203 wolves in Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, p. 28). Zone B by State-certified predator 2011; 262 in 2012; 114 in 2013; and 197 Therefore, we expect the management controllers and Wildlife Services, 1 in in 2014) than during 2007 and 2008, but measures implemented under that 2009, and 13 in 2013 (Stark in litt. 2009; was still consistent with those killed requirement will ensure the wolf’s Stark in litt. 2018). under section 4(d) in the surrounding continued survival in Minnesota. The limitation of this broad take years (192 wolves in 2010 and 213 in The Wisconsin Wolf Management authority to Zone B is fully consistent 2015). Plan—The Wisconsin Plan allows for with the advice in the Revised Recovery Minnesota will continue to monitor differing levels of protection and Plan that wolves should be restored to wolf populations throughout the State management within four separate the rest of Minnesota but not to Zone B and will also monitor all depredation- management zones (see WI DNR 2006a, (Federal Zone 5) (USFWS 1992, p. 20). control activities in Zone A (MN DNR figure 8). The Northern Forest Zone The Revised Recovery Plan for the 2001, p. 18). We expect that these and (Zone 1) and the Central Forest Zone Eastern Timber Wolf envisioned that the other activities contained in their plan (Zone 2) contain most of the State’s wolf Minnesota numerical planning goal will be effective in meeting their population, with approximately 6 would be achieved solely in Zone A population goal of a minimum statewide percent of the Wisconsin wolves in (Federal Zones 1–4) (USFWS 1992, p. winter population of 1,600 wolves, well Zones 3 and 4 (Wydeven and 28), and that has occurred. Wolves above the planning goal of 1,251 to Wiedenhoeft 2009, table 1). Zones 1 and outside of Zone A are not necessary to 1,400 wolves that the Revised Recovery 2 contain all the larger unfragmented the establishment and long-term Plan identifies as sufficient to ensure areas of suitable habitat, so we viability of a self-sustaining wolf the wolf’s continued survival in anticipate that most of the State’s wolf population in the State, and, therefore, Minnesota (USFWS 1992, p. 28). packs will continue to inhabit those there is no need to establish or maintain Post-delisting Regulated Harvest in parts of Wisconsin. At the time the 1999 a wolf population in Zone B. Minnesota—The Minnesota Department Wisconsin Plan was completed, it Accordingly, there is no need to of Natural Resources will consider wolf recommended immediate maintain significant protection for population-management measures, reclassification from State-endangered wolves in Zone B in order to maintain including public hunting and trapping to State-threatened status, because a Minnesota wolf population that seasons and other methods, when Wisconsin’s wolf population had continues to satisfy the Federal recovery wolves are federally delisted. In 2011, already exceeded its reclassification criteria after Federal delisting. the Minnesota Legislature authorized criterion of 80 wolves for 3 years; thus, This expansion of depredation-control the MN DNR to implement a wolf State reclassification occurred that same activities would not threaten the season following the Federal delisting year. continued survival of wolves in the and classified wolves as small game in The Wisconsin Plan contains a State or the long-term viability of the State statute (Minnesota Statutes 2018 management goal of 350 wolves outside

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69829

of Native American reservations, and collars and winter track surveys in order citizen stakeholder involvement in the specifies that the species should be to provide comparable annual data to wolf-management program, and delisted by the State once the assess population size and growth for at coordination with the Tribes in wolf population reaches 250 animals outside least 5 years after Federal delisting. The management and investigation of illegal of reservations. The species was Wisconsin Plan also includes a killings (WI DNR 1999, pp. 24, 28–29; proposed for State delisting in late 2003, hierarchical approach to wolf health 2006a, pp. 22–23). and the State delisting process was monitoring that is predicated on the Depredation Control in Wisconsin— completed in 2004. Upon State species’ conservation status. Following Lethal depredation control has not been delisting, the species was classified as a Federal delisting, the Wisconsin DNR authorized in Wisconsin (due to the ‘‘protected nongame species,’’ a will assume responsibility for all health listed status of wolves there as designation that continues State monitoring, which will include endangered) except for several years prohibitions on sport hunting and examination of all dead wolves found, when such control was authorized trapping of the species (Wydeven and necropsy of suspicious deaths to under a permit from the Service or Jurewicz 2005, p. 1; WI DNR 2006b, p. identify the mortality agent responsible, while wolves were delisted under 71). The Wisconsin Plan includes and health monitoring of wild wolves previous actions. The rapidly expanding criteria for when State relisting to captured for research purposes in Wisconsin wolf population has resulted threatened (a decline to fewer than 250 coordination with the Wisconsin DNR in an increased need for depredation wolves for 3 years) or endangered status Wildlife Health Team (WI DNR 2006a, control, however. From 1979 through (a decline to fewer than 80 wolves for p. 13). The 2006 update to the 1989, there were only five cases (an 1 year) should be considered. The Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan did average of 0.4 per year) of verified wolf Wisconsin Plan will be reviewed not change the WI DNR’s commitment depredations in Wisconsin, but the annually by the Wisconsin Wolf to annual wolf population monitoring, number of incidents has steadily Advisory Committee and will be and ensures accurate and comparable increased over the subsequent decades. reviewed by the public every 5 years. data (WI DNR 1999, pp. 19–20). During the 1990s there were an average The Wisconsin Plan was updated Cooperative habitat management will of approximately 4 incidents per year, between 2004 and 2006 to reflect be promoted with public and private increasing to an average of current wolf numbers, additional landowners to maintain existing road approximately 38 per year during the knowledge, and issues that have arisen densities in Zones 1 and 2, protect wolf 2000s and to an average of since its 1999 completion. This update dispersal corridors, and manage forests approximately 69 per year since 2010 was not a major revision; rather, it for deer and beaver (WI DNR 1999, pp. (WI DNR data files and summary of wolf included text changes, revisions to two 4, 22–23; 2006a, pp. 15–17). survey and depredation reports). appendices, and the addition of a new Furthermore, in Zone 1, a year-round A significant portion of depredation appendix to the 1999 plan. Several prohibition on tree harvest within 330 incidents in Wisconsin involve attacks components of the plan that are key to feet (100 m) of active den sites and on dogs. In most cases, these have been our delisting evaluation were not seasonal restrictions to reduce hunting dogs that were being used for, changed. The State wolf-management disturbance within one-half mile (0.8 or being trained for, hunting bears, goal of 350 animals and the boundaries km) of dens will be WI DNR policy on bobcats, coyotes, and snowshoe hare of the four wolf-management zones public lands and will be encouraged on (Ruid et al. 2009, pp. 285–286). It is remain the same as in the 1999 Plan. private lands (WI DNR 1999, p. 23; believed that the dogs entered the The updated 2006 Plan continues to 2006a, p. 17). territory of a wolf pack and may have recommend access management on The 1999 Wisconsin Plan contains, been close to a den, rendezvous site, or public lands and the protection of active and the 2006 update retains, other feeding location, thus triggering an den sites. Protection of pack-rendezvous components that will protect wolves attack by wolves defending their sites, however, is no longer considered and help maintain a viable wolf territory or pups. The frequency of necessary in areas where wolves have population in the State following attacks on hunting dogs has increased as become well established, due to the delisting. Namely, the plan: (1) the State’s wolf population has grown. transient nature of these sites and the Continues the protection of the species Of the 206 dogs killed by wolves during larger wolf population. The updated as a ‘‘protected wild animal’’ with the 25 years from 1986–2010, more than Plan states that rendezvous sites may penalties similar to those for unlawfully 80 percent occurred during the period need protection in areas where wolf killing large game species (fines of up to from 2001–2010, with an average of 17 colonization is still under way or where $1,000–$2,000 and possible loss of dogs killed annually during that 10-year pup survival is extremely poor, such as hunting privileges for 3 years); (2) period (WI DNR files). Data on in northeastern Wisconsin (WI DNR requires State permits to possess a wolf depredations from 2013 to 2017 show a 2006a, p. 17). The guidelines for the or wolf–dog hybrid; and (3) establishes continued increase in wolf attacks on wolf depredation-control program (see a restitution value to be levied in dogs, with an average of 23 dogs killed Post-delisting Depredation Control in addition to fines and other penalties for annually (with a high of 41 dogs in Wisconsin) did not undergo significant wolves that are illegally killed (WI DNR 2016). While the WI DNR compensates alteration during the update process. 1999, pp. 21, 27, 30–31; 2006a, dog owners for mortalities and injuries The only substantive change to pp. 3–4). to their dogs, the DNR takes no action depredation-control practices is to The 2006 update of the Wisconsin against the depredating pack unless the expand the area of depredation-control Plan continues to emphasize the need attack was on a dog that was leashed, trapping in Zones 1 and 2 to 1 mi (1.6 for public education efforts that focus confined, or under the owner’s control km) outward from the depredation site, on living with a recovered wolf on the owner’s land. Instead, the WI replacing the previous 0.5-mi (0.8-km) population, ways to manage wolves and DNR issues press releases to warn bear radius trapping zone (WI DNR 2006a, wolf–human conflicts, and the hunters and bear-dog trainers of the pp. 3–4). ecosystem role of wolves. The Plan areas where wolf packs have been An important component of the implements the State law requiring attacking bear dogs (WI DNR 2008, p. 5) Wisconsin Plan is the annual reimbursement for depredation losses and provides maps and advice to monitoring of wolf populations by radio (including dogs and missing calves), hunters on the WI DNR website (see

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69830 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Wildlife losses of domestic animals and for a 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act for Wisconsin and Habitat/wolf/dogdeps.html). portion of documented missing calves Michigan. Under those authorities, WI During the first periods that wolves (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23). The DNR and Wildlife Services trapped and were federally delisted in Wisconsin compensation is made at full market euthanized 17 wolves in 2003; 24 in (from March 2007 through September value of the animal (up to a limit of 2004; 29 in 2005; 18 in 2006; 37 in 2007; 2008 and from April through early July $2,500 for dogs) and can include 39 in 2008; 9 in 2009; and 16 in 2010 2009), 92 wolves were killed for veterinarian fees for the treatment of (WI DNR 2006a, p. 32; Wydeven et al. depredation control in the State, injured animals (WI DNR 2006c 12.54). 2009a, pp. 6–7; Wydeven et al. 2010, p. including 8 legally shot by private Current Wisconsin law requires the 15; Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 3). landowners (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft continuation of the compensation Although these lethal control 2008, p. 8; Wydeven et al. 2009b, p. 6; payment for wolf depredation regardless authorities applied to WI DNR for only Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 13). When of Federal listing or delisting of the a portion of 2003 (April through wolves were again delisted from January species (WI DNR 2006c 12.50). In recent December) and 2005 (all of January for 2012 through December 2014, years, annual depredation compensation both States; April 1 and April 19, for depredation control resulted in 164 payments have ranged from $91,000 Wisconsin and Michigan respectively, wolves being killed, including 38 legally (2009) to $256,000 (2017). From 1985 through September 13), they covered shot by private landowners (McFarland through April 2018, the WI DNR had nearly all of the verified wolf and Wiedenhoeft 2013, p. 9; spent over $2,378,000 on depredations during 2003–2005, and Wiedenhoeft et al, 2014, p. 10; reimbursement for damage caused by thus provide a reasonable measure of Wiedenhoeft et al. 2015, p. 10). wolves in the State, with 60 percent of annual lethal depredation control. For Post-delisting Depredation Control in that total spent over the last 10 years 2003, 2004, and 2005, this represents Wisconsin—Following Federal (since 2009) (https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/ 5.1 percent, 6.4 percent, 7.4 percent delisting, wolf depredation control in wildlifehabitat/wolf/documents/ (including the several possible wolf–dog Wisconsin will be carried out according WolfDamagePayments.pdf). hybrids), respectively, of the late-winter to the 2006 Updated Wisconsin Wolf For depredation incidents in population of Wisconsin wolves during Management Plan (WI DNR 2006a, pp. Wisconsin Zones 1 through 3, where all the previous winter. This level of lethal 19–23), Guidelines for Conducting wolf packs currently reside, wolves may depredation control was followed by a Depredation Control on Wolves in be trapped by Wildlife Services or WI wolf population increase of 11 percent Wisconsin Following Federal Delisting DNR personnel and, if feasible, from 2003 to 2004, 17 percent from 2004 (WI DNR 2014c). The 2006 updates did translocated and released at a point to 2005, and 7 percent from 2005 to not significantly change the 1999 State distant from the depredation site. If 2006 (Wydeven and Jurewicz 2005, p. 5; Plan, and the State wolf management wolves are captured adjacent to an Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 10). Limited goal of 350 wolves outside of Indian Indian reservation or a large block of lethal-control authority was granted to reservations (WI DNR 2006a, p. 3) is public land, the animals may be WI DNR for 3.5 months in 2006 by a unchanged. Verification of wolf translocated locally to that area. Long- section 10 permit, resulting in removal depredation incidents will continue to distance translocating of depredating of 18 wolves (3.9 percent of the winter be conducted by U.S. Department of wolves has become increasingly wolf population) (Wydeven et al. 2007, Agriculture–Animal and Plant Health difficult in Wisconsin and is likely to be p. 7). Inspection Service–Wildlife Services used infrequently in the future as long Lethal depredation control was again (hereafter Wildlife Services), working as the off-reservation wolf population is authorized in the State while wolves under a Cooperative Service Agreement above 350 animals. In most wolf- were delisted in 2007 (9.5 months) and with WI DNR, or at the request of a depredation cases where technical 2008 (9 months). During those times, 40 Tribe, depending on the location of the assistance and nonlethal methods of and 43 wolves, respectively, were killed suspected depredation incident. If behavior modification are judged to be for depredation control (by Wildlife determined to be a confirmed or ineffective, wolves will be shot or Services or by legal landowner action), probable depredation by a wolf or trapped and euthanized by Wildlife representing 7 and 8 percent of the late- wolves, one or more of several options Services or WI DNR personnel. winter population of Wisconsin wolves will be implemented to address the Trapping and euthanizing will be during the previous year. This level of depredation problem. These options conducted within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius lethal depredation control was followed include technical assistance, loss of the depredation in Zones 1 and 2, and by a wolf population increase of 0.5 compensation to landowners, within a 5-mi (8-km) radius in Zone 3. percent from 2007 to 2008, and 12 translocating or euthanizing problem There is no distance limitation for percent from 2008 to 2009 (Wydeven wolves, implementation of nonlethal depredation-control trapping in Zone 4, and Wiedenhoeft 2008, pp. 19–22; management methods, and private and all wolves trapped in Zone 4 will Wydeven et al. 2009a, p. 6). Authority landowner or agency control of problem be euthanized, rather than translocated for lethal control on depredating wolves wolves in some circumstances (WI DNR (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23). occurred for only 2 months in 2009. 2006a, pp. 3–4, 20–22). Full authority to conduct lethal During that time, eight wolves were Technical assistance, consisting of depredation control has not been euthanized for depredation control by advice or recommendations to prevent allowed in Wisconsin (due to the listed Wildlife Services, and one wolf was or reduce further wolf conflicts, will be status of the wolf as an endangered shot by a landowner; additionally, later provided. This may also include species) except for short periods of time. in 2009 after relisting, a wolf was providing the landowner with various So we have evaluated post-delisting captured and euthanized by Wildlife forms of noninjurious behavior- lethal depredation control based upon Services for human safety concerns modification materials, such as flashing verified depredation incidents over the (Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 15). Thus in lights, noise makers, temporary fencing, last decade and the impacts of the 2009, 10 wolves, or 2 percent of the and fladry (a string of flags used to implementation of similar lethal control winter wolf population, were removed contain or exclude wild animals). of depredating wolves under 50 CFR in control activities. Monetary compensation is also 17.40(d) for Minnesota, § 17.40(o) for In 2010, authority for lethal control of provided for all verified and probable Wisconsin and Michigan, and section wolves depredating livestock was not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69831

available in Wisconsin, but 16 wolves or property within the last 2 years; (2) implementing and evaluating localized 2 percent of the winter population were landowners within 1 mile (1.6 km) of control actions (Wydeven 2006, pers. removed for human-safety concerns properties with verified wolf comm.). We are confident that the (Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 3). The depredations during the calendar year; number of wolves killed by these Wisconsin wolf population in winter (3) landowners with vulnerable actions will not affect the long-term 2010–2011 grew to 687 wolves, an livestock within WI DNR-designated viability of the Wisconsin wolf increase of 8 percent from the wolf proactive control areas; (4) landowners population, because generally less than population in winter 2009–2010 with human safety concerns on their 15 percent of packs cause depredations (Wydeven et al. 2010, pp. 12–13). When property; and (5) landowners with that will initiate such controls, and wolves were again delisted from January verified harassment of livestock on their ‘‘proactive’’ controls will be carried out 2012 through December 2014, a total of property (WI DNR 2008, p. 8). Limits on only if the State’s late-winter wolf 164 wolves were killed under the number of wolves that could be population exceeds 350 animals outside authorized lethal depredation control killed will be based on the estimated Indian reservations. (McFarland and Wiedenhoeft 2013, p. 9; number of wolves in the pack causing The State’s current guidelines for Wiedenhoeft et al. 2014, p. 10; depredation problems. conducting depredation-control actions Wiedenhoeft et al. 2015, p. 10). It is During the 19 months in 2007 and say that no control trapping would be more difficult to evaluate the effects 2008 when wolves were federally conducted on wolves that kill ‘‘dogs that attributed specifically to depredation delisted, the WI DNR issued 67 such are free roaming, roaming at large, control over that time, as the State also permits, resulting in 2 wolves being hunting, or training on public lands, implemented a regulated public harvest killed. Some landowners received and all other lands except land owned those years. However, information from permits more than once, and permits or leased by the dog owner’’ (WI DNR previous years where depredation were issued for up to 90 days at a time 2008, p. 5). Controls will be applied on control was the primary change in and restricted to specific calendar years. wolves depredating pet dogs attacked management provides strong evidence In addition, landowners and lessees of near homes and wolves attacking that this form and magnitude of land statewide will be allowed to kill a livestock. Because of these State- depredation control would not wolf ‘‘in the act of killing, wounding, or imposed limitations, we conclude that adversely affect the viability of the biting a domestic animal’’ without lethal control of wolves depredating on Wisconsin wolf population. obtaining a permit. The incident must hunting dogs will be rare and, therefore, Furthermore, Stenglein et al. (2015a, pp. be reported to a conservation warden will not be a significant additional 17–21) demonstrates that regular within 24 hours, and the landowners are source of mortality in Wisconsin. Lethal removal of 10 percent of the wolf required to turn any dead wolves over control of wolves that attack captive population for depredation controls has to the WI DNR (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22– deer is included in the WI DNR little impact on growth of the wolf 23; WI DNR 2008, p. 6). During that depredation-control program, because population. The locations of same 19-month time period, landowners farm-raised deer are considered to be depredation incidents provide killed a total of five wolves under that livestock under Wisconsin law (WI DNR additional evidence that lethal control authority. One wolf was shot in the act 2008, pp. 5–6; 2006c, 12.52). However, will not have an adverse impact on the of attacking domestic animals during we expect that changes to Wisconsin State’s wolf population. Most livestock the 2 months when wolves were regulations for deer farm fencing will delisted in 2009. Another 38 wolves result in reduced wolf depredations depredations are caused by packs near were legally shot by landowners during inside deer farms, thus decreasing the the northern forest-farm-land interface. the 35 months that wolves were delisted need for lethal control. Claims for wolf Few depredations occur in core wolf from 2012 to 2014. The death of these depredation compensation are rejected range and in large blocks of public land. 46 additional wolves—which accounted if the claimant is not in compliance Thus, lethal depredation-control actions for less than 3 percent of the State’s with regulations regarding farm-raised- would not affect most of the Wisconsin wolves in any year—did not affect the deer fencing or livestock-carcass wolf population (WI DNR 2006a, p. 30). viability of the population. disposal (Wisconsin Statutes 90.20 & Additionally, Olson et al. (2015, pp. Another potential substantive change 90.21, WI DNR 2006c 12.54). 680–681) showed that only a small after delisting will be proactive trapping Data from verified wolf depredations percentage of packs cause depredation or ‘‘intensive control’’ of wolves in sub- in recent years indicate that depredation on livestock, and several risk maps zones of the larger wolf-management on livestock is likely to increase as long show that the potential locations with zones (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23). as the Wisconsin wolf population high risk of wolf depredations on Triggering actions and types of controls increases in numbers and range. Wolf livestock represent a small portion of planned for these ‘‘proactive control packs in more marginal habitat with wolf range in Wisconsin (Treves et al. areas’’ are listed in the WI DNR high acreage of pasture land are more 2011, entire; Treves and Rabenhorst depredation-control guidelines (WI DNR likely to become depredators (Treves et 2017, entire). 2008, pp. 7–9). Controls on these actions al. 2004, pp. 121–122). Most large areas One substantive change to lethal would be considered on a case-by-case of forest land and public lands are control that will result from Federal basis to address specific problems, and included in Wisconsin Wolf delisting is the ability of a small number will be carried out only in areas that Management Zones 1 and 2, and they of private landowners, whose farms lack suitable habitat, have extensive have already been colonized by wolves. have a history of recurring wolf agricultural lands with little forest Therefore, new areas likely to be depredation, to obtain limited-duration interspersion, in urban or suburban colonized by wolves in the future will permits from WI DNR to kill a limited settings, and only when the State wolf be in Zones 3 and 4, where they will be number of depredating wolves on land population is well above the exposed to much higher densities of they own or lease, based on the size of management goal of 350 wolves outside farms, livestock, and residences. During the pack causing the local depredations Indian reservations in late-winter 2008, of farms experiencing wolf (WI DNR 2008, p. 8). Such permits can surveys. The use of intensive population depredation, 25 percent (8 of 32) were be issued to: (1) Landowners with management in small areas would be in Zone 3, yet only 4 percent of the State verified wolf depredations on their adapted as experience is gained with wolf population occurs in this zone

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69832 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

(Wydeven et al. 2009a, p. 23). Further harvest rates in areas of primary wolf conflicts without causing significant expansion of wolves into Zone 3 will habitat. State-licensed hunters and declines in wolf numbers (Wydeven likely lead to an increase in depredation trappers were not allowed permits 2019a, in litt.). incidents and an increase in lethal within the reservation boundaries of the Regardless of the methods used to control actions against Zone 3 wolves. Bad River, Red Cliff, Lac Courte manage wolves in the State, WI DNR is However, these Zone 3 mortalities will Oreilles, Lac Du Flambeau, and committed to maintaining a wolf have a negligible impact on wolf Menominee reservations or within the population of 350 wolves outside of population viability in Wisconsin Stockbridge-Munsee wolf zone. A large Indian reservations, which translates to because of the much larger wolf portion of the zones open to wolf a statewide population of 361 to 385 populations in Zones 1 and 2. hunting in the State included ceded wolves in late winter. No harvest will be We anticipate that under the territories (lands outside reservations allowed if the wolf population falls management laid out in the Wisconsin where Tribes continue to hold fishing, below this goal (WI DNR 1999, pp. 15, Wolf Management Plan the wolf hunting, and gathering rights). Within 16). Also, the fact that the Wisconsin population in Zones 1 and 2 will ceded territories, the Tribes can request Plan calls for State relisting of the wolf continue to greatly exceed the recovery up to half of any allowable harvest of as a threatened species if the population goal in the Revised Recovery Plan of 200 wildlife for their members. The ceded falls to fewer than 250 for 3 years late-winter wolves for an isolated territories portions of wolf harvest zones provides a strong assurance that any population and 100 wolves for a included an allowable harvest of 170 public harvest is not likely to threaten subpopulation 5 connected to the larger wolves, and one half (or 85 wolves) was the persistence of the population (WI Minnesota population, regardless of the offered to the Tribes for harvest in 2012. DNR 1999, pp. 15–17). Based on wolf extent of wolf mortality from all causes The Tribes chose not to take part in the population data, the current Wisconsin in Zones 3 and 4. Ongoing annual wolf wolf harvest, and all Tribes in the State Plan and the 2006 updates, we conclude population monitoring by WI DNR will closed tribal lands to wolf hunting. that any public harvest plan will provide timely and accurate data to Because the Tribes chose not to exercise continue to maintain the State wolf evaluate the effects of wolf management their wolf hunting authority, the population well above the Federal under the Wisconsin Plan. portions of the allowable harvest offered recovery goal of 100 wolves. Post-delisting Regulated Harvest in to Tribes declined in subsequent years The Michigan Wolf Management Wisconsin—A regulated public harvest to 24 in 2013, and 6 in 2014 (WI DNR Plan—The 2015 updated Michigan Plan of wolves is acknowledged in the 2013 pp. 1, 2; WI DNR 2014b, p. 4; describes the wolf recovery goals and Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan and McFarland and Wiedenhoeft 2015, pp. management actions needed to maintain its updates as a potential management 2, 4). a viable wolf population in the Upper technique (WI DNR 1999, Appendix D; The Wisconsin Natural Resources Peninsula of Michigan, while 2006c, p. 23). Wisconsin Act 169 was Board established a total quota of 201 facilitating wolf-related benefits and enacted in April 2012, following Federal wolves (comprising a State-licensed minimizing conflicts. The updated delisting of wolves earlier that year. The quota of 116 wolves and a Tribal offer Michigan Plan contains new scientific law reclassified wolves in Wisconsin as of 85 wolves). A total of 117 wolves information related to wolf a game species and directed the WI DNR were harvested during that first season, management, updated information on to establish a harvest season in 2012. all under the State licenses (Tribes did the legal status of wolves, clarifications The harvest season was set from October not authorize Tribal members to harvest related to management authorities and 15 through February 28 with zones wolves within reservation boundaries). decisionmaking, and updated strategic closing as individual quotas are met. In 2013–2014, the total quota was 275 goals, objectives, and management The WI DNR holds the authority to wolves: A State-licensed quota of 251, actions informed by internal evaluation determine harvest zones and set harvest and a Tribal offer of 24. That year, 257 and responses and comments received quotas. wolves were harvested. The 2014–2015 from stakeholders. The updated plan With the establishment of the first wolf quota was reduced to 156 (a 57- retains the four principal goals of the wolf hunting season in 2012, the WI percent reduction from the 2013–2014 2008 plan, which are to ‘‘(1) maintain a DNR modified the four zones from the wolf quota), and 154 wolves were viable Michigan wolf population above 1999 wolf plan into six harvest zones harvested that season (a 60-percent a level that would warrant its (WI DNR 2014a, p. 8). Much of the decrease from the 2013–2014 harvest. classification as threatened or original Zone 1 (northern forest wolf Evidence from Wisconsin indicates endangered (more than 200 wolves); (2) range) from the 1999 plan was modified that active management with public facilitate wolf-related benefits; (3) into four harvest zones, with harvest harvests and targeted lethal depredation minimize wolf-related conflicts; and (4) Zones 1 and 2 representing core wolf controls could reduce wolf–human conduct science-based wolf areas and Zone 3 and 4 representing conflicts without causing major declines management with socially acceptable transitional wolf habitat. Most of Zone in wolf numbers in the State. The methods’’ (MI DNR 2015, p. 16). The 2 from the 1999 plan (central forest core minimum count of wolves in Wisconsin Michigan Plan details wolf-management wolf range) became harvest Zone 5. The when they were delisted in 2012 was actions, including public education and remainder of the State is marginal or 815 wolves. After 3 years of public outreach activities, biennial wolf unsuitable wolf habitat and became wolf hunting and trapping seasons, they had population and health monitoring, harvest Zone 6. been reduced to a minimum count of research, depredation control, ensuring Harvest quotas for the 2012–2013 746 in 2015, or a reduction of only 8.5 adequate legal protection for wolves, season were designed to begin reducing percent. During that same time period, and prey and habitat management. The the population toward the established verified wolf kills on cattle and the Michigan Plan does not address wolf objective, and the harvest zones were number of farms with verified management within Isle Royale National designed to focus harvest in areas of depredations declined significantly Park, where the wolf population is fully highest human conflict with lower (Wiedenhoeft et al. 2015, pp. 4–5, 12), protected by the National Park Service. indicating that active management with As with the Wisconsin Plan, the MI 5 A population that is part of a larger population public harvests and targeted lethal DNR has chosen to manage the State’s or metapopulation. depredation controls could reduce wolves as though they are an isolated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69833

population that receives no genetic or stratified into 21 sampling units; each require the establishment of a regulated demographic benefits from immigrating sampling unit was assigned to one of harvest season. The Michigan Plan wolves, even though their population three strata based on geographic states that regulations would be will continue to be connected with location and relative wolf density. The reviewed, modified, or enacted as populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, MI DNR intensively surveys roughly 60 necessary to provide the wolf and Canada. The Michigan wolf percent of the Upper Peninsula every population with appropriate levels of population must exceed 200 wolves in other year. Computer simulations have protection with the following possible order to achieve the Plan’s first goal of shown that such a geographically actions: (1) Reclassify wolves as maintaining a viable wolf population in stratified monitoring program would endangered or threatened under State the Upper Peninsula. This number is produce unbiased and precise estimates regulations if population size declines consistent with the Federal Revised of the total wolf population (Beyer in to 200 or fewer wolves; (2) review, Recovery Plan’s definition of a viable, litt. 2006, see attachment by Drummer; modify, recommend, and/or enact isolated wolf population (USFWS 1992, Lederle in litt. 2006; Roell et al. 2009, regulations, as necessary, to ensure p. 25). The Michigan Plan, however, p. 3). appropriate levels of protection for the clearly states that 200 wolves is not the Another component of wolf wolf population; and (3) if necessary to target population size, and that a larger population monitoring is monitoring avoid a lapse in legal protection, amend population may be necessary to meet wolf health. The MI DNR will continue the Wildlife Conservation Order to the other goals of the Plan. Therefore, to monitor the impact of parasites and designate wolves as a protected animal the State will maintain a wolf disease on the viability of wolf (MI DNR 2015, p. 28). population that will ‘‘provide all of the populations in the State through The Michigan Plan emphasizes the ecological and social benefits valued by necropsies of dead wolves and need for public information and the public’’ while ‘‘minimizing and analyzing biological samples from education efforts that focus on living resolving conflicts where they occur’’ captured live wolves. Prior to 2004, MI with a recovered wolf population and (MI DNR 2015, p. 17). We strongly DNR vaccinated all captured wolves for ways to manage wolves and wolf-human support this approach, as it provides canine distemper and parvovirus and interaction (both positive and negative) assurance that a viable wolf population treated them for mange. These (MI DNR 2015, pp. 22–25). The Plan will remain in the Upper Peninsula inoculations were discontinued to also recommends continuing important regardless of the future fate of wolves in provide more natural biotic conditions research efforts, continuing Wisconsin or Ontario. and to provide biologists with an reimbursement for depredation losses, The Michigan plan also addresses the unbiased estimate of disease-caused minimizing the impacts of captive need for wolf recovery and the strategic mortality rates in the population (Roell wolves and wolf-dog hybrids on the management direction in the Lower in litt. 2005). Since diseases and wild wolf population, and citizen Peninsula. The plan states wolves will parasites are not currently a significant stakeholder involvement in the wolf- not be prevented from colonizing the threat to the Michigan wolf population, management program (MI DNR 2015, Lower Peninsula, but their presence is the MI DNR is continuing the practice pp. 27, 52–53, 55–56, 60). not necessary to maintain a viable of not actively managing disease. If The Michigan Plan calls for population in the State (Ml DNR 2015, monitoring indicates that diseases or establishing a wolf-management p. 39). Additionally, if wolves occupy parasites may pose a threat to the wolf stakeholder group that will meet the Lower Peninsula, the higher density population, the MI DNR would again annually to monitor the progress made of human residences and livestock consider more active management toward implementing the Plan. operations in that area relative to the similar to that conducted prior to 2004 Furthermore, the Plan will be reviewed Upper Peninsula would create a greater (MI DNR 2015, p. 35). and updated at 5-year intervals to potential for wolf-related conflicts. The The Michigan Plan includes address ‘‘ecological, social, and severity, immediacy, and frequency of maintaining habitat and prey necessary regulatory’’ changes (MI DNR 2015, pp. conflicts would guide management to sustain a viable wolf population in 60–61). The plan also addresses responses in the Lower Peninsula (Ml the State as a management component. currently available and potential new DNR 2015, p. 39). This includes maintaining prey sources of funding to offset costs The Michigan Plan identifies wolf populations required for a viable wolf associated with wolf management (MI population monitoring as a priority population while providing for DNR 2015, pp. 61–62). The MI DNR has activity, and specifically states that the sustainable human uses, maintaining long been an innovative leader in wolf- MI DNR will monitor wolf abundance habitat linkages to allow for wolf recovery efforts, exemplified by its every other year for at least 5 years post- dispersal, and minimizing disturbance initiation of the nation’s first attempt to delisting (MI DNR 2015, p. 26). This at known, active wolf dens (MI DNR reintroduce wild wolves to vacant includes monitoring to assess wolf 2015, pp. 32–34). historical wolf habitat in 1974 (Weise et presence in the northern Lower To minimize illegal take, the al. 1975). The MI DNR’s history of Peninsula. From 1989 through 2006, the Michigan Plan calls for enacting and leadership in wolf recovery and its MI DNR attempted to count wolves enforcing regulations to ensure adequate repeated written commitments to ensure throughout the entire Upper Peninsula. legal protection for wolves in the State. the continued viability of a Michigan As the wolf population increased, this Under State regulations, wolves could wolf population above a level that method became more difficult. In the be classified as a threatened, would trigger State or Federal listing as winter of 2006–2007, the MI DNR endangered, game, or protected animal, threatened or endangered further implemented a new sampling approach all of which prohibit killing (or reinforces that the 2015 Michigan Wolf based on an analysis by Potvin et al. harming) the species except under a Management Plan will provide adequate (2005, p. 1668) to increase the efficiency permit, license, or specific conditions. regulatory mechanisms for Michigan of the State survey. The new approach Michigan removed gray wolves from the wolves. The DNR’s primary goal is based on a geographically based State’s threatened and endangered remains to conduct management to stratified random sample and produces species list in 2009 and classified the maintain the wolf population in an unbiased, regional estimate of wolf species as a game animal in 2016. Game- Michigan above the minimum size that abundance. The Upper Peninsula was animal status allows but does not is biologically required for a viable,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69834 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

isolated population and to provide for Wildlife (Roell et al. 2010, p. 8). In 2008, Technical assistance may also include ecological and social benefits valued by Michigan passed two House bills that providing to the landowner various the public while resolving conflicts will become effective after Federal forms of noninjurious behavior where they occur (MI DNR 2015, p. 16). delisting. These bills authorize a modification materials, such as flashing Depredation Control in Michigan— livestock or dog owner (or a designated lights, noise makers, temporary fencing, Data from Michigan show a general agent) to ‘‘remove, capture, or use lethal and fladry. increase in confirmed events of wolf means to destroy a wolf that is in the act Trapping and translocating depredations on livestock over the past of preying upon’’ the owner’s livestock depredating wolves has been used in the two decades, with an average of 2.5 or dog. During the 2 months that wolves past, resulting in the translocation of 23 events annually from 1998 through were federally and State delisted in Upper Peninsula wolves during 1998– 2002, an average of 8 annually in 2003– 2009, no wolves were killed under these 2003 (Beyer et al. 2006, p. 88), but as 2007; an average of 25 annually in authorizations; 15 wolves were killed with Wisconsin, suitable relocation sites 2008–2012; and an average of 14 under these authorities from 2012 are becoming rarer, and there is local annually in 2013–2017. Eighty-six through 2014 (Beyer in litt. 2018). The opposition to the release of translocated percent of the depredation events were numbers of wolves killed each year for depredators. Furthermore, none of the on cattle, with the rest on sheep, depredation control (livestock and dogs) past translocated depredators have poultry, rabbits, goats, horses, swine, are as follows: 4 (2003), 5 (2004), 2 remained near their release sites, and captive deer (Roell et al. 2009, pp. (2005), 7 (2006), 14 (2007), 8 (2008), 1 making this a questionable method to 9, 11; Beyer in litt. 2018). (during 2 months in 2009), 18 (2012), 10 end the depredation behaviors of these Michigan has not experienced as high (2013), and 13 (2014) (Beyer et al. 2006, wolves (MI DNR 2005a, pp. 3–4). a level of attacks on dogs by wolves as p. 88; Roell in litt. 2006, p. 1; Roell et Therefore, reducing depredation Wisconsin, although a slight increase in al. 2010, p. 19; Beyer in litt. 2018). This problems by relocation is no longer such attacks has occurred over the last represents 0.2 percent (2009) to 2.8 recommended as a management tool in decade (Ruid et al. 2009, pp. 284–285; percent (2007) of the Upper Peninsula’s Michigan (MI DNR 2008, p. 57). Bump et al. 2013, pp. 1–2). Yearly losses late-winter population of wolves during Lethal control of depredating wolves vary, and actions of a single pack of the previous winter. During the years is likely to be the most common future wolves can be an important influence. where depredation control took place response in situations when improved In Michigan, there is not a strong absent a regulated public harvest, the livestock husbandry and wolf-behavior- relationship between wolf depredation wolf population increased from 2 modification techniques (for example, on dogs and wolf abundance (Roell et al. percent (2007–2008) to 17 percent flashing lights, noisemaking devices) are 2010, p. 7). The number of dogs killed (2006–2007) despite the level of judged to be inadequate. In a previous in the State during the 15 years from depredation control, demonstrating that application for a lethal take permit 1996 to 2010 totaled 34; that number the wolf population continues to under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, MI increased to 55 during the 7-year period increase at a healthy rate (Huntzinger et DNR received authority to euthanize up from 2011 through 2017 (Beyer in litt. al. 2005, p. 6; MI DNR 2006, Roell et al. to 10 percent of the late-winter wolf 2018). The majority of the wolf-related 2009, p. 4). population annually (MI DNR 2005b, p. dog deaths involved hounds used to Post-delisting Depredation Control in 1). However, when Michigan had the hunt bears. The MI DNR guidelines for Michigan—Following Federal delisting, authority to use lethal means to manage its depredation control program allow wolf depredation control in Michigan depredations, not more than 3 percent for lethal control as a management will be carried out according to the 2015 of the population was removed in any option on free-ranging hunting dogs Michigan Wolf Recovery and year, indicating that it is likely that when nonlethal methods are determined Management Plan (MI DNR 2015) and significantly less than 10 percent of the to be ineffective in specific areas where any Tribal wolf-management plans that population will be removed annually a wolf attack has been verified (MI DNR may be developed in the future for over the next several years. 2017, pp. 9–10). Lethal control of reservations in occupied wolf range. The Michigan Plan provides wolves will also be considered if wolves To provide depredation-control recommendations to guide management have killed confined pets and remain in guidance when lethal control is an of various conflicts caused by wolf the area where more pets are being held option, MI DNR has developed detailed recovery, including depredation on (MI DNR 2017, p. 10). In 2008, the instructions for incident investigation livestock and pets, human safety, and Michigan Legislature passed a law that and response (MI DNR 2017). public concerns regarding wolf impacts will allow dog owners or their Verification of wolf depredation on other wildlife. We view the Michigan designated agents to remove, capture, incidents will be conducted by MI DNR Plan’s depredation and conflict control or, if deemed necessary, use lethal or Wildlife Services personnel (working strategies to be conservative, in that they means to destroy a gray wolf that is in under a Cooperative Service Agreement commit to nonlethal depredation the act of preying upon the owner’s dog, or at the request of a Tribe, depending management whenever possible, oppose which includes dogs free roaming or on the location) who have been trained preventative wolf removal where hunting on public lands. in depredation investigation techniques. problems have not yet occurred, During the several years that lethal The MI DNR specifies that the encourage incentives for best control of depredating wolves had been verification process will use the management practices that decrease conducted in Michigan, there was no investigative techniques that have been wolf-livestock conflicts without evidence of resulting adverse impacts to developed and successfully used in affecting wolves, and support closely the maintenance of a viable wolf Minnesota by Wildlife Services (MI monitored and enforced take by population in the Upper Peninsula. MI DNR 2017, Append. B, pp. 13–14). landowners of wolves ‘‘in the act of DNR and Wildlife Services killed 50 Following verification, one or more of livestock depredation’’ or under limited wolves in response to depredation several options will be implemented to permits if depredation is confirmed and events during the time period when address the depredation problem. nonlethal methods are determined to be permits or special rules were in effect or Technical assistance, consisting of ineffective. Based on these components while wolves were not on the Federal advice or recommendations to reduce of the revised Michigan Plan and the List of Endangered and Threatened wolf conflicts, will be provided. stated goal for maintaining wolf

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69835

populations at or above recovery goals, managing wolf-related conflicts (e.g., policy guides long-term management the Service concludes that any wolf- recreational and utilitarian purposes). and states ‘‘that wildlife shall be management changes implemented With regard to implementing a public managed to prevent the serious following delisting will not be harvest for recreational or utilitarian depletion of any indigenous species’’ implemented in a manner that results in purposes, the Michigan Plan identifies and includes seven management goals significant reductions in Michigan wolf the need to gather and evaluate (ODFW 2019, p. 6, referencing ORS populations. The MI DNR remains biological and social information, 496.012). There are no current plans to committed to ensuring a viable wolf including the biological effects and the initiate a hunting season, and regulatory population above a level that would public acceptability of a general wolf mechanisms remain in place through trigger relisting as either threatened or harvest (MI DNR 2015, p. 60). A public the State Plan and Oregon statute to endangered in the future (MI DNR 2015, harvest during a regulated season ensure a sustainable wolf population. p. 8). requires that wolves be classified as Controlled take of wolves, including a Michigan livestock owners are game animals in Michigan (they were future hunting season, by the State of compensated when they lose livestock classified as such in 2016). With wolves Oregon would require Oregon Fish and as a result of a confirmed wolf classified as game animals, the Wildlife Commission approval through depredation. The Michigan Wildlife Michigan Natural Resources a public rulemaking process (ODFW Depredations Indemnification Act Commission (NRC) has the exclusive 2019, p. 31). (Public Act 487 of 2012) provides authority to enact regulations pertaining Oregon, Washington, and California payment to livestock owners, but it may to the methods and manner of public also have adopted wolf-management do so only if the MI DNR or its harvest. Although any decisions plans intended to provide for the designated agent (Wildlife Services) regarding establishment of a harvest conservation and reestablishment of verifies the depredation was caused by season will be made by the NRC, the MI wolves in these States (ODFW 2019, wolves, coyotes, or cougars. If the DNR would be called upon to make entire; Wiles et al. 2011, entire; CDFW investigator cannot rule out wolves as recommendations regarding socially and 2016a, entire; 2016b, entire). These the cause for the missing animals and biologically responsible public harvest plans include population objectives, the farm has had ‘‘verified’’ wolf of wolves. Michigan held a regulated education and public outreach goals, depredation in the past, the owner is public hunting season in 2013 that took damage-management strategies, and eligible to receive indemnification into consideration the recommendations monitoring and research plans. Wolves payment from the Michigan Department of the MI DNR, which were based on the will remain on State endangered species of Agriculture and Rural Development State management plan. From those lists in Washington and California until (MI DNR 2017, p. 2). Compensation recommendations, the Michigan NRC recovery objectives have been reached. payments are made for livestock established quotas for that season based Once recovery objectives have been included in the claim at 100 percent of on zones in the Upper Peninsula, with achieved, we anticipate that the States the fair market value not to exceed a quota of 16 wolves in the far western will initiate processes for delisting $4,000 for each animal. Livestock part of the peninsula, 19 in 4 central wolves. Once the species is removed includes, but is not limited to, cattle, counties, and 8 in the eastern part of the from State endangered species lists, the sheep, new world camelids, goats, peninsula. Twenty-two wolves were States will have the authority to bison, privately owned cervids, ratites, taken during that 2013 season. consider the use of regulated harvest to swine, equine, poultry, aquaculture, and manage wolf populations. All three rabbits. Livestock does not include dogs State Management in the West Coast State plans recognize that management and cats (MI DNR 2017, pp. 2, 8). States of livestock conflicts is a necessary Funding for depredation payments Wolves are classified as endangered component of wolf management (ODFW and, more recently, missing animal under the Washington State Endangered 2019, pp. 33–55; Wiles et al. 2011, p. 72; claims has changed over time. From Species Act (WAC 220–610–010). CDFW 2016a, p. 4). Control options are 2001 through 2010 a supplemental fund Unlawful taking (when a person hunts, currently limited to preventative and provided by Defenders of Wildlife was fishes, possesses, maliciously harasses, nonlethal methods within the federally used to make up the difference between or kills endangered fish or wildlife, and listed portions of Oregon, Washington, State compensation and fair market the taking has not been authorized by and California. Following Federal value. This fund paid $10,053 to rule of the commission) of endangered delisting, guidelines outlined in each Michigan farmers. Currently, the State fish or wildlife is prohibited in State’s plan, or developed through a uses a general fund appropriate to pay Washington (RCW 77.15.120). Wolves in collaborative stakeholder process, will depredation and missing animal claims. California are similarly classified as define the conditions under which From 1998 through 2018, the State has endangered under the California depredating wolves can be lethally paid $179,486 to Michigan farmers for Endangered Species Act (CESA; removed by agency officials (CDFW losses due to wolves. California Fish and Game Commission 2016b, pp. 278–285; ODFW 2019, pp. Post-delisting Regulated Harvest in 2014, entire). Under CESA, take 41–54; Wiles et al. 2011, pp. 72–94). Michigan—Although the Michigan Plan (defined as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, The Oregon Wolf Management Plan— itself does not determine whether a kill, or attempts to hunt, pursue, catch, The Oregon Wolf Conservation and public harvest will be used as a capture, or kill) of listed wildlife species Management Plan was developed prior management strategy, it does discuss is prohibited (California Fish and Game to wolves becoming established in developing ‘‘socially and biologically Codes section 86 and section 2080). Oregon. The plan, first finalized in responsible management Wolves in Oregon have achieved 2005, contains provisions that require it recommendations regarding public recovery objectives and were delisted to be updated every 5 years. The first harvest of wolves’’ (MI DNR 2015, p. from the State Endangered Species Act revision occurred in 2010, and a second 56). The Michigan Plan discusses in 2015. Wolves in Oregon remain revision was recently completed in June developing recommendations regarding protected by the State Plan and its of 2019. The ODFW is required by State public harvest for two separate associated regulation (Oregon regulations to follow the Oregon Wolf purposes: To reduce wolf-related Administrative Rule 665–110), and Conservation and Management Plan. conflicts and for reasons other than Oregon’s wildlife policy. The wildlife The Plan includes program direction,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69836 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

objectives, and strategies to manage gray (ODFW 2019, p. 1). This population The Washington Plan provides wolves in Oregon and defines the gray objective was met in 2014 in the eastern recovery goals for downlisting and wolf’s special status game mammal WMZ, and wolves were State delisted in delisting the species under Washington designation (Oregon Administrative Oregon in 2015. Wolves in the eastern State law, and identifies strategies to Rule 635–110). The Plan defines the WMZ were then managed under Phase achieve recovery and manage conflicts following objectives for continued II (ODFW 2019, p. 6). Wolves in the with livestock and ungulates. Recovery conservation of the gray wolf in Oregon: western WMZ have yet to reach this objectives are defined as numbers of • Continue to promote a naturally conservation objective. Despite State successful breeding pairs that are reproducing wolf population in suitable delisting, wolves in the western WMZ maintained on the landscape for 3 habitat within Oregon, which is (currently in Phase I) are still managed consecutive years, with a set geographic connected to a larger source population with a level of protection comparable to distribution within three specified of wolves, allowing for continued that of Oregon Endangered Species Act recovery regions: (1) Eastern expansion into other areas of the State. protections for wolves. Washington; (2) Northern Cascades; and • Maintain a conservation population Phase II management actions work (3) Southern Cascades and Northwest objective for both East and West Wolf towards a management population Coast (Wiles et al. 2011, p. 60 figure 9). Management Zones (WMZs) of four objective of seven breeding pairs in the A successful breeding pair of wolves is breeding pairs of wolves present for 3 eastern management zone for 3 defined in the Washington Plan as an consecutive years. consecutive years. During this phase, adult male and an adult female with at • Maintain a management population populations are managed to prevent least two pups surviving to December 31 objective for each zone of a minimum of declines that could result in relisting in a given year (Wiles et al. 2011, p. 58). seven breeding pairs of wolves present under the Oregon ESA. This Phase II Specific target numbers and distribution for 3 consecutive years. for downlisting and delisting within the • management population objective was Maintain a management regime in met in 2016, which resulted in the three recovery regions identified in the the West WMZ that simulates Oregon Washington Plan are as follows: transition of management to Phase III for • Endangered Species Act protections the eastern WMZ in 2018 (ODFW 2019, To reclassify from State endangered until the conservation population p. 11). to State threatened status: A minimum objective is met. of six successful breeding pairs with a Phase III acts to set a balance such • Identify and monitor potential minimum of two successful breeding that populations do not decline below conservation threats to Oregon wolves pairs in each of the three recovery Phase II objectives, but also do not reach and, if feasible, implement measures to regions documented for 3 consecutive unmanageable levels resulting in reduce threats that can negatively affect years. conflicts with other land uses. Phase III Oregon’s wolf population. • To reclassify from State threatened • Effectively and responsibly address is a maintenance phase. While the 2019 to State sensitive status: A minimum of conflict with competing human values plan does not include a minimum or 12 successful breeding pairs with a while using management measures that maximum population level for wolves minimum of 4 successful breeding pairs are consistent with long-term wolf in Oregon, the plan leaves room for in each of the 3 recovery regions conservation in all phases of wolf development of population thresholds documented for 3 consecutive years. management status under the Plan. in future planning efforts (ODFW 2019, • To delist from State sensitive status: • Maintain accurate information on pp. 10, 15–17). Phase III of the 2019 Four successful breeding pairs the population status and distribution of plan provides management flexibility in documented for 3 consecutive years in wolves in Oregon through a the case of depredating wolves (ODFW each of the three recovery regions plus comprehensive monitoring program. 2019, pp. 31–32). Currently, hunting of an additional three successful breeding • Continue to coordinate with other wolves is not permitted in Oregon and, pairs anywhere in the State. agencies and organizations to achieve as noted above, would require a public In addition to the delisting objective wolf conservation and management rulemaking process conducted by the of 15 successful breeding pairs objectives. Oregon Fish and Game Commission. distributed in the 3 geographic regions The Oregon plan includes two The Washington Wolf Management for 3 consecutive years, an alternative management zones that roughly divide Plan—The 2011 Wolf Conservation and delisting objective was also established the State into western and eastern Management Plan for Washington was whereby the gray wolf will be halves. This division line is further to developed in response to the State considered for delisting when 18 the west of the line that delineates the endangered status for the species, and successful breeding pairs are present, listed and non-listed portions of Oregon. the expectations that the wolf with 4 successful breeding pairs in the Each zone has a separate ‘‘management population in Washington would Eastern Washington region, 4 successful population objective’’ of seven breeding continue to increase through natural breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades pairs (ODFW 2019, p. 8). Within each dispersal of wolves from adjacent region, 4 successful breeding pairs zone, management phases (Phase I, populations, and anticipation of the distributed in the Southern Cascades Phase II, and Phase III) are used to return of wolf management to the State and Northwest Coast region, plus an assess population objectives, which in after Federal delisting. The purpose of additional 6 successful breeding pairs turn influence conservation and the plan is to facilitate reestablishment anywhere in the State in a single year. management objectives. of a self-sustaining population of gray The WDFW recently initiated work to Phase I includes a conservation wolves in Washington and to encourage develop a post-recovery wolf population objective of obtaining four social tolerance for the species by management plan that would guide the breeding pairs for 3 consecutive years; addressing and reducing conflicts. An long-term conservation and upon reaching this objective, delisting advisory Wolf Working Group was management of the species in the State. of wolves statewide may be initiated. appointed at the outset to give After wolves have reached recovery The ODFW defines a breeding pair as a recommendations on the plan. In levels and are delisted at the State level, pack of wolves with an adult male, an addition, the plan underwent extensive wolves could be reclassified as a game adult female, and at least two pups peer and public review prior to animal through the Washington Fish surviving to the end of December finalization. and Wildlife Commission’s public

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69837

process (Wiles et al. 2011, pp. 70–71). dispersal of wolves from other States management of prey populations, and Any proposals to initiate a hunting (CDFW 2016a, p. 22). This phase will funding. Although the working group’s season for wolves in Washington after conclude when there are eight breeding recommendations are not a formal State delisting would be consistent with pairs for 2 consecutive years. During management plan, in 2005 they were maintaining a recovered wolf Phase II, CDFW anticipates gaining adopted by the Colorado Parks and population in the State and would go additional information and experience Wildlife Commission, a citizen board through a public process with the Fish with wolf management, which will help appointed by the Governor which and Wildlife Commission (Wiles et al. inform future revisions to the State plan. develops regulations and policies for 2011, pp. 70–71). During Phase II, managing wolves for State parks and wildlife programs. The The California Wolf Management depredation response or predation on working group’s recommendations were Plan—The 2016 Conservation Plan for wild ungulates may be initiated. reaffirmed in 2016 (CPWC, PWCR 16– Gray Wolves in California was Phase III is less specific due to the 01–2016) and will be used to guide developed in anticipation of the return limited information available to CDFW management of wolves that occur in or of wolves to California (CDFW 2016a, p. at the time of plan development (CDFW naturally enter Colorado post-delisting 2). The CDFW worked with stakeholder 2016a, p. 22). This phase moves toward until a wolf conservation and groups in 2014 and 2015 during plan longer term management of wolves in management plan is developed. development (CDFW 2016a, pp. 2–3). California. Specific aspects of Phase III In 2019, wolf proponents collected Stakeholders included local are more likely to be developed during signatures in the hopes of getting an government, nongovernmental Phase II when more information on wolf initiative on the 2020 ballot to organizations, State agencies and distribution and abundance in the State reintroduce wolves into Colorado. Over organizations, and Federal agencies. are available. Towards the end of Phase 210,000 signatures were submitted to During the planning process, CDFW and II and the beginning of Phase III, the Secretary of State in December 2019, the stakeholders identified sideboards information should be available to and in January 2020, the Secretary of (e.g., guidelines) and plan goals to direct inform a status review of wolves in State determined that enough valid development of the State plan (CDFW California to determine if continued signatures were collected to place 2016a, p. 3). The sideboards included State listing as endangered is warranted initiative 107 on the 2020 ballot. If direction to develop alternatives for (CDFW 2016a, p. 22). Currently, hunting passed, the Colorado Gray Wolf wolf management, specified that CDFW of wolves is not permitted in California. Reintroduction Initiative would require would not reintroduce wolves to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife State Management in the Central Rocky California, and acknowledged that Commission to create and implement a Mountains historical distribution and abundance plan to reintroduce gray wolves into are not achievable (CDFW 2016a, pp. 3– Post-Delisting Management in Colorado west of the Continental Divide 4). The goals include the conservation of Colorado—Gray wolves are listed as an by December 2023. As a result of the biologically sustainable populations, endangered species by the State of pending ballot initiative and the fact management of wolf distribution, Colorado and receive protection under that, until recently, no groups of wolves management of native ungulates for Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 33–6– had been confirmed in Colorado, the wolf and human uses, management of 109), thereby making it illegal for any Colorado Parks and Wildlife wolves to minimize livestock person to hunt, take, or possess a gray Commission chose not to initiate depredations, and public outreach wolf in the State. Wolves in Colorado development of a wolf management (CDFW 2016a, p. 4). will remain listed at the State level after plan until after the 2020 election, when The California Plan recognizes that they are federally delisted. it expects to have clearer management wolf numbers in the State will increase Recognizing the potential for direction. with time, and that the plan needs to be increasing numbers of wolves to enter Under Title 35 of the Colorado flexible to account for information that Colorado from growing populations in Revised Statutes, the Colorado is gained during the expansion of neighboring States, Colorado Parks and Department of Agriculture is wolves into the State (CDFW 2016a, pp. Wildlife convened a multidisciplinary responsible for the control of 19–24). Similar to plans for other States, Wolf Management Working Group in depredating animals in the State, with the California Plan uses a three-phase 2004 to formulate management the exception of at-risk species such as strategy for wolf conservation and recommendations for wolves that gray wolves. Before the Colorado management. naturally enter and possibly begin to Department of Agriculture adopts any Phase I is a conservation-based recolonize the State. The working group rules concerning the take of strategy to account for the did not evaluate what would constitute depredating, at-risk species, the rules reestablishment of wolves under both wolf recovery in Colorado; thus, no must be approved by the Colorado Parks State and Federal Endangered Species recovery objectives or thresholds were and Wildlife Commission. Acts (CDFW 2016a, pp. 21–22). Phase I defined. The working group There are currently no plans to will end when there are four breeding recommended that wolves that enter or initiate a wolf hunting season in pairs for 2 consecutive years in begin to recolonize the State should be Colorado after wolves are federally California. The CDFW defines a free to occupy available suitable habitat, delisted. Regulated harvest may be breeding pair as at least one adult male, but that wolf distribution should considered during the future one adult female, and at least two pups ultimately be defined by balancing the development of a wolf conservation and that survive to the end of December ecological needs of the wolf with the management plan. However, prior to (CDFW 2016a, p. 21). California is social aspects of wolf management implementing any hunting seasons, the currently in Phase I of the plan, with the (Colorado Wolf Management Working State of Colorado would require Lassen Pack as the only breeding pair Group 2004, pp. 1, 3–5). The working Colorado Parks and Wildlife present for 2 consecutive years. group’s recommendations provided Commission approval through a public Phase II is expected to represent a information on all aspects of wolf rulemaking process. point at which California’s wolf management including monitoring, Post-Delisting Management in Utah— population is growing more through enforcement, research, information and Gray wolves are considered a Tier 1 reproduction of resident wolves than by education, the conservation and sensitive species under Utah

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69838 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Administrative Rule (Rule R657–48) and 5, 2011). In 2015, the Utah Wildlife connections, many Tribes oppose receive protections under Utah Code Board extended the Plan through 2020 unnecessary killing of wolves on (Section 23–20–3) that prohibits the and it recently reapproved the Plan reservations and on ceded lands, even taking of protected wildlife, except as through 2030. However, the Plan will following any Federal delisting (Hunt in authorized by the Wildlife Board. not be implemented until wolves are litt. 1998; Schrage in litt. 1998a; Wolves are also classified as furbearers federally delisted statewide, at which Schlender in litt. 1998). Some Native and Utah Code (Section 23–18–2) time the Plan will guide management of Americans view wolves as competitors prohibits furbearer take without a wolves until 2030; until wolves become for deer and moose, whereas others are license or otherwise in violation of rules established (defined as at least two interested in harvesting wolves as promulgated by the Wildlife Board. At breeding pairs for two consecutive furbearers (Schrage in litt. 1998a). Many present, there is no season or take years) in Utah; or until the political, Tribes intend to sustainably manage authorized for wolves in the federally social, biological, or legal assumptions their natural resources, wolves among listed portion of Utah. However, of the plan change, whichever occurs them, to ensure that they are available authorized personnel may lethally first. to their descendants. The Red Lake control wolves to mitigate wolf conflicts The Utah Plan recognizes that Band of Chippewa (Minnesota), the Red with livestock in the federally delisted concerns about livestock depredation by Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa portion of the State. wolves can effectively be addressed (Wisconsin), the Bad River Band of Lake In 2003, the Utah Legislature passed using both nonlethal and lethal Superior Chippewa (Wisconsin), the House Joint Resolution 12, which management tools (UDWR and Utah Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa directed UDWR to draft a wolf Wolf Working Group 2005, pp. 35–39). Indians (Michigan), the Fond du Lac management plan for review, The Plan recommends a compensation Band of Lake Superior Chippewa modification, and adoption by the Utah program for livestock owners who (Minnesota), and the Keweenaw Bay Wildlife Board, through the Regional experience loss due to wolves (UDWR Indian Community (Michigan) have Advisory Council process. In April and Utah Wolf Working Group 2005, pp. developed wolf monitoring and/or 2003, the Utah Wildlife Board directed 35–39). At present, the UDWR may management plans. The Service has also UDWR to develop a proposal for a wolf consider lethal control to mitigate wolf awarded a grant to the Ho-Chunk Nation working group to assist the agency in conflicts with livestock only in the to identify wolf habitat on Tribal lands. this endeavor. The UDWR created the federally delisted portion of the State. Although not all Tribes with wolves that Wolf Working Group in the summer of Under Utah Administrative Code (Rule visit or reside on their reservations have 2003. The Wolf Working Group was R657–24), the State may compensate completed management plans specific composed of 13 members that livestock producers for confirmed losses to the wolf, several Tribes have passed represented diverse public interests caused by wolves in those areas of the resolutions or otherwise informed us regarding wolves in Utah. State where wolves are federally that they have no plans or intentions to On June 9, 2005, the Utah Wildlife delisted. allow commercial or recreational Board formally approved the Utah Wolf Post-delisting, the provisions of hunting or trapping of the species on Management Plan (UDWR and Utah Utah’s Wolf Management Plan will be their lands after Federal delisting. Wolf Working Group 2005). The goal of fully implemented. Gray wolves will be As a result of many contacts with, and the Plan is to manage, study, and removed from the sensitive species list, recent and previous written comments conserve wolves moving into Utah but will remain classified as a furbearer from, the Midwestern Tribes and their while avoiding conflicts with the elk species with a closed season. Regulated inter-Tribal natural-resource- and deer management objectives of the take of gray wolves may be considered management agencies—the Great Lakes Ute Indian Tribe; minimizing livestock when wolves have established Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, depredation; and protecting wild themselves in the State (i.e., when there the 1854 Authority, and the Chippewa ungulate populations in Utah from are at least two breeding pairs for two Ottawa Treaty Authority—it is clear that excessive wolf predation. In 2010, to consecutive years). Any harvest their predominant sentiment is strong prevent the establishment of wolves in recommendations will be vetted through support for the continued protection of the federally listed portion of Utah, the the public process via the Regional wolves at a level that ensures occupancy Utah Legislature directed the UDWR to Advisory Councils and must be of wolves on reservations and prevent the establishment of any packs approved by the Wildlife Board. Lethal throughout the treaty-ceded lands of wolves in the delisted portion of Utah control may be considered statewide to surrounding the reservations. While until wolves are federally delisted in the mitigate wolf conflicts with livestock several Tribes stated that their members entirety of the State (S.B. 36, Wolf and all livestock producers in the State may be interested in killing small Management Act). This law supersedes that experience confirmed wolf-caused numbers of wolves for spiritual or other Utah’s Wolf Management Plan. To livestock losses would be eligible for purposes, we expect that these activities comply with S.B. 36, the UDWR is compensation. would have a negligible effect on tasked with preventing wolves from reservation or ceded-territory wolf Tribal Management and Conservation of becoming established in the delisted populations. portion of the State. The State of Utah Wolves The Red Lake Band of Chippewa intends to fully implement the Utah In the western Great Lakes area, Indians (Minnesota) completed a wolf- Wolf Management Plan when wolves Native American Tribes and inter-Tribal management plan in 2010 (Red Lake are delisted across all of Utah (S.B. 36; resource-management organizations Band of Chippewa Indians 2010). A UDWR and Utah Wolf Working Group have indicated to the Service that they primary goal of the management plan is 2005, p. 28). will continue to conserve wolves on to maintain wolf numbers at a level that Wolves were federally delisted in a most, and probably all, Native American will ensure the long-term survival of small portion of north-central Utah, reservations in the primary wolf areas. wolves on Red Lake lands. Key along with the remainder of the The wolf retains great cultural components of the plan are habitat northern Rocky Mountain wolf significance and traditional value to management, public education, and law population (with the exception of many Tribes and their members, and to enforcement. To address human-wolf Wyoming), in 2011 (76 FR 25590, May retain and strengthen cultural interactions, the plan outlines how

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69839

wolves may be taken on Red Lake lands. Reservation and portions of the 1836 The Menominee Indian Tribe of Wolves thought to be a threat to public ceded territory in the northern Lower Wisconsin is committed to establishing safety may be harassed at any time, and Peninsula of Michigan (Little Traverse a self-sustaining wolf population, if they must be killed, the incident must Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Natural continuing restoration efforts, ensuring be reported to Tribal law enforcement. Resource Department 2009). The plan the long-term survival of the wolf in Livestock are not common on Red Lake provides the framework for managing Menominee, placing emphasis on the lands, and wolf-related depredation on wolves on the LTBB Reservation with cultural significance of the wolf as a livestock or pets is unlikely to be a the goal of maintaining a viable wolf clan member, and resolving conflicts significant management issue. If such presence on the LTBB Reservation or between wolves and humans. The Tribe events do occur, Tribal members may within the northern Lower Peninsula has shown a great deal of interest in protect their livestock or pets by lethal should a population become established wolf recovery and protection. In 2002, means, but ‘‘all reasonable efforts by (1) prescribing scientifically sound the Tribe offered their Reservation lands should be made to deter wolves using biological strategies for wolf as a site for translocating seven non-lethal means’’ (Red Lake Band of management, research, and monitoring; depredating wolves that had been Chippewa Indians 2010, p. 15). Hunting (2) addressing wolf-related conflicts; (3) trapped by WI DNR and Wildlife or trapping of wolves on Tribal lands facilitating wolf-related benefits; and (4) Services. Tribal natural resources staff will be prohibited. developing and implementing wolf- participated in the soft release of the The Red Cliff Band (Wisconsin) has related education and public wolves on the Reservation and helped strongly opposed State and Federal information. with the subsequent radio-tracking of delisting of the gray wolf. Red Cliff The Fond du Lac Band (Minnesota) of the wolves. Although by early 2005 the implemented a Wolf Protection Plan in Lake Superior Chippewa believes that last of these wolves died on the 2015 (Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior the ‘‘well-being of the wolf is intimately reservation, the tribal conservation Chippewa 2015, entire). The plan guides connected to the well-being of the department continued to monitor management of wolves on the Chippewa People’’ (Schrage in litt. another pair that had moved onto the Reservation and prohibits any hunting 2003). In 1998, the Band passed a Reservation, as well as other wolves of wolves during any future harvests. resolution opposing Federal delisting near the reservation (Wydeven in litt. The plan calls for increased research and any other measure that would 2006). When the female of that pair was and monitoring of wolves on the permit trapping, hunting, or poisoning killed in 2006, Reservation biologists Bayfield Peninsula, which may help of the wolf (Schrage in litt. 1998b; in and staff worked diligently to raise the guide the management and protection of litt. 2003; 2009, pers. comm.). If the orphaned pups in captivity with the WI gray wolves when delisted. The plan prohibition of trapping, hunting, or DNR and the Wildlife Science Center includes a 6-mile (9.7-km) buffer poisoning is rescinded, the Band’s (Forest Lake, Minnesota) in the hope outside of Reservation boundaries, in Resource Management Division would that they could later be released to the which Red Cliff will work cooperatively coordinate with State and Federal care of the adult male. However, the to mitigate human-wolf conflicts. agencies to ensure that any wolf hunting adult male died prior to pup release, Implementation of the plan includes: or trapping would be ‘‘conducted in a and they were moved back to the Collaring and monitoring local packs, biologically sustainable manner’’ Wildlife Science Center (Pioneer Press seeking Federal grants for prevention (Schrage in litt. 2003). The band 2006). In 2010–2018 the reservation and compensation for wolf depredation finalized a wolf management plan for generally supported 7 to 16 wolves in 3 events on the Bayfield Peninsula, or 4 packs (Menominee Tribal education, and outreach. the Fond du Lac Reservation in 2012. A Conservation Department). The The Bad River Band of Lake Superior primary goal of the management plan is Menominee Tribe continues to support Chippewa established a Ma’iingan to maintain gray wolf numbers at levels (Wolf) Management Plan for the that will contribute to the long-term wolf conservation and monitoring Reservation in 2013 (Bad River Band of survival of the species. The plan activities in Wisconsin. Chippewa Indians Natural Resource expresses the Tribe’s belief that humans The Keweenaw Bay Indian Department 2013, entire). The Bad River and wolves need to coexist, in Community (Michigan) will continue to Band has been involved in wolf accordance with the Band’s traditions list the wolf as a protected animal under monitoring on the Reservation since and customs and, thus, also recognizes the Tribal Code following any Federal 1997. During the period of 2010–2018, that a system must be developed to deal delisting, with hunting and trapping from 5 to 17 wolves were counted on with concerns for human safety and prohibited (Keweenaw Bay Indian the reservation in 2 or 3 packs (Bad instances of depredation by wolves on Community 2019, in litt.). Furthermore, River Band Natural Resource livestock and pets. the Keweenaw Bay Community Department). The Tribe acknowledges The Tribal Council of the Leech Lake developed a management plan in 2013 the cultural significance of the Band of Minnesota Ojibwe (Council) that ‘‘provides a course of action that Ma’iingan to the Anishinabe in all wolf approved a resolution that describes the will ensure the long-term survival of a management activities, and wolves sport and recreational harvest of wolves self-sustaining, wild gray wolf (Canis (Ma’iingan) will be listed as a ‘‘Tribally as an inappropriate use of the animal. lupus) population in the 1842 ceded Protected Species’’ on the Bad River That resolution supports limited harvest territory in the western Upper Peninsula Reservation after Federal delisting. The of wolves to be used for traditional or of Michigan’’ (Keweenaw Bay Indian Tribe set a minimum wolf population spiritual uses by enrolled tribal Community Tribal Council 2013, p. 1). goal of two packs of at least three members if the harvest is done in a The plan is written to encourage wolves on the Reservation and will respectful manner and would not cooperation among agencies, manage wolves in a way that minimizes negatively affect the wolf population. communities, private and corporate human-wildlife conflicts on and around The Leech Lake Reservation was home landowners, special interest groups, and the Reservation. to an estimated 60 wolves (http:// Michigan residents (Keweenaw Bay In 2009, the Little Traverse Bay Bands www.llojibwe.org/drm/fpw/wolf.html, Indian Community 2019, in litt.). of Odawa Indians (LTBB) finalized a accessed 12/17/2019), although more Several Midwestern Tribes have management plan for the 1855 recent survey data are not available. expressed concern that Federal delisting

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69840 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

would result in increased mortality of protective and reverential attitudes held Tribal authority and sovereignty within wolves on reservation lands, in the areas by tribal authorities and members have reservation boundaries are respected as immediately surrounding the assured us that any post-delisting the States implement their wolf- reservations, and in lands ceded by harvest of reservation wolves will be management plans and revise those treaty to the Federal Government by the very limited and will not adversely plans in the future. Furthermore, there Tribes. In 2006, a cooperative effort affect the delisted wolf populations. may be Tribal activities or interests among Tribal natural resource Furthermore, any off-reservation harvest associated with wolves encompassed departments of several Tribes in of wolves by Tribal members in the within the Tribes’ retained rights to Wisconsin, WI DNR, the Service, and ceded territories will be limited to a hunt, fish, and gather in treaty-ceded Wildlife Services led to a wolf- portion of the harvestable surplus at territories. The Department of the management agreement for lands some future time. Such a harvestable Interior is available to assist in the adjacent to several reservations in surplus will be determined and exercise of any such rights. If biological Wisconsin. The goal is to reduce the monitored jointly by State and Tribal assistance is needed, the Service will threats to reservation wolf packs when biologists, and will be conducted in provide it via our field offices. Upon they are temporarily off the reservation. coordination with the Service and the delisting, the Service will remain Other Tribes have expressed interest in Bureau of Indian Affairs, as is being involved in the post-delisting such an agreement. This agreement, and successfully done for the ceded territory monitoring of wolves in the Great Lakes additional agreements if they are harvest of inland and Great Lakes fish, area, but all Service management and implemented, provides supplementary deer, bear, moose, and furbearers in protection authority under the Act will protection to certain wolf packs in the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. end. Great Lakes area. Therefore, we conclude that any future Consistent with our responsibilities to The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Native American take of delisted wolves Tribes and our goal to have the most Wildlife Commission has stated its will not significantly affect the viability comprehensive data available for our intent to work closely with the States to of the wolf population, either locally or post-delisting monitoring, we will cooperatively manage wolves in the across the Great Lakes area. annually contact Tribes and their ceded territories in the core areas, and In the Western United States, Native designated intertribal natural resource will not develop a separate wolf- American Tribes have played a key role agencies during the 5-year post-delisting management plan (Schlender in litt. in the recovery of gray wolves. We monitoring period to obtain any 1998). Furthermore, the Voigt Intertribal specifically acknowledge the profound information they wish to share Task Force of the Great Lakes Indian contributions of the Nez Perce Tribe in regarding wolf populations, the health Fish and Wildlife Commission has the recovery of the gray wolf in the of those populations, or changes in their expressed its support for strong northern Rocky Mountains. The Nez management and protection. protections for the wolf, stating Perce Tribe devoted substantial Reservations that may have significant ‘‘[delisting] hinges on whether wolves biological expertise and resources to wolf data to provide during the post- are sufficiently restored and will be support gray wolf reintroduction and delisting period include Bois Forte, Bad sufficiently protected to ensure a monitoring that assisted in the recovery River, Fond du Lac, Grand Portage, healthy and abundant future for our of this species. We also acknowledge Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Lac brother and ourselves’’ (Schlender in other Tribes in the Western United Courte Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, Leech litt. 2004). States that have developed, and are Lake, Menominee, Oneida, Red Lake, According to the 1854 Authority, implementing, wolf management plans, Stockbridge-Munsee Community, and ‘‘attitudes toward wolf management in including the Eastern Shoshone and White Earth. Throughout the 5-year the 1854 Ceded Territory run the gamut Northern Arapaho Tribes in Wyoming, post-delisting monitoring period, the from a desire to see total protection to the Blackfeet Tribe and the Service will annually contact the unlimited harvest opportunity.’’ Confederated Salish and Kootenai natural resource agencies of each of However, the 1854 Authority would not Tribes in Montana, the Confederated these reservations and that of the 1854 ‘‘implement a harvest system that would Tribes of the Colville Reservation and Treaty Authority and Great Lakes Indian have any long-term negative impacts to the Spokane Tribe in Washington, and Fish and Wildlife Commission. wolf populations’’ (Edwards in litt. the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Management on Federal Lands 2003). In comments submitted for our Indian Reservation in Oregon. We are 2004 delisting proposal for a larger not aware of any Tribal wolf Great Lakes Area—The five national Eastern DPS of the gray wolf, the 1854 management plans, beyond those forests with resident wolves in Authority stated that the Authority is already being implemented in the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan ‘‘confident that under the control of Western United States (see Management (Superior, Chippewa, Chequamegon- state and tribal management, wolves in the NRM section). However, Tribal Nicolet, Hiawatha, and Ottawa National will continue to exist at a self-sustaining biologists from the Confederated Tribes Forests) have operated in conformance level in the 1854 Ceded Territory. of Warm Springs are actively with standards and guidelines in their Sustainable populations of wolves, their participating in radio-collaring and management plans that follow the prey and other resources within the monitoring wolves on the Warm Springs Revised Recovery Plan’s 1854 Ceded Territory are goals to which Reservation in western Oregon. recommendations for the eastern timber the 1854 Authority remains committed. The Service and the Department of wolf (USDA Forest Service (FS) 2004a, As such, we intend to work with the the Interior recognize the unique status chapter 2, p. 31; USDA FS 2004b, state of Minnesota and other tribes to of the federally recognized Tribes, their chapter 2, p. 28; USDA FS 2004c, ensure successful state and tribal right to self-governance, and their chapter 2, p. 19; USDA FS 2006a, management of healthy wolf inherent sovereign powers over their chapter 2, p. 17; USDA FS 2006b, populations in the 1854 Ceded members and territory. Therefore, the chapter 2, pp. 28–29). The Regional Territory’’ (Myers in litt. 2004). Department of the Interior, the Service, Forester for U.S. Forest Service Region While there are few written tribal the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and other 9 may maintain the classification of the protections currently in place for wolves Federal agencies, as appropriate, will wolf as a Sensitive Species, however, in the Great Lakes area, the highly take the needed steps to ensure that the Regional Foresters have the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69841

authority to recommend classification or ‘‘native animals will be protected Two other units of the National Park declassification of species as Sensitive against harvest, removal, destruction, System, Pictured Rocks National Species. Under these standards and harassment, or harm through human Lakeshore and St. Croix National Scenic guidelines, a relatively high prey base action.’’ No population targets for Riverway, are regularly used by wolves. would be maintained, and road wolves will be established for the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is a densities would either be limited to National Park (Holbeck in litt. 2005). To narrow strip of land along Michigan’s current levels or decreased. For reduce human disturbance, temporary Lake Superior shoreline. Lone wolves example, on the Chequamegon-Nicolet closures around wolf denning and periodically use, but do not appear to be National Forest in Wisconsin, the rendezvous sites will be enacted year-round residents of, the Lakeshore. standards and guidelines specifically whenever they are discovered in the If denning occurs after delisting, the include the protection of den sites and park. Hunting is already prohibited on Lakeshore will protect denning and key rendezvous sites, and management park lands, regardless of what may be rendezvous sites at least as strictly as of road densities in existing and allowed beyond park boundaries (West the Michigan Plan recommends (Gustin potential wolf habitat (USDA 2004c, in litt. 2004). A radio-telemetry study in litt. 2003). Harvesting wolves on the chap. 2, p. 19). conducted between 1987 and 1991 of Lakeshore may be allowed (if the The trapping of depredating wolves wolves living in and adjacent to the Michigan DNR allows for harvest in the may be allowed on national forest lands park found that all mortality inside the State), but trapping is not allowed. The under the guidelines and conditions park was due to natural causes (for St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, in specified in the respective State wolf- example, killing by other wolves or Wisconsin and Minnesota, is also a management plans. However, there are starvation), whereas the majority (60–80 mostly linear ownership. The Riverway relatively few livestock raised within percent) of mortality outside the park is likely to limit public access to the boundaries of national forests in the was human-induced (for example, denning and rendezvous sites and to upper Midwest, so wolf depredation shooting and trapping) (Gogan et al. follow other management and protective and lethal control of wolves is not likely 2004, p. 22). If there is a need to control practices outlined in the respective to be a frequent occurrence, or to depredating wolves outside the park, State wolf-management plans, although constitute a significant mortality factor, staff will work with the State to conduct trapping is not allowed on NPS lands for the wolves in the Great Lakes area. control activities where necessary (West except possibly by Native Americans Similarly, in keeping with the practice in litt. 2004). However, such control is (Maercklein in litt. 2003). for other State-managed game species, unlikely to be needed because presently At least one pack of 4–5 wolves used any public hunting or trapping season there are no agricultural activities the shoreline areas of the Apostle for wolves that might be opened in the occurring adjacent to the park. Islands National Lakeshore, with a future by the States may include The wolf population of Isle Royale major deer yard area (a place where deer hunting and trapping within the congregate in the winter) occurring on national forests. National Park, Michigan, is small, portions of the Park Service land. Wolf Wolves regularly use four units of the isolated, and lacks unique genetic tracks have been detected on Sand National Park System in the Great Lakes diversity (Wayne et al. 1991). For these area and may occasionally use an reasons, and due to constraints on Island, and a wolf was photographed by additional three or four units. Although expansion because of the island’s small a trail camera on the island in the National Park Service (NPS) has size, this wolf population does not September 2009. A gray wolf was also participated in the development of some contribute significantly towards meeting detected on Stockton Island (Allen et al. of the State wolf-management plans in numerical recovery criteria. However, 2018, p. 277). It is not known if wolves this area, NPS is not bound by States’ long-term research on this wolf periodically swim to these and other plans. Instead, the NPS Organic Act and population has added a great deal to our islands, or if they travel to islands only the NPS Management Policy on Wildlife knowledge of the species. The wolf on ice in winter. generally require the agency to conserve population on Isle Royale has typically Wolves occurring on National natural and cultural resources and the varied from 18 to 27 wolves in 3 packs, Wildlife Refuges in the Great Lakes area wildlife present within the parks. NPS but was down to just 2 wolves (a father- will be monitored for a minimum of 5 management policies require that native daughter pair) from the winter of 2015– years after delisting (USFWS 2008, p. 9). species be protected against harvest, 2016 until 2018 (Peterson et al. 2018). Trapping or hunting by government removal, destruction, harassment, or In 2018, the NPS announced plans to trappers for depredation control will not harm through human action, although move additional wolves to Isle Royale in be authorized on National Wildlife certain parks may allow some harvest in an effort to restore a viable wolf Refuges. Because of the relatively small accordance with State management population (83 FR 11787, March 16, size of these Refuges, however, most or plans. Management emphasis in 2018). Four wolves from Minnesota all wolf packs or individual wolves in National Parks after delisting will were released on the island in the fall these Refuges also spend significant continue to minimize the human of 2018, and 11 were relocated from amounts of time off these Refuges. impacts on wolf populations. Thus, Ontario in March 2019. One of the Wolves also occupy the Fort McCoy because of their responsibility to Minnesota wolves died later that fall; military installation in Wisconsin. preserve all native wildlife, units of the one of the Ontario wolves died in the Management and protection of wolves National Park System are often the most winter; and one returned to the on the installation will not change protective of wildlife. In the case of the mainland during the winter. As of late significantly after Federal or State wolf, the NPS Organic Act and NPS May 2019, 14 wolves occurred on Isle delisting. Den and rendezvous sites will policies will continue to provide Royale National Park: 12 successfully continue to be protected, hunting protection following Federal delisting. translocated from Minnesota and seasons for other species (coyote) will Management and protection of wolves Canada plus the 2 wolves that remained be closed during the gun deer season, in Voyageurs National Park, along on Isle Royale before the initiation of and current surveys will continue, if Minnesota’s northern border, is not wolf reintroduction efforts (https:// resources are available. Fort McCoy has likely to change after delisting. The https://www.nps.gov/isro/learn/news/ no plans to allow a public harvest of park’s management policies require that presskit.htm). wolves on the installation (Nobles in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69842 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

litt. 2004; Wydeven et al. 2005, p. 25; National Forests (Forests) and portions lands. Although much of this public 2006a, p. 25). of Bureau of Land Management Districts land is largely unavailable and/or Minnesota National Guard’s Camp in those States. Forest Service Land and unsuitable for intensive development Ripley contains parts of 2 pack Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) and contains an abundance of territories, which typically include 10 to and Bureau of Land Management ungulates, livestock grazing does occur 20 wolves. Minnesota National Guard Resource Management Plans (RMPs) for on some public lands in both Colorado wildlife managers try to have at least these areas pre-date the reestablishment and Utah, which may increase the one wolf in each pack radio-collared of wolf packs and, therefore, do not potential for wolf mortality from lethal and to fit an additional one or two contain standards and guidelines control of chronically depredating wolves in each pack with satellite specific to wolf management. The packs. However, in both Minnesota and transmitters that record long-distance LRMPs and RMPs do, however, the northern Rocky Mountains, lethal movements. There have been no recognize that these agencies have control of depredating wolves has had significant conflicts with military obligations under sections 7(a)(1) and little effect on wolf distribution and training or with the permit-only public 7(a)(2) of the Act to proactively conserve abundance (see Human-Caused deer-hunting program at the camp, and and avoid adverse effects to federally Mortality section above). no new conflicts are expected following listed species. When federally delisted, At present, the group of at least six delisting. Long-term and intensive the Regional Foresters for U.S. Forest wolves that were confirmed in January monitoring has detected only two wolf Service Region 6 will include the gray 2020 in northwest Colorado have been mortalities within the camp wolf as a Sensitive Species in their documented primarily on lands owned boundaries—both were of natural causes region (BLM 2019, p. 4). U.S. Forest by the Bureau of Land Management and (Dirks 2009, pers. comm.). Service Region 5 may do the same. As the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but The protection afforded to resident a Sensitive Species, conservation likely use some State and private land and transient wolves, their den and objectives for the gray wolf and its in the area as well. Although very close rendezvous sites, and their prey by five habitat would continue to be addressed to the Utah border, this group of wolves national forests, four National Parks, during planning and implementation of has not been confirmed in Utah. The two military facilities, and numerous projects. BLM requires the designation lone disperser that continues to reside National Wildlife Refuges in Minnesota, of federally delisted species as sensitive in the North Park area of north-central Wisconsin, and Michigan will further species for 5 years following delisting ensure the conservation of wolves in the Colorado has been documented on the (BLM 2008, p. 36). BLM sensitive Medicine-Bow/Routt National Forest three States after delisting. In addition, species are managed consistent with wolves that disperse to other units of and likely uses adjacent State and species and habitat management private lands. the National Wildlife Refuge System or objectives in land use and the National Park System within the implementation plans to promote their Summary of Post-Delisting Management Great Lakes area will also receive the conservation and minimize the In summary, upon delisting, there protection afforded by these Federal likelihood and need for listing under the will be varying State and Tribal agencies. Act (BLM 2008, p. 8). West Coast States—The West Coast Gray wolves disperse through, but are classifications and protections provided States generally contain a greater not necessarily residents of, National to wolves. The State wolf-management proportion of public land than the Great Monuments, and National Wildlife plans currently in place for Minnesota, Lakes area. Public lands here include Refuges in the listed portions of all three Wisconsin, and Michigan will maintain many National Parks, National Forests, West Coast States. Wolves are also viable wolf populations in each State. National Monuments, National Wildlife known to disperse through National Each of those plans contains Refuges, and lands managed by the Parks, and one territory in Washington management goals that will maintain Bureau of Land Management. These overlaps a small portion of the North healthy populations of wolves in the areas are largely unavailable and/or Cascades National Park. Similar to these State by establishing a minimum unsuitable for intensive development types of lands in the Great Lakes areas, population threshold of 1,600 in and contain abundant ungulate management plans provide for the Minnesota, 250 in Wisconsin, and 200 populations. Public lands in the West conservation of natural and cultural in Michigan, and each State intends to contain relatively expansive blocks of resources and wildlife. The gray wolf manage for numbers above these levels. potentially suitable habitat for wolves. and its habitat are expected to persist on Furthermore, both the Wisconsin and On some of these public lands the these lands once federally delisted. Michigan Wolf Management Plans are presence of livestock grazing allotments Central Rocky Mountains—Similar to designed to manage and ensure the increases the likelihood of wolf- other western States, a large proportion existence of wolf populations in the livestock conflict, which increases the of Colorado and Utah is composed of States as if they are isolated populations chances of wolf mortality from lethal publicly owned Federal lands and are not dependent upon removal of chronically depredating wolf (approximately 36 percent in Colorado immigration of wolves from an adjacent packs. In areas occupied by wolves in and approximately 63 percent in Utah) State or Canada, while still maintaining the northern Rocky Mountains, the (Congressional Research Service 2020). connections to those other populations. overall wolf population has been Public lands include National Forests, This approach provides strong remarkably resilient—in terms of National Parks, National Monuments, assurances that wolves in Wisconsin population numbers and distribution— and National Wildlife Refuges, which and Michigan will remain a viable despite lethal control of depredating comprise approximately 63 percent of component of the wolf population in the wolves. the public lands in Colorado and 30 Great Lakes area and the lower 48 In the listed portions of California, percent in Utah. In addition, the Bureau United States. Each of the three Great Oregon, and Washington, wolves are of Land Management manages Lakes States has a longstanding history resident on portions of the Lassen, approximately 35 percent of public land of leadership in wolf conservation. All Plumas, Fremont-Winema, Rogue- in Colorado, much of which is located of the State management plans provide Siskiyou, Mount Hood, Okanogan- in the western portion of the State, and a high level of assurance of the Wenatchee, and Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie approximately 67 percent of Utah public persistence of healthy wolf populations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69843

and demonstrate the States’ and communications with Tribes and entities, and, because we acknowledge commitment to wolf conservation. Tribal organizations, we anticipate that the two gray wolf listed entities do not Furthermore, when federally delisted, federally delisted wolves will be qualify as valid species, subspecies, or wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and adequately protected on Tribal lands. DPSs under the Act, the entities should Michigan will continue to receive Furthermore, the minimum population be delisted on that basis alone. protection from human-caused mortality levels defined in the Minnesota, In light of the peer review and by State laws and regulations. Wolves Wisconsin, and Michigan State numerous comments received during are protected as game species in each of management plans can be maintained the public comment period, we have those States, and lethal take is (based on the population and range of reexamined the approach we took in the prohibited without a permit, license, or off-reservation wolves) even without proposed rule. Our proposal clearly authorization, except under a few Tribal protection of wolves on articulated the reasoning behind limited situations (as described under reservation lands. In addition, on the combining the listed entities for analysis the management plans above). Each of basis of information received from other and, as this final rule illustrates, we the three States will consider Federal land-management agencies, we continue to find it a reasonable population-management measures, expect that National Forests, National approach. However, we agree with including public hunting and trapping, Parks, military bases, and National commenters who suggested that we after Federal delisting. However, Wildlife Refuges will provide should include a separate determination regardless of the methods used to protections to wolves in the areas they for each of the currently listed gray wolf manage wolves, each State has manage that will match, and in some entities. Thus, we added the analysis to committed to maintaining wolf cases exceed, the protections provided this final rule to support our statement populations at levels that ensure healthy by State wolf-management plans and in the proposed rule that, when wolf populations will remain. State regulations. analyzed separately, the entities do not Similarly, State management plans meet the definition of a threatened or an developed for Washington, Oregon, and Summary of Changes From the endangered species. California contain objectives to conserve Proposed Rule We have also reconsidered our and recover gray wolves. To maintain Based on our review of all public and approach to the NRM wolves in light of healthy populations, each State will peer reviewer comments we received on public comments. The biological report monitor population abundance and our March 15, 2019, proposed rule (84 we prepared to support our proposal trends, habitat and prey availability, and FR 9648, March 15, 2019), and new included detailed information related to impacts of disease and take actions as information they provided or that gray wolf abundance and distribution needed to maintain populations. They otherwise became available since the throughout the lower 48 United States, are also committed to continuing publication of the proposed rule, we including the NRM DPS. However, we necessary biological and social research, reevaluated the information in the did not include the delisted NRM DPS as well as outreach and education, to proposed rule and made changes as in the threats analysis of our proposed maintain healthy wolf populations. appropriate. As indicated in this rule rule because wolves in that DPS are not Wolves in Washington, Oregon, and (see Determination of Species Status), currently listed under the Act. California will also be protected by State our analyses are based on the best Nonetheless, because we considered laws and regulations when federally scientific and commercial data wolves in the West Coast States to be an delisted. Currently, wolves in available. Thus, we include in this final extension of the population of wolves in Washington and California are protected rule new information received in the delisted NRM DPS, we included under State statutes as endangered response to the March 19, 2019, information about the NRM DPS in our species, and under their respective State proposed rule that meets this standard. proposal to provide context for our management plans. Wolves in Oregon We received many comments related discussion of wolves comprising the are State-delisted but still receive to our approach to the proposed rule. combined listed entity. protection under its State management While commenters presented a broad Commenters remarked that this plan. Each plan contains various phases range of positions regarding our approach was inconsistent, and one outlining objectives for conservation approach, many of them focused on commenter opined that we could not and recovery. As recolonization of the several common issues. Some delist wolves in the West Coast States West Coast States continues, different commenters questioned our decision to without also including the NRM DPS in phases of management will be enacted. combine the two listed gray wolf our analysis. In this final rule, we All phases within the various State entities for analysis rather than analyze include NRM wolves in the analysis management plans are designed to each of the listed entities separately. because we conclude that it makes achieve and maintain healthy wolf Others pointed out that we did not sense, biologically, to consider those populations. include the analyses to support our wolves because of their connection to In the central Rocky Mountains, conclusion that, even if we had the west coast wolves that are part of the wolves will remain listed as an analyzed the listed entities separately, listed 44-State entity. As we concluded endangered species at the State level in neither would meet the Act’s definitions in our proposed rule, west coast wolves Colorado and will continue to receive of a threatened species or an endangered are not discrete from the NRM DPS (84 protection under the Colorado Revised species (84 FR 9686, March 15, 2019). FR 9654, March 15, 2019; see also The Statutes. In Utah, the State management Still others expressed disagreement with Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do plan will guide management of wolves our treatment of gray wolves in the West Not Meet the Statutory Definition of a until 2030; until at least two breeding Coast States, opining that we could not ‘‘Species’’). Because most west coast pairs are documented in the State for adequately consider the status of gray wolves are dispersers from the NRM, or two consecutive years; or until the wolves in the West Coast States without are descended from dispersers, wolves political, social, biological, or legal also assessing threats to the recovered in the NRM are relevant to our analysis assumptions of the plan change, and delisted gray wolf population in the of whether the west coast wolves are whichever occurs first. NRM DPS. Finally, a few commenters ‘‘significant’’ to the entities that we Finally, based on our review of the reasoned that the Act allows us to evaluate in this rule. Thus, in this final completed Tribal management plans analyze the status of only valid listable rule we include an evaluation of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69844 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

status of the two currently listed gray the proposal. A newspaper notice the report. A fifth reviewer found the wolf entities combined with the inviting general public comment was biological report inadequate because the recovered NRM DPS. However, although published in USA TODAY on March 22, reviewer believed that there were other we consider the NRM wolves due to 2019. Subsequently, on May 14, 2019, sources of information that should be their connection to currently listed we extended the public comment period included, which the reviewer provided wolves, we reiterate that wolves in the until July 15, 2019 (84 FR 21312). We and we considered. NRM DPS are recovered, and we are not received several requests for public With respect to our proposed rule, 2 reconsidering or reexamining our 2009 hearings. A public information open peer reviewers found our analysis of the and 2012 delisting rules (74 FR 15123, house and public hearing was held in factors relating to the persistence of gray April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September Brainerd, Minnesota, on June 25, 2019 wolves in the lower 48 United States to 10, 2012). (84 FR 26393). be adequate; 1 peer review provided Finally, while our proposed rule In addition, in accordance with our corrections and updates. Three already articulated that neither of the joint policy on peer review published in reviewers found our analysis of these two gray wolf listed entities constitute the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 factors inadequate, mainly because they valid listable entities under the Act and FR 34270), and updated guidance issued found our treatment of genetic threats, should, therefore, be removed from the on August 22, 2016 (USFWS 2016, human-caused mortality, or habitat List (84 FR 9686, March 15, 2019), we entire), we solicited expert opinion from suitability insufficient, or because they added a more complete discussion in five knowledgeable individuals with disagreed with Service policy. this final rule to support our conclusion scientific expertise that included Three reviewers found it reasonable to (see The Currently Listed C. lupus experience with large carnivore conclude that the approach of Michigan, Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory management, especially wolves, expert Wisconsin, and Minnesota to wolf Definition of a ‘‘Species’’). We also knowledge of conservation biology, management is likely to maintain a clarify that, while the currently listed wildlife management, demographic viable wolf population in the Great entities could be removed from the List management of mammals, genetics, Lakes area into the future, while two did on that basis, we elected not to act population modeling, mammalian not. One of these two found that the solely on that basis in this final rule. taxonomy, or systematics. We received proposed rule did not provide adequate Instead, we elected to consider whether responses from all five peer reviewers. support for either the conclusion that the gray wolves within the currently The peer review process, including the the metapopulation in the Great Lakes listed entities meet the definition of a selection of peer reviewers, was area contained sufficient resiliency, threatened or an endangered species, in conducted and managed by an redundancy, and representation to this case whether they are recovered. independent third party (USFWS 2018, sustain populations within the In addition to the items discussed entire; Atkins 2019, pp. 1–6). combined listed entity into the future or above, we made the following changes We reviewed all comments received that wolves outside this metapopulation in this final rule: from the peer reviewers and the public are not necessary to maintain its (1) We updated distribution for substantive issues and new recovered status. All provided information for the gray wolf; information regarding the delisting of additional information and literature for (2) we added a Definition and the gray wolf, inclusive of comments on inclusion in the rule, which we Treatment of Range section to Approach the proposed rule and the supporting reviewed. Comments received are for this Rule (see Our Response to biological report. Multiple respondents addressed in the following summary, Comments 5, 7, 8, 10, 63); provided technical edits and editorial and our responses are incorporated into (3) we added a Genetic Diversity and comments and corrections on the this final rule as appropriate. Inbreeding section to Summary of proposed rule and biological report, or Finally, although we did not request Factors Affecting the Species (see Our recommended additional citations to peer review on matters related to policy Response to Comments 2, 41, 57, 116, consider. We made recommended edits application, we received a number of 117); and corrections to the rule and policy-related comments from four of (4) we incorporated information biological report, where appropriate. We the five reviewers. Issues raised regarding gray wolves in the central also reviewed and considered all included: How we applied certain terms Rocky Mountains into the Summary of additional citations provided by peer defined in Service policies (e.g., species Factors Affecting the Species section as reviewers and others, and incorporated ‘‘range’’); our application of the SPR well as incorporated a consideration of information from them, as appropriate, policy; and our approach to the rule. these wolves into our Determination of into this final rule and the biological Although these comments are outside of Species Status section; report. the scope of the requested scientific (5) we incorporated new information Peer Reviewer Comments peer review (USFWS 2018, entire; as appropriate; and Atkins 2019, pp. 1–6), we address them (6) we made efforts to improve clarity Overall, three of the reviewers found in the summary below. and correct typographical or other the biological report represented an minor errors. accurate overview of the changes in the Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or biological status (range, distribution, Population Trends Summary of Comments and abundance) of the gray wolf in the lower Comment 1: Several reviewers stated Recommendations 48 United States over the last several that the biological report and proposed In the proposed rule published on decades, and provided recommended rule oversimplified the genetic structure March 15, 2019 (84 FR 9648), we revisions and updates. Although one of of gray wolves and requested additional requested that all interested parties those reviewers found our taxonomic information about population or submit written comments on the treatment of wolves to be somewhat metapopulation structure in wolves. proposal by May 14, 2019. We also arbitrary, a fourth reviewer found the Our Response: We modified both the contacted appropriate Federal and State taxonomy section adequate and biological report and the rule to better agencies, Tribes, scientific experts and recommended additional information reflect the various factors that have been organizations, and other interested on biology, ecology, and biological shown to impact the population genetic parties and invited them to comment on status of the gray wolf for inclusion in structure of wolves in North America,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69845

including consideration and addition of by wolves included in our analysis. We States and Central Rockies where citations recommended by the reviewer. revised the text of the biological report wolves continue to recolonize. Comment 2: Several reviewers noted to clarify the information pertaining to Therefore, our threats analysis that there should be a more detailed historical range and to address the encompasses relevant threats to wolves, discussion of potential genetic impacts reviewers’ concerns. as well as conservation and of delisting and provided additional Comment 4: One peer reviewer sought management, in the following citations for our consideration. These clarification of information presented in geographic areas: West Coast States comments included requests for further the figures depicting historical range (western Washington, western Oregon, consideration of the impacts of delisting and current distribution of the gray wolf and California), Northern Rocky on connectivity between populations, (Canis lupus) in the lower 48 United Mountains (represented in the figure), particularly in western States. States (figure 2 of the proposed rule and Central Rocky Mountains (Colorado and Our Response: We revised the figure 1 of the biological report). Utah [outside of the NRM DPS]), and the biological report to provide greater Specifically, the reviewer asked us to Great Lakes Area (Minnesota, detail on existing genetic structure in explain the basis for the current Wisconsin, and Michigan). See Our wolves as a background for potential distribution and provide citations for Response to Comment 37 and Definition genetic issues that may result from the data used to develop the current and Treatment of Range in this final rule. In addition, we added a section to distribution so that he could determine rule. this rule (Genetic Diversity and whether we included data for all wolves Comment 6: One peer reviewer Inbreeding) that provides a more in- or some subset of wolves, how the recommended that including marks on depth analysis of the potential genetic polygons were delineated, and if there States in which dispersing gray wolves impacts of delisting, including is a time period associated with the data have appeared in figure 1 in the consideration of inbreeding and effects used. biological report (figure 2 in the to metapopulation structure and Our Response: The current proposed rule) may further demonstrate connectivity. distribution (i.e., range) shown in figure the level of recovery gray wolves have Comment 3: Peer reviewers raised 2 of the proposed rule and figure 1 of attained. concerns about our description of the the biological report includes State data Our Response: As indicated in our historical range of gray wolves, pointing for packs and groups of wolves. The response to Comment 5, the purpose of out that the scientific evidence indicates distribution is current as of winter this figure is to show the current that either eastern or red wolves were 2019–2020. We revised these figures distribution of gray wolves to provide present in the Northeastern United and associated text to address the information about where wolves are States historically, not the gray wolf. concerns raised by the peer reviewer. currently known to occur (see Definition Our Response: As we discuss in the Also see Our Response to Comment 6. and Treatment of Range). We rule and the biological report, the Comment 5: One peer reviewer acknowledge that dispersing wolves taxonomy of wolves, particularly in the requested additional detail regarding have been documented outside of the Eastern United States, is not settled. figure 1 in the biological report (same as known, current distribution and present Along with the morphological data figure 2 in proposed rule). Specifically, this information in the text of this final presented by authors such as Nowak the reviewer questioned whether rule and the biological report. (1995, entire; 2002, entire; 2003, entire; current distribution is also current range Comment 7: One peer reviewer 2009, entire), there is now significant and noted that the figure does not assumed our analysis of threats for genetic and genomic research that has provide a spatial reference describing wolves in the Great Lakes area was in contributed to the ongoing debate over the area included in the threats analysis, the area of current distribution and the correct taxonomic relationship nor is it described in associated indicated that this made sense, as it is between eastern wolves, red wolves, paragraphs. a single large area supporting thousands and western gray wolves. This debate Our Response: The figure depicts the of wolves. Similarly, the peer reviewer includes considerable uncertainty about current distribution of known wolves in questioned whether our threats analysis the potential historical ranges of those the lower 48 United States. The figure for wolves in Washington, Oregon, and groups, including questions about the was not meant to indicate a specific California included only the small, degree to which they did or did not spatial extent for our threats analysis, isolated patches of occupied wolf overlap, which can be difficult to rather it was to provide a representation habitat or also included the intervening ascertain based on limited available of the approximate locations of wolves areas. samples. In presenting information on within the listed wolf entities relative to Our Response: The peer reviewer is historical range, we sought to wolves in the remainder of the lower 48 correct regarding the scope of the threats acknowledge this uncertainty while United States. The threats analyses have analysis for the Great Lakes area wolves. considering the taxa that were covered been completed for the two listed In areas where the saturation of wolves by the original listing rule we are entities assessed separately, in is denser, polygons delineated around addressing. As a result, we explicitly combination (combined listed entity), occupied habitats are larger and also include eastern wolves, but not red and in combination with the NRM DPS incorporate corridors connecting wolves, in the gray wolf entities (lower 48 United States entity), all of occupied habitats to one another. The evaluated for this rule, meaning that the which are encompassed by the current opposite is true in the West, where historical range of the gray wolf in the distribution indicated in figure 1 of the wolves are less saturated due to more lower 48 United States does not attempt biological report. We endeavored to recent recolonization from resident to distinguish between the ranges of match our threats analysis to the spatial packs, the NRM, and Canada. western gray wolf and eastern wolf and scale of the gray wolf’s distribution. Connecting these smaller occupied instead considers them as a single range. However, some data on threats and patches to the larger metapopulation The area of ‘‘uncertainty’’ in our map of conservation measures and management would be speculative at best given the the historical range in the biological of wolves were provided at regional or level of information currently available report, therefore, reflects the fact that State-wide scales, and we did not want about corridors that may connect there is evidence that the Northeastern to constrain our analysis to the dynamic occupied habitats. We describe the United States may have been inhabited smaller polygons in the West Coast current condition of wolves in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69846 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Washington, Oregon, California, and includes areas outside of the current that we add State-by-State estimates of Colorado (not limited to small polygons) range or current distribution. mortality rates and include additional and how these wolves would be Our Response: We have clarified, in mortality factors to table 4 in the rule (to managed post-delisting (also see Our this final rule, that our findings are include all forms of mortality aside from Responses to Comments 8 and 37 and based on the current range of the gray lethal control and legal public harvest). Definition and Treatment of Range in wolf and do not rely on further range The reviewer created a new table and this final rule). expansion of west coast wolves. Also provided new information about the Comment 8: One peer reviewer noted see Definition and Treatment of Range percent of the population removed that the apparent current range of the in this final rule. annually through agency control efforts. gray wolf in the lower 48 United States, Comment 11: One peer reviewer Other commenters also expressed under a metapopulation structure, requested inclusion of 2018 minimum concern that State monitoring programs should include portions of the historical wolf counts for Washington, Oregon, underestimate mortality rates, including range because the historical range and California, as well as for the the effects of legal depredation control provides connectivity between known Mexican gray wolf. Similarly, another and other sources of mortality. occurrences. Additionally, the peer peer reviewer noted an inconsistency in Our Response: In most instances, reviewer advised that sink areas of our discussion of whether the Mexican State and Tribal wildlife agencies have metapopulations (e.g., dispersal end gray wolf population was growing or been the primary agencies responsible points in various western and stable. for monitoring wolf populations while midwestern States) should be Our Response: The requested data they were federally listed. As a result, considered current range as they were not available at the time the the Service has relied upon data provide viability and connectivity to biological report and proposed rule provided by partner wildlife agencies to metapopulations (citing Howe et al. were completed. The 2018 data, as well evaluate population metrics related to 1991 and Heinrichs et al. 2015). as data from winter 2019–2020, are now recovery. We do not expect that wolf Our Response: As described in the included in this final rule and revised monitoring will significantly change or Definition and Treatment of Range biological report. We also clarified that become less precise post-delisting. To section of this final rule, we define the Mexican gray wolf population evaluate the population status of current range to be the area occupied by continues to grow. wolves, biologists used a variety of the species at the time we make a status Comment 12: One peer reviewer monitoring techniques to evaluate pack determination. The current range of the noted that Appendix 1 of the biological size and reproductive success, identify gray wolf in the lower 48 United States report contained minimum annual pack territories, monitor movements is based on data provided by the States counts of wolves only for Michigan, and dispersal events, and identify new on the locations of groups or packs of Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Similar areas of possible wolf activity. In wolves. Individual dispersing wolves do information was requested for addition to direct counts that provide a not have a defined territory or Washington, Oregon, and California. minimum known number each year, consistently use any one area and, Our Response: We have added managers attempt to use similar survey therefore, are not included in the another table, Appendix 2, to the techniques annually so that accurate current range of the gray wolf. Also see biological report that provides assessments of historical trends may be Our Response to Comment 37 and minimum end of year counts for wolves used to further evaluate wolf population Definition and Treatment of Range in in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, status and changes over time. However, this final rule. Washington, Oregon, and California. traditional techniques used to monitor Comment 9: One peer reviewer Comment 13: One reviewer wolves (e.g., capture and radio-collar questioned why we include listed and recommended that we clarify in the animals, monitor from the ground or air) delisted wolves in figure 2 of the biological report differences between can be dangerous to the animal and biological report, when we state that we minimum wolf counts versus patch wildlife personnel, are costly and time- are not including the delisted NRM DPS occupancy modeling when discussing consuming, and become less precise as wolves as part of the listed entity under wolf population estimates in Montana wolf abundance and distribution analysis. and proposed specific language. increase; thus, these techniques Our Response: As explained above, Our Response: The paragraph in underestimate the true population size we are including wolves in the delisted question has been revised and updated (Gude et al. 2012, p. 116). NRM DPS in our analysis of the status using similar concepts, rather than the As a result, State management of the lower 48 United States entity for exact terminology provided by the agencies have been at the forefront in this final rule. We provided information reviewer. Updated information is also developing more accurate, cost-efficient from the NRM DPS in our biological included in the Human-caused monitoring techniques to assess wolf report and the proposed rule because Mortality section of this final rule. population status in their respective the NRM wolves are biologically States. For example, Montana connected to wolves in the West Coast Human-Caused Mortality incorporates hunter surveys, along with States, and to illustrate how wolf Comment 14: One peer reviewer other variables, into a patch occupancy populations have responded post- expressed their view that illegal take is modeling framework to estimate wolf delisting when they are managed under underestimated by State monitoring abundance and distribution across the State authority. We also included NRM programs and would be much higher State. Idaho experimented with multiple wolves in figure 2 of the biological than it is today if wolves were to be noninvasive monitoring techniques to report, which provides information on delisted. This reviewer expressed assess reproductive success and the changes in distribution and abundance concerns about a ‘‘catastrophic decline’’ number of packs in the State and most since the original listing in 1978 (see in the Minnesota wolf population post- recently used camera surveys and a USFWS 2020, p. 14). delisting as well as ‘‘unwarranted modeling framework to provide a Comment 10: One peer reviewer assurances about the safety of wolves in population estimate for 2019. Michigan sought clarification on whether our the Western Great Lakes’’ post-delisting inventories wolves using a description of the public lands available in both the proposed rule and biological geographically based, stratified, random for expansion of west coast wolves report. One peer reviewer recommended sample that produces an unbiased,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69847

regional estimate of wolf abundance. al. 2012, p. 914; Treves et al. 2017b, pp. observed in Idaho and Montana (see Minnesota radio-collars a relative few 7–8), other studies have supported the table 3). individuals in a number of packs estimate that between 6 and 10 percent While it is possible that increased Statewide and uses metrics obtained of the known population may be levels of human-caused mortality due to from those packs to evaluate occupied illegally killed each year in both the public harvest could affect peripheral range and abundance. In addition to NRM and the Great Lakes area wolf populations of wolves by creating using similar techniques as Minnesota, populations (Smith et al. 2010, p. 625; isolated pockets that may result in Wisconsin also uses citizen science Ausband et al. 2017a, p. 7; O’Neil 2017, reduced genetic diversity and increased volunteers who are trained and p. 214, Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 104). potential for inbreeding in outlying qualified through a tracking program to Wolves die for a variety of reasons and areas, there is no empirical evidence to assist agency personnel in documenting the mechanisms they have to indicate that this has occurred or is wolf presence and number across survey compensate for these mortalities have likely to occur in the future. Genetic blocks in winter. California, Oregon, made wolf populations very adaptable diversity was limited for wolves on Isle Washington, and Wyoming continue to and resilient to perturbations. Table 4 in Royale National Park, but the cause was use traditional monitoring approaches the rule provides information about the their location on an isolated island that provide minimum counts. average annual number and percent of rather than the effects of human-caused Most State management agencies the total estimated population removed mortality. Dispersal is innate to the within occupied wolf range in the lower in 5-year increments (with the exception biology of the wolf and moderate 48 United States publish a report that of the period between 2015 and 2017) increases in human-caused mortality in summarizes the results of wolf via agency-directed lethal control of core areas may reduce the overall monitoring and management activities depredating wolves in Minnesota. This number of dispersers due to slight each year they are conducted. The table relates only to depredation control reductions in the total number of wolves Service reviewed these reports to in Minnesota; other forms of mortality on the landscape. Increased human- complete the biological report and the are addressed elsewhere in the rule. caused mortality also has the potential proposed and final rules. These reports While the Service appreciates the to create additional vacant habitats and also provide information about the reviewer’s efforts to create a new table, social openings within packs, which number and type of known causes of we find the table that was originally may result in an overall reduction in mortality that occurred in each State. published in the proposed rule is an dispersal distance for wolves in the core Wolves may go missing for a variety of appropriate way to provide information of the western United States reasons, and removing these animals about the average number and metapopulation. Nonetheless, short- and from survival analyses has the potential percentage of the population removed long-distance dispersal events, as well to bias survival estimates high (Liberg et through lethal control actions in as effective dispersal in which the al. 2012, p. 914; Stenglein et al. 2015c, Minnesota. disperser became a breeder, continue to p. 374; O’Neil 2017, p. 202; Treves et al. Refer to the Human-caused Mortality be documented in hunted populations, 2017b, pp. 7–8). However, it is not section of the rule and Our Response to as well as high- and low-density wolf reasonable to assume that all, or even Comment 16 for further information populations, which contributes to the most, wolves with unknown fates have related to discussions about illegal take. maintenance of high levels of genetic died, particularly through illegal means. Comment 15: One reviewer noted that diversity. Furthermore, resident packs For example, a wolf captured in we did not analyze human-caused in California, Oregon, and Washington northeast Oregon in 2011 went missing mortality for western wolves— contribute annually to the number of later that same year until it was specifically, how human-caused dispersing wolves that are available to rediscovered again in 2015 in mortality in the core of the western fill social openings or to recolonize southwestern Oregon (ODFW 2016, p. United States metapopulation could vacant suitable habitat both within and 8), where it became the breeder in a affect the viability of outlying western outside of each State. This supports the newly formed pack (ODFW 2017, p. 5). listed wolves. The same reviewer also continued viability of wolves and An integrated population model for noted a lack of discussion regarding the enhances the resiliency, redundancy, Wisconsin’s wolf population indicated potential for high levels of human- and representation of wolves in the gray that up to an additional 4 percent of caused mortality in one western listed wolf entities evaluated in this rule. For missing wolves may have actually died area to affect the viability of other further information, refer to the Human- between 2003 and 2011 (Stenglein et al. western listed areas. caused Mortality and Genetic Diversity 2015c, pp. 372–374). Our Response: Aside from large and Inbreeding sections of this final Managers use empirical data from protected areas such as Yellowstone and rule. monitoring efforts and reports from the Isle Royale National Parks, human- Comment 16: One reviewer and one public to provide accurate information caused mortality has been, and commenter stated that the biological about the number and causes of known continues to be, the primary source of report and the proposed rule did not wolf mortalities, but are cautious about known wolf mortality in the lower 48 review the scientific debate concerning drawing conclusions from those data United States, including wolves in the the effects of current levels of illegal regarding the fates of missing animals. West Coast States. Wolves in the core of take and the potential increase in legal Most managers acknowledge that the western United States take (i.e., ‘‘tolerance hunting’’) on wolf information related to the number and metapopulation (e.g., NRM DPS) are populations. cause of wolf mortalities are likely managed under State authority and Our Response: We reviewed the biased because not every wolf is fitted following an initial population decline citations provided by the reviewer and with a radio collar and not every wolf post-delisting, wolf populations appear have updated the rule accordingly. We that dies is recovered so their fates are to have stabilized in Idaho and acknowledge in the Human-caused unknown. In the NRM, it was estimated Montana, whereas they continue to Mortality section of the rule that human- that 10 percent of the population was increase in Oregon and Washington (see caused mortality is likely to increase illegally killed annually. Although some table 3). Wolf populations in Wyoming post-delisting as some States (primarily research has indicated that rates of were delisted in 2017 and may be the Great Lakes States) begin to manage illegal take may be biased low (Liberg et following a similar pattern to that wolves under the guidance of their

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69848 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

respective State management plans. existence of a recovered, viable conflicts, the effectiveness of nonlethal This may include increased use of lethal population. methods to reduce livestock losses control to mitigate depredations on Comment 17: One peer reviewer ranged between 0 and 100 percent, livestock and the implementation of objected to the use of lethal control by whereas the effectiveness of targeted, public harvest to stabilize or reduce States to mitigate wolf conflicts with lethal control ranged between 67 and 83 wolf population growth rates. Post- livestock and humans post-delisting. percent (Miller et al. 2016, pp. 3–8). In delisting, gray wolves in Washington The peer reviewer also asserted that the contrast, another review indicated that and California will continue to be proposed rule made assumptions that lethal control was just as, if not more, classified as endangered at the State lethal control was self-limiting and effective than most nonlethal methods level until they are State-downlisted or inferred that agency control only leads at mitigating conflict, but that success State-delisted based on population to more wolf killing. was more variable when compared to Our Response: We recognize and performance and recovery metrics nonlethal methods (van Eeden et al. respect that some people may find some specific to each State. Wolves in Oregon 2017, p. 29). This indicates that no or all forms of human-caused wolf single method or technique is were State-delisted in 2016; however, mortality morally or ethically they continue to receive protection consistently effective under all objectionable, particularly the use of conditions to minimize conflict risk. under a State statute and the Oregon lethal removal of wolves to mitigate Although continued research is needed Wolf Conservation and Management conflicts with livestock. However, the (Treves et al. 2016, entire; Eklund et al. Plan, which mandates a public Act requires that we make our 2017, entire; van Eeden et al. 2018, rulemaking process prior to authorizing determination based on whether the entire), we acknowledge that a legal hunting of wolves. In Colorado, entity under analysis meets the Act’s depredation management plan that is wolves will continue to be classified as definition of a threatened species or an adaptive and includes a combination of endangered at the State level after endangered species (in this case, is it multiple nonlethal and lethal methods delisting, and management will be recovered and will State management may improve its overall effectiveness at guided by the wolf management retain that recovered status if the Act’s minimizing depredation risk (Bangs et recommendations developed by the protections are removed). We may not al. 2006, entire; Treves and Naughton- Colorado Wolf Management Working consider the reasons why individual Treves 2005, p. 106; Wielgus and Group. Based on past delisting efforts in wolves may be killed after the species Peebles 2014, pp. 1, 14; Miller et al. the Great Lakes area, and as is delisted unless it would affect our 2016, p. 7; Stone et al. 2017, entire; demonstrated by current State analysis of the statutory threat factors. DeCesare et al. 2018, p. 11). management of wolves in Idaho, Conflicts occur wherever wolves and Lethal control of depredating wolves Montana, and Wyoming, we conclude it livestock coexist, often regardless of is used reactively rather than is unlikely that moderate increases in what methods are used to prevent or proactively, often after other techniques human-caused mortality will cause mitigate those conflicts. Both nonlethal to prevent depredations were dramatic declines in wolf populations and lethal methods are often temporary unsuccessful, to stop current across the lower 48 United States. solutions to resolve conflicts and depredations and minimize the seldom provide long-term effectiveness. We do not agree that increased take potential for recurrence at the local Under certain circumstances, through lethal depredation control and scale while continuing to promote wolf preventative and nonlethal techniques legal harvest will cause a corresponding population growth, recovery, have been shown to be effective. These increase in illegal take. Although some sustainability, and/or viability at the include the effectiveness of proactive have indicated that estimates of illegal landscape scale. As wolf populations methods to curb learned behaviors have continued to increase in number take are underestimated (Liberg et al. associated with food rewards in wolves 2012, p. 914; Treves et al. 2017b, pp. 7– and expand their range into more (Much et al. 2018, p. 76), the inferred agriculturally oriented and human- 8), multiple, independent studies from effectiveness of human presence at dominated landscapes, more wolf different areas of the lower 48 United reducing recurrent depredations in territories overlap with livestock and States indicate that illegal take removes Minnesota (Harper et al. 2008, pp. 782– humans. This outcome increases both approximately 10 percent of 783), and the adaptive use of multiple interaction rates and the potential for populations annually (Smith et al. 2010, preventative and nonlethal methods to conflict, which in turn reduces the p. 625; Ausband et al. 2017a, p. 7; minimize sheep depredations in Idaho probability that wolves will persist in O’Neil 2017, p. 214, Stenglein et al. (Stone et al. 2017, entire). Conversely, these areas long term (Mech et al. 2019, 2018, p. 104). There are also indications lethal control has been demonstrated to entire). Even so, overall, few wolf packs that documented illegal take of wolves be effective at minimizing recurrent are implicated in livestock or pet was higher during periods of Federal depredations through an overall depredations on an annual basis (for management compared to State reduction in pack size if conducted example, approximately 20 percent of management (Olson et al. 2014, entire). shortly after a depredation occurred; known packs in the NRM; also see Based on empirical information however, complete pack removal was Olson et al. 2015, entire). Thus, how compiled by wildlife management most effective (Bradley et al. 2015, pp. depredating wolves are managed will agencies, illegal mortality did not 6–9). In addition to the targeted removal influence where non-depredating increase following previous delisting of wolves to minimize the potential of wolves may persist because the removal efforts in the Great Lakes area or the recurrent depredations on sheep (Harper of the small number that cause conflict NRM States. See the Human-caused et al. 2008, p. 783), the targeted removal may increase tolerance for the Mortality section of the rule for further of a relatively high number of remaining wolves that do not (Musiani information related to illegal take and individuals relative to pack size et al. 2005, p. 884). wolf survival as well as the Post- significantly reduced the probability of The use of lethal control to mitigate delisting Management section of the recurrent cattle depredations the wolf conflicts with livestock has been rule for information related to how following year (DeCesare et al. 2018, pp. criticized for lacking long-term States intend to adaptively manage wolf 8, 10–11). In a review of both nonlethal effectiveness and being too costly populations to ensure the continued and lethal methods to mitigate carnivore (Wielgus and Peebles 2014, entire;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69849

McManus et al. 2015, entire; Lennox et approximately 190 cattle depredations recommended the biological report be al. 2018, entire; Santiago-Avila et al. was confirmed per year, while between revised to include scientific information 2018, entire). However, lethal control of the years of 2012 to 2015, the number on the patterns and processes of human- depredating wolves is not intended to of confirmed cattle depredations caused mortality in wolves. resolve long-term depredation decreased to an average of about 151 per Our Response: The purpose of the management issues across a large spatial year (see USFWS et al. 2016, table 7b). biological report is to provide a concise scale (Musiani et al. 2005, p. 885). Although the number of confirmed overview of the changes in the Rather, it has consistently been used by cattle depredations in Montana trended biological status (range, distribution, managers as a short-term response to slightly upward in 2017 and 2018, the abundance) of the gray wolf (Canis mitigate recurrent depredations of number of reported depredations lupus) in the lower 48 United States livestock on a relatively small scale that declined significantly in Montana from over the last several decades. A full could not be resolved using other a high of 233 in 2009, to approximately discussion of human-caused wolf methods. Wielgus and Peebles (2014, 100 or fewer between 2014 and 2018 mortality (including human attitudes pp. 7–14) argued that lethal removal of (Inman et al. 2019, p. 11). Similarly, the and behaviors and the effects of take on wolves in one year exacerbated the number of livestock killed by wolves in wolf social structure) and a complete conflict cycle, which resulted in an Wyoming has declined since wolves analysis of potential threats facing increased number of livestock killed by were federally delisted in 2017 (WGFD wolves was included in the proposed wolves the following year. Subsequent et al. 2020, p. 19). rule and has been updated and revised studies have refuted this assertion and As a result of the overall reduction in as appropriate in this final rule. Refer to found that, when the same data were livestock depredations, the number of Comments 36 and 19 and revisions reanalyzed, the use of lethal control was wolves lethally removed to mitigate made in response to those comments for effective at reducing livestock conflicts has also generally declined in additional information. depredations the following year the NRM States. The Service does not Comment 19: Two reviewers critiqued (Poudyal et al. 2016, entire), and an expect confirmed livestock depredations the discussion related to human increasing wolf population was the to cease altogether post-delisting, even behaviors and the inclination to poach primary cause of the observed increases though States will have the ability to wolves post-delisting. Both reviewers in the number of livestock depredations use targeted lethal control and public provided references for an updated (Kompaniyets and Evans 2017, entire). harvest to manage wolf conflicts and discussion regarding this topic in the Others have documented the populations, respectively. Rather, we proposed rule. One reviewer stated the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of certain expect there may be a slight decrease in rule misinterpreted the review by lethal control prescriptions used to the number of livestock depredations Treves and Bruskotter (2014) regarding tolerance for predators. minimize depredation risk within the post-delisting, followed by fluctuations Our Response: The Role of Public same year the control actions were around a lower long-term average in Attitudes section of this final rule has conducted or the year following the subsequent years as managers learn how best to manage wolf populations and been updated and revised to include control actions (Bradley et al. 2015, references recommended by both peer entire; DeCesare et al. 2018, pp. 8, 10). conflicts to ensure the long-term survival of the species. Furthermore, if reviewers as well as other references As long as wolves and domestic that inform the discussion of human livestock share the landscape, conflict wolves are causing less conflict, it could lead to improved tolerance for wolves behaviors related to wolves and wolf will occur, and depredation and, although annual fluctuations are management. As the reviewers management programs that use a likely, an overall reduction in the recommended, we expanded the combination of proactive and reactive number of wolves lethally removed discussion in the rule related to human tools are often most effective at annually as a result. behaviors, how those behaviors are minimizing depredation risk. For information on the percent of the correlated with management, and the Although DeCesare et al. (2018, pp. 9– wolf population removed through inclination to illegally take a wolf based 11) concluded that public harvest alone agency-directed lethal control as well as on the listing status of wolves. We also had little effect on the annual wolves taken in defense of property by added a section related to overall recurrence of livestock depredations in private individuals and its effect on tolerance for wolves and, we conclude, Montana, there is some evidence to wolf populations in the Great Lakes appropriately reinterpreted the review indicate that the combination of lethal area, refer to the Post-delisting by Treves and Bruskotter (2014). control and public harvest has the Management section of this rule. Also We conclude that public tolerance of potential to reduce the number of refer to the Human-caused Mortality wolves is likely to improve as wolves confirmed livestock depredations section of this rule for information are delisted and local residents feel they caused by wolves without having a related to the effects of human-caused have input in management of wolf significant impact on wolf populations. mortality, including lethal control, on populations. This process has already For example, the Wisconsin wolf wolf populations in the NRM post begun in the NRM States; however, it population declined slightly from 815 to delisting. will likely take time for this increased 746 animals (an 8 percent decrease) Comment 18: One peer reviewer control over wolf management, and the between 2012 and 2015 (wolves were asserted the biological report lacked related sense of ownership, to translate federally delisted between 2012 and information on human-caused mortality, into tangible benefits in improved 2014). However, during that same time human attitudes, and behavior as they public opinion. Public acceptance is period, verified wolf kills on cattle and relate to human-caused mortality, as highest where wolves were not the number of farms with verified well as cumulative effects of mortality extirpated and where residents have had depredations declined significantly and reproductive failure in wolves. As longer periods of exposure to wolves (Wiedenhoeft et al. 2015, pp. 4–5, 12). a result, the reviewer believed the (Houston et al. 2010, pp. 399–401). A similar trend was observed in the threats assessment in the proposal was However, it is unclear whether this is NRM when it was delisted in 2011, with uninformed by a scientific analysis of due to increased knowledge and the exception of Wyoming. Between the peer-reviewed literature on human- experience dealing with wolves or to 2006 and 2011, an average of caused mortality. The reviewer less stringent local management policies

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69850 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

(including public harvest and defense of recovery and delisting of the eastern relatively low numbers of wolf-livestock property regulations). timber wolf’’ (USFWS 1992, p. 27). This conflicts. Models that fail to account for Comment 20: One peer reviewer and planning goal was driven not by the potential for wolf-livestock conflicts several other commenters recommended minimum estimates of viability, but or other conflicts with humans are that we conduct a population viability instead by: Existing populations of likely to overestimate the availability of analysis (PVA) or other additional 1,550 to 1,750 wolves in Minnesota suitable habitat. modeling exercises or analysis before (USFWS 1992, p. 4), the plan’s objective Comment 22: One peer reviewer delisting. The peer reviewer and some to maintain existing populations asserted that defining a human behavior of the other commenters further stated (USFWS 1992, p. 24), and existing (wolf-killing) as a habitat feature is that we should provide more support, planning goals by other land managers contrary to longstanding ecological via a PVA, that a population of 1,251 to within Minnesota (USFWS 1992, p. 27). practice and not all humans kill gray 1,440 wolves in Minnesota would be Population viability and sustainability wolves or even want to kill gray wolves viable. are explicitly discussed in the plan. The (e.g., Treves et al. 2013). The reviewer Our Response: The Act requires that plan states a ‘‘viable population’’ stated that human density is a weak we use the best scientific data available includes either: (1) An isolated, self- correlate of threat to wolves and that the when we make decisions to list, sustaining population of 200 wolves for proposed rule should not define a reclassify, or delist a species. However, 5 successive years; or (2) a self- habitat as unsuitable because people it does not require that we produce new sustaining population of 100 wolves live there; rather, an area should be science to fill knowledge gaps. PVAs within 100 miles of the Minnesota classified as unsuitable only when can be a valuable tool to help us population (USFWS 1992, pp. 4, 25–26). mortality or failed reproduction are understand the population dynamics of Furthermore, the plan stated that ‘‘a recurrent phenomena. rare species (White 2000, entire). They healthy, self-sustaining wolf population Our Response: We have clarified that can also be useful in identifying gaps in should include at least 100 our definition of suitable habitat our knowledge of the demographic interbreeding wolves [that would] generally refers to areas with sufficient parameters that are most important to a maintain an acceptable level of genetic prey where human-caused mortality is species’ survival. However, the diversity’’ (USFWS 1992, p. 26). After likely to be relatively low due to limited difficulty of applying PVA techniques to evaluating all available information, we human access, high amounts of escape- wolves has been discussed by Fritts and determine that the best scientific and cover, or a low probability of conflict Carbyn (1995, pp. 28–29) and Boitani commercial information available with humans and livestock. The (2003, pp. 332–333). Problems include continues to support our conclusion standard practice in the development of our inability to: (1) Provide accurate that these recovery goals will ensure wolf habitat models is to include the input information for the probability of that the population does not again potential for wolf-human conflict (e.g., occurrence of, and impact from, become in danger of extinction. areas with high human and livestock catastrophic events (such as a major densities) and areas of higher human- disease outbreak or prey base collapse); Habitat and Prey Availability caused wolf mortality (e.g., areas closer (2) incorporate all the complexities and Comment 21: One peer reviewer to roads and areas without forest cover). feedback loops inherent in wild systems provided information from Smith et al. Because wolves can occur nearly and agency adaptive management (2016) regarding habitat suitability for anywhere with high enough prey strategies; (3) provide realistic inputs for the gray wolf in the central United densities (including semideveloped the influences of environmental States. In particular, the peer reviewer landscapes) and low enough human- variation (such as annual fluctuations in pointed out that while there appears to caused mortality, the inclusion of winter severity and the resulting be suitable habitat in South Dakota and information on wolf-human conflict is impacts on prey abundance and wolves dispersing to that area, breeding essential to identifying where wolves vulnerability); (4) account for temporal has not been documented. They also are likely to persist over time (see Mech variation, selective outbreeding, and pointed out that the model used in 2017). individual heterogeneity; and (5) Smith et al. (2016) did not account for Comment 23: One reviewer address the spatial aspects of extreme forest cover as an attribute of wolf commented that habitat suitability territoriality and the long-distance habitat, which was an important should be measured only at the dispersals shown by wolves. Relatively attribute in the Great Lakes area individual level rather than the minor changes in any of these input (Mladenoff et al. 2009) and the Rocky population level and further commented values into a theoretical model can Mountains (Oakleaf et al. 2006). that habitat suitability should be result in vastly different outcomes. Our Response: We acknowledge that defined by observing where The revised recovery plan for the not all wolf habitat models incorporate reproduction and survival occur. The Eastern Timber Wolf indicated recovery the same predictor variables. We have reviewer pointed to language in the would be achieved when: (1) The updated this final rule to explain that, proposed rule that indicated an area of survival of the wolf in Minnesota is despite model results of Smith et al. Minnesota was not suitable habitat even assured, and (2) at least one viable (2016), relatively high densities of though 450 wolves live there, and the population (as defined below) of eastern livestock and limited hiding cover for reviewer questioned how this area could timber wolves outside Minnesota and wolves (forests) in large portions of the be unsuitable given the presence of such Isle Royale in the lower 48 United States Midwest are likely reasons that wolves a large number of wolves. is reestablished. The recovery plan did have failed to recolonize this area Our Response: We have clarified our not establish a specific numerical (Smith et al. 2016, pp. 560–561). As definition of suitable habitat in this final criterion for the Minnesota wolf indicated in the Habitat and Prey rule. We define suitability to include population. While the plan did identify Availability section, predictions of areas where wolf-human conflict is low a goal ‘‘for planning purposes only’’ of suitable habitat generally depict areas enough to allow wolf populations to 1,251 to 1,400 wolves for the Minnesota with sufficient prey where human- persist. Wolves are habitat generalists population (USFWS 1992, p. 28), the caused mortality is likely to be and can reproduce and survive nearly plan explicitly states that the region’s relatively low due to limited human anywhere given sufficient food total goals, ‘‘exceed what is required for access, high amounts of escape cover, or resources and low enough human-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69851

caused mortality. Therefore, we find be discussed with the State management communication about management or that development of a definition that agency. other relevant topics, conservation plans factors in wolf-human conflict is developed by States and counties, and General necessary to identify areas where wolf biological assessments. persistence is likely. The reference in Comment 27: One peer reviewer Our proposed rule and draft biological our proposed rule to an area in stated that we did not consider many report were based on sources that we Minnesota containing 450 wolves as relevant published articles and did not concluded are: (1) The best scientific being ‘‘not suitable for wolves’’ adequately assess the quality of the and commercial data available at the originated from our Revised Recovery evidence we used in reaching our time of the determination and (2) Plan. The statement, as written, was not conclusions. The reviewer maintained relevant to a determination of the status intended to convey that wolves were not that we did not adequately consider of the gray wolf entity under analysis. capable of surviving there but instead disagreements within the scientific We evaluated all additional information that it was not desirable for wolves to literature, and that some of the evidence provided during the public comment occur there due to greater human does not meet long-established period by peer reviewers, governmental density, including a high proportion of standards of evidence. agencies, Native American Tribes, the intensively farmed areas (USFWS 1992, Our Response: In accordance with scientific community, industry, and any p. 15). We have edited this final rule for section 4 of the Act, we are required to other interested parties, and we clarity. make our determinations on a species’ considered the information in status based on the best scientific and developing this final rule and the final Disease and Parasites commercial data available at the time of biological report, as appropriate. the determination. We prepare status Comment 24: One peer reviewer Biological Report recommended we consider the impacts assessments and associated reports of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in summarizing the best available Comment 28: One peer reviewer deer and elk, as they are primary prey information that is relevant to our recommended the biological report consideration of whether a species include data on wolf immigration from species for wolves. They noted that meets the Act’s definition of a Canada to support the claim that wolves CWD is not currently found in areas threatened species or an endangered from Canada will repopulate the Great with wolf packs, and included a species. The evidentiary standards we Lakes area or West Coast States. reference to evaluate. apply are found in our Policy on Our Response: The biological report Our Response: We added a discussion Information Standards under the Act references wolves from Canada of CWD and what we know about its (published in the Federal Register on recolonizing portions of northern impacts to wolf prey (see the Habitat July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Montana beginning in the early 1980s. and Prey Availability section). Information Quality Act (section 515 of Long-distance dispersal has also been Post-Delisting Management the Treasury and General Government critical to wolf recolonization in the Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 Great Lakes area (Treves et al. 2009, Comment 25: One peer reviewer (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658)), and our entire). Furthermore, wolves from stated that the Service should openly associated Information Quality British Columbia, along with wolves discuss the changes in wolf monitoring Guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/ from the Northern Rocky Mountains are methods used by the State of Wisconsin informationquality/). These provide in the process of recolonizing suitable over time (e.g., use of volunteer trackers) criteria and guidance and establish habitats in the West Coast States and how those changing methods may procedures to ensure that our decisions (Hendricks et al. 2019, entire). We have affect the State’s population and growth are based on the best scientific and updated the biological report to cite rate estimates (including differences in commercial data available. They require multiple studies showing that, if standard deviation). us, to the extent consistent with the Act human-caused mortality is regulated, Our Response: Survey methods in and with the use of the best scientific wolves have a remarkable ability to Wisconsin have not changed and commercial data available, to use recolonize areas with a sufficient prey- significantly since the Wisconsin primary and original sources of base (e.g., Mech 1995, Boyd and Department of Natural Resources began information as the basis for our status Pletcher 1999, Treves et al. 2009, Mech producing annual counts of the State’s determinations. Primary or original 2017, Hendricks et al. 2019). The gray wolf population in winter 1979– information sources are those that are discussion of connectivity and 1980 (Wydeven 2019b, in litt.). closest to the subject being studied, as immigration from Canada in the Comment 26: One peer reviewer opposed to those that cite, comment on, biological report is provided to illustrate proposed changes to the Wisconsin or build upon primary sources. that wolves in the Great Lakes area and Wolf Management Plan, such as The Act and our regulations do not the West Coast States do not function as alternative hypotheses about population require us to use only peer-reviewed isolated populations, and that their growth and further analysis and literature. Rather, we may exercise our connectivity with even larger rationale for the population goal. expert judgment in determining what populations in Canada increases their Our Response: Wisconsin’s plan information constitutes the ‘‘best resiliency. We do not anticipate that provides for maintaining a population of scientific and commercial data wolves in the Great Lakes area or West wolves, which in combination with available.’’ We use information from Coast States will be eliminated or wolves in Michigan, will comprise a many sources, including but not limited reduced such that repopulation will be viable population that is not in danger to: Articles in peer-reviewed journals, necessary. of extinction in the foreseeable future. scientific status surveys and studies Comment 29: One peer reviewer We conclude that Wisconsin’s completed by qualified individuals, provided additional information on management plan, as currently written, Master’s thesis research that has been pack territory sizes, recommending we will accomplish that goal. We reviewed but not published in a journal, include more detailed information on recommend that recommendations for other unpublished governmental and territories in the Great Lakes region. ways to improve the States’ nongovernmental reports, reports Our Response: In the biological management following delisting should prepared by industry, personal report, we provided the known range of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69852 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

pack territory sizes (12.7 to 1,003.9 mi2 States (e.g., parts of the Pacific information on the distribution of (33 to 2,600 km2)) to show their Northwest, Colorado, Utah, and the wolves with respect to the listed/ variability. We do not view the detailed Northeast). They found this omission to delisted boundary in Washington and information on pack sizes from be at odds with previous iterations of Oregon. We are not aware of any individual studies cited by the reviewer listing and delisting rules for the gray specific studies that have looked at the to be necessary to our analysis, which wolf. The reviewer recommended a effect of wolf management in delisted relies only on the proposition that more complete analysis of potentially areas on the population growth rates of territory sizes are variable. suitable habitat in the lower 48 United federally listed wolves adjacent to those Comment 30: One peer reviewer States, including a map compiling delisted areas. However, we have stated that our biological report existing information regarding updated the biological report to misreported human-caused wolf potentially suitable habitat. acknowledge the role source-sink mortality rates from Fuller et al. (2003). Our Response: We updated the dynamics can play in peripheral, The reviewer also recommended citing biological report to reflect that suitable, recolonizing wolf populations. We also Stenglein et al. (2015b), stating that their but unoccupied, habitat occurs in parts address potential impacts to dispersal model of the Wisconsin wolf population of the West Coast States, the central rates in harvested populations. Finally, demonstrates that a 30 percent annual Rocky Mountains (inclusive of Colorado we cite the latest annual reports from harvest would, on average, reduce the and Utah), and the Northeast. However, each State as the authority on wolf population by 65 percent over 20 unoccupied areas were not a focus for population growth and distribution of years. our analysis, and this final rule does not wolves in those States. Our Response: The percentages rely on recolonization of these areas to Comment 35: One peer reviewer provided in the biological report refer to support the determination that gray objected to our characterization, in the the data analyzed by Fuller et al. (2003). wolves are recovered. Because we are biological report, of wolf colonization of While Fuller et al. (2003) also provides not relying on suitable habitat that is nearby areas as happening ‘‘quickly.’’ a review of other studies that have unoccupied for our delisting They found the term to be ambiguous investigated sustainable human-caused determination, we find it unnecessary to and recommended replacing it with wolf mortality rates, these rates are compile a map of suitable habitat something more quantitative (e.g., within the overall range of sustainable outside the current range. The within decades). They also mortality rates provided in the publications cited in the biological recommended the report acknowledge biological report (17 to 48 percent). We report provide additional information that the rapidity of population added the information from Stenglein et regarding habitat models in specific establishment in new areas varies with al. (2015b) regarding harvest rates and areas. the extent of intervening unsuitable wolf population reduction. Comment 33: One peer reviewer habitat between the source population Comment 31: One peer reviewer indicated that notable dispersal events and newly colonized area, as evidenced advised that we include additional should be mentioned in the biological by the delay between initial dispersals information on source-sink dynamics report, as they are relevant to a and pack establishment in the Cascade and provided citations to consider. The discussion on metapopulation structure Range of the West Coast States. reviewer noted that source-sink and the recolonization of potential wolf Our Response: While some dynamics have been notable in the habitat (e.g., northern Rockies to recolonization happens within decades, Northern Rocky Mountains, especially Arizona, dispersal of wolves from other recolonization events happen even in northwest Montana and the Greater Quebec to the Northeastern United more rapidly depending on the specific Yellowstone region, where much States). circumstances. Therefore, we conclude ungulate winter range lies outside of Our Response: The biological report that it is not appropriate to add a more protected areas (Fritts and Carbyn 1995). references dispersal events of several specific time period. We have added a The reviewer also provided several hundred kilometers. We have added sentence to the Biology and Ecology citations on source-sink dynamics in language to the Biology and Ecology section of the biological report to mountain lion populations that they section of the report to describe how address the comment regarding the rate indicated were relevant to wolves. The long-distance dispersal distances relate of recolonization being affected by the reviewer also recommended indicating to recolonization of suitable habitat. We extent of intervening unsuitable habitat. that broad-scale source-sink dynamics also clarified our discussion of dispersal Comment 36: One peer reviewer over areas larger than many of wolves from Quebec to the commented that, in order to allow for a demographic study areas can cause high Northeastern United States. While scientific evaluation of the likelihood of local mortality rates to appear dispersal plays an important role in a decline in gray wolf populations after sustainable because the population is recolonization of suitable habitat, delisting, the biological report should being sustained by immigration from individual dispersers that do not settle include: (1) A comprehensive analysis source habitat. in an area, survive, and reproduce do of all mortality causes within each Our Response: We reviewed the not substantively contribute to the subpopulation deemed essential to the citations provided by the reviewer and wolf’s metapopulation structure or combined listed entity and (2) a updated the biological report to include dynamics. ‘‘thorough examination of cumulative a brief discussion of the role of dispersal Comment 34: One peer reviewer effects across all subpopulations.’’ The and source-sink dynamics in wolf sought clarification on the Washington reviewer further contended that those population regulation. Regarding broad- and Oregon section of the biological assessments should be based on peer- scale source-sink dynamics, we have report. The reviewer asked us to more reviewed evidence about current and updated the biological report clearly distinguish population anticipated future (following delisting) accordingly. information on listed and delisted causes of mortality. Comment 32: One peer reviewer wolves and how population Our Response: We conducted a stated that the biological report omitted management in delisted areas affects thorough analysis, based on the best a thorough discussion of suitable habitat population growth rates in listed areas. available scientific data, of the threat in some unoccupied but suitable Our Response: We updated the factors currently facing the gray wolf in habitats in parts of the lower 48 United biological report with additional the lower 48 United States and those

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69853

that are reasonably likely to have a Treatment of Range). We have revised explained in our proposed rule and this negative effect on the viability of wolf this final rule to clarify how we final rule, there is no uniform definition populations without the protections of interpret range and what we consider to for recovery or standard methodology the Act. See Summary of Factors be the current range of the gray wolf in regarding how recovery must be Affecting the Species, above. We the lower 48 United States. achieved (see Gray Wolf Recovery Plans considered the effects of these factors The opinion that the gray wolf has not and Recovery Implementation). Gray individually and cumulatively. For recolonized enough of its range in the wolves are a prolific, highly adaptable clarification purposes, we have added a lower 48 United States to reach the species capable of dispersing long reference to the discussion in the rule to standard of a significant portion is distances and recolonizing most habitat the biological report. inconsistent with Service policy types, provided those habitats contain because it equates the term ‘‘range’’ in Policy sufficient prey and human-caused the Act’s definitions of ‘‘threatened mortality is managed. Consequently, our Comment 37: Three peer reviewers species’’ and ‘‘endangered species’’ with recovery strategy for gray wolves in the questioned our definition or use of the historical range. In our status lower 48 United States consists of term ‘‘range,’’ either on its own or in the assessments, we assess threats to the recovery of the species in three broad context of the SPR phrase (or both). One species where the species exists. In regions (NRM, Southwestern United considered our description of the gray other words, we assess threats to the States, and Eastern United States) that wolf’s range in the lower 48 United species in its current range, including capture different subspecies and States to be illogical and unclear with the effects of lost historical range on the habitats. For decades, we have respect to distinguishing current range species (see Historical Context of Our demonstrated a consistent commitment from unoccupied historical range. This Analysis and Summary of Factors to this strategy. reviewer argued that the distinction is Affecting the Species). We also consider Additionally, when we evaluate the necessary to understand what areas are whether the threats that caused the loss status of a species, we evaluate the included in the threats analysis and of historical range are still affecting the impacts of any loss of historical range why. Another argued that our definition species within its current range. on the viability of the species in its of ‘‘range’’ is problematic because it Under our SPR policy, the current range (see Historical Context of does not account for the temporal Northeastern United States does not Our Analysis and Determination of dynamics (changes over time) of a merit evaluation as a significant portion Species Status). In other words, we species’ range or the difficulties of scale of the species’ range because the best thoroughly assessed the effects of inherent to the ecological concept of available science indicates that this area historical range loss on the current and, ‘‘range.’’ In addition, one peer reviewer is unoccupied. However, given the to the extent it is foreseeable, future stated that a ‘‘significant portion’’ of recent report of a group of six wolves in viability of the gray wolf entities range must mean more than half and the central Rocky Mountains, we agree addressed in this rule based on the best that, therefore, the gray wolf has not with the reviewer that this area merits available scientific and commercial data recolonized enough of its range in the consideration as a significant portion of lower 48 United States to meet that the range of the entities evaluated in available, consistent with both the Act standard. Another, citing Desert this rule. We have revised this rule and case law. Survivors v. Dep’t of the Interior, F. accordingly. Finally, the Act instructs us to Supp. 3d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2018), stated Comment 38: One reviewer determine whether any species is an that the central Rocky Mountains (i.e., considered our treatment of ‘‘range’’ and endangered species or a threatened Colorado and Utah) and the ‘‘significance’’ to be inconsistent with species because of any of the five factors Northeastern United States merit Desert Survivors v. Dep’t of the Interior identified in the Act. Thus, we may not evaluation as significant portions of the and our treatment of recovery in other determine the status of a species based range. species, such as bald eagle and grizzly on an assessment of the esthetic, Our Response: The ecological concept bear, where we considered geographic educational, historical, recreational, and of ‘‘range’’ is complex. Because of these distribution in multiple regions. The scientific value of that particular species complexities, the Service and the reviewer indicated that we should to society. Also, lost historical range National Marine Fisheries Service present information evaluating the cannot be a significant portion of the (NMFS) published a legally binding significance of historical range loss on range of any of the gray wolf entities interpretation of the term ‘‘range,’’ as the genetic and demographic structure addressed in this rule because, under used in the Act’s definitions of of the wolf metapopulation as a whole our SPR policy, ‘‘range’’ is interpreted ‘‘threatened species’’ and ‘‘endangered and within specific ecotypes and as current range (for additional species,’’ in our SPR policy (79 FR subspecies. The reviewer also indicated information, see 79 FR 37578, July 1, 37578, July 1, 2014). Several courts have that we should assess the significance of 2014). upheld this interpretation (Humane range loss to the broader suite of values Comment 39: One reviewer claimed Society v. Zinke, 865 F.3d 585 (DC Cir. (‘‘esthetic, educational, historical, that our consideration of ‘‘significance’’ 2017); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. recreational, and scientific’’) discussed as used in the phrase ‘‘significant Zinke, 900 F.3d 1053, 1066–67 (9th Cir. in the Act’s preamble. portion of its range’’ is duplicative of 2018); Desert Survivors F. Supp. 3d Our Response: Our approach in this our assessment of whether the 1131). The Services interpret the term rule is consistent with Desert Survivors combined listed entity is at risk ‘‘range’’ in these statutory definitions as and our approach to recovery for other throughout its range, contrary to recent the general geographical area occupied species. The Act requires that we court opinions. The reviewer by the species at the time USFWS or recover listed species such that they no recommended a definition for NMFS makes a status determination longer meet the definitions of ‘‘significance’’ that is based on the under section 4 of the Act (79 FR 37583, ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened criteria used to determine significance July 1, 2014). In other words, we species,’’ i.e., are no longer in danger of under the DPS policy. They stated that interpret ‘‘range’’ in these definitions to extinction or likely to become so in the such a definition would meet the be current range, i.e., range at the time foreseeable future throughout all or a requirements of Desert Survivors v. of our analysis (see Definition and significant portion of their range. As Dep’t of the Interior and provided an

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69854 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

example of a DPS analysis done for the species. In other words, that the reviewers. We have revised the red wolf (Waples et al. 2018). appropriate question to ask in our SPR discussions in the final biological report Our Response: Our approach to analysis is whether a population’s and this final rule regarding gray wolf analyzing significance in this rule is absence in a portion of its range would ecology and genetics in order to clarify consistent with the Act and case law. have significant ecological the basis for our conclusions. For the gray wolf entities addressed in consequences or whether a portion of Specifically, we have added additional this rule, we assessed ‘‘significance’’ the species’ range includes ecosystems information on these topics, and added based on whether portions of the range not found elsewhere in the species’ a section to the rule (Genetic Diversity contribute meaningfully to the range. and Inbreeding) that provides a more in- resiliency, redundancy, or Our Response: We view depth analysis of the potential impacts representation of the gray wolf entity representation as the ability of a species of delisting on gray wolf genetic being evaluated without prescribing a to adapt to changing environmental diversity. Based on this information, we specific ‘‘threshold.’’ This approach is conditions over time (i.e., the species’ conclude that the gray wolf entities substantively different from the way we adaptive capacity) (Smith et al. 2018, p. evaluated in this rule do not meet the defined ‘‘significance’’ in our SPR 304). While Shaffer and Stein (2000) definition of an endangered species or policy and, therefore, different from the introduced the concept of threatened species, nor are they likely to approach evaluated and overturned by representation in the broad context of meet either definition absent the the courts. conserving biodiversity across protections of the Act. Further, in developing that SPR ecosystems, we apply their concept at Comment 42: Most peer reviewers policy, we considered using the the species level, consistent with Smith questioned the entity we evaluated. One definition of significance in the DPS et al. (2018). We use Smith et al.’s asserted that we could add or remove policy as a threshold for significant in (2018) definition of representation in only species, subspecies, or DPSs from the SPR phrase. However, we rejected relation to the Act’s definitions of the List and noted that we did not this option because ‘‘it would result in endangered species and threatened include a DPS analysis of the combined all DPSs being SPRs, rendering the DPS species by asking whether the species listed entity to determine whether it was language in the Act meaningless’’ (79 FR has sufficient adaptive diversity such a valid entity. Some argued that our 37581, July 1, 2014). Thus, we that it is not in danger of extinction or treatment of DPSs or ‘‘discreteness’’ (or concluded that the threshold for likely to become so in the foreseeable both) was inconsistent, illogical, or significance must be higher for future. Adequate representation does unclear, or recommended we conduct evaluating SPR than for purposes of the not require preservation of all adaptive DPS analyses on specific populations or DPS policy (for more information on diversity to meet this standard under areas within the listed entities. One this topic, see 79 FR 76997–76998, July the Act. As indicated in Our Response maintained that our DPS analysis of 1, 2014). to Comment 39, we assessed the Pacific Northwest wolves was flawed. There are several important significance of portions of the gray wolf This same reviewer argued that our differences between DPSs and SPRs. entities addressed in this rule based on approach is inconsistent with previous First, Congress intended for the DPS whether the portions contribute wolf rulemakings and recovery planning authority to be used sparingly (Senate meaningfully to the resiliency, with respect to treatment of the central Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session). redundancy, or representation of the Rocky Mountains and the Northeastern If we find that a species is endangered gray wolf entity being evaluated, and we United States because we did not or threatened in a DPS, we list only the consider this approach to be consistent consider or treat these areas as DPSs or DPS. By contrast, if we find that the with the Act and case law. We revised include a substantive discussion of species is endangered or threatened in this final rule to clarify that we use the either area as potential habitat. Another an SPR, we list the entire species (79 FR concepts introduced by Shaffer and peer reviewer stated that regions 37609, July 1, 2014). Second, the Stein (2000), as refined by Smith et al. considered in-depth in previous significance of a DPS is assessed relative (2018) and considered in the context of rulemakings and other documents (e.g., to the taxon to which it belongs (i.e., the the Act. the central Rocky Mountains and DPS must be significant to the taxon as Comment 41: One reviewer Northeast) were only mentioned in a whole) (61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996), questioned our conclusions that the passing in the proposed rule. whereas, under our SPR policy, the Great Lakes metapopulation contains Our Response: In our March 15, 2019, significance of a portion is assessed in sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and proposed rule, we explained that relation to the ‘‘species’’ (species, representation to sustain populations neither of the currently listed entities subspecies, or DPS) under analysis. within the combined listed entity over qualifies as a DPS. In this final rule we Third, SPRs need not discrete. In other time, and that the relatively few wolves expand on that discussion and also words, SPRs can be biologically that occur outside the Great Lakes area explain why we are considering the connected to and influenced by other are not necessary for the recovered status of gray wolves in several different populations that, collectively with the status of the combined listed entity. The configurations. (see The Currently portion being evaluated, are not reviewer argued that these conclusions Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the endangered species or threatened are contingent on factual omissions and Statutory Definition of a ‘‘Species’’ and species. Consequently, we do not misinterpretations of wolf ecology and Why and How We Address Each consider the DPS criteria for genetics. While the reviewer refers to Configuration of Gray Wolf Entities). We significance to be a reasonable the combined listed entity, their did not conduct a DPS analysis of definition of ‘‘significant’’ in the SPR comment could apply to the analysis of Pacific Northwest wolves (or wolves in analysis. other entities now included in this final any other subset of the entities we Comment 40: One reviewer rule. assessed) in our proposed rule or this maintained that we misinterpreted Our Response: Our conclusions are final rule. Rather, we discuss the Pacific Shaffer and Stein (2000). The reviewer based on the best available scientific Northwest DPS analysis we conducted argued that representation applies to a and commercial data, including in 2013, in the context of summarizing population itself rather than to a information and interpretations background information about actions population’s contribution to the entire provided by this and other peer we have undertaken relevant to our

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69855

national wolf strategy (see National the previously listed subspecies, and DPS in the interior of northeast Wolf Strategy). We also reference this because we recognized that wolf Washington. Furthermore, based on an 2013 DPS analysis when we discuss the populations were historically connected assessment of single nucleotide lack of discreteness of these wolves and and that subspecies boundaries were polymorphisms (SNPs), three of the five NRM wolves (see The Currently Listed thus malleable and populations wolves from Washington were C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the admixed. The rule predated the intermediate between NRM wolves and Statutory Definition of a ‘‘Species’’). November 1978 amendments to the Act coastal wolves, indicating that Our approach is consistent with (which replaced the ability to list Washington was an admixture zone for previous wolf recovery planning efforts, ‘‘populations’’ with the ability to list coastal and inland wolf ecotypes which have consistently focused on ‘‘distinct population segments’’) and, (Hendricks et al. 2018, p. 8). Thus, three areas—the NRM, Eastern United therefore, at the time of the 1978 rule, rather than dispersal and recolonization States, and Southwestern United listable entities included ‘‘populations.’’ of wolves from a specific ecotype to that States—as reflected in our past actions. The 1978 rule stated that ‘‘biological same ecotype, these results demonstrate As shown in table 1, since 1978 our subspecies would continue to be the ability of wolves to disperse to, wolf recovery plans, reintroduction maintained and dealt with as separate inhabit, and survive in a variety of efforts, and reclassification or delisting entities’’ (43 FR 9609, March 9, 1978), habitats that may be very different from rules have focused on these three areas. i.e., subspecies or populations. where they or their parents originated. We have revised the language in this Subsequent recovery plans and all gray It also indicates that wolves from coastal final rule and, where appropriate, wolf rulemakings since then have and inland ecotypes interbreed in provided more detailed information in focused on units that are consistent with admixture zones (Hendricks et al. 2018, our biological report to help clarify our the stated intent of the 1978 rule to entire). We analyzed threats to the gray approach in this rule. With respect to manage and recover the different gray wolves inhabiting Pacific coastal potential habitat in the Northeastern wolf groups covered by the 1978 listings rainforest ecosystems in our 2016 United States, we also clarify that our as ‘‘separate entities’’ (43 FR 9609, assessment of the status of the approach is to focus our assessment of March 9, 1978). Within 4 years of the Alexander Archipelago wolf and found suitable habitat and prey availability on 1978 rule, we developed recovery plans that these wolves are not in danger of areas currently occupied by wolves. for wolf populations in the following extinction or likely to become so in the New information on wolves in the regions of the United States: The foreseeable future (81 FR 435, January 6, central Rocky Mountains since northern Rocky Mountains, the East, 2016, entire). publication of our proposed rule and the Southwest (table 1). Since then, Comment 44: Referring to the indicates the presence of a group of six the NRM wolf population (now combined listed entity, one reviewer or more wolves and the long-term metapopulation) has recovered (74 FR stated that, while the Act does not presence of an individual radio-collared 15123, April 2, 2009, entire; 77 FR require species to be restored wolf. Thus, new information indicates 55530, September 10, 2012, entire), the everywhere, recovery in one region (the that gray wolves currently occupy southwest wolf population is protected Great Lakes area) is not sufficient to Colorado. Therefore, we have added an under a separate subspecies listing as delist a species formerly distributed analysis of habitat in the central Rocky endangered (80 FR 2488, January 16, across the continent. The reviewer Mountains to this final rule. We 2015, entire), and the Great Lakes wolf asserted the rule is an effort to advance broader shifts in interpretation of the acknowledge the existence of suitable population (now metapopulation) is habitat in areas outside of gray wolf Act for widely distributed species. recovered. It was never our intent to current range, but we do not consider Our Response: As discussed in this recover wolves throughout the entire them in-depth because we are not final rule and the final biological report, geographic area encompassed by the relying on those areas for our status gray wolves are recovered in each of the 1978 listings. Instead, we have focused determinations. two currently listed entities, in the two Comment 43: One peer reviewer on recovering the different gray wolf currently listed entities combined into a contended that, in not evaluating the groups covered by the 1978 listings as single entity, and in the lower 48 United status of subspecies, we are ‘‘separate entities.’’ States entity. They currently exist in sidestepping the commitment made in With respect to Pacific coastal two large, growing or stable our 1978 reclassification rule to rainforest wolves, wolves that metapopulations—one in the Great ‘‘continue to recognize valid biological recolonized Washington and Oregon Lakes area and one in the Western subspecies for purposes of . . . research originate primarily from the interior United States—that are interconnected and conservation programs,’’ and that forest ecotype, which is more indicative with even larger populations of wolves we are delisting the gray wolf in the of wolves from southeastern British in Canada. The core of the former occurs lower 48 United States based on the Columbia, southwestern Alberta, or the in the Great Lakes States of Minnesota, recovery of one subspecies, C. l. nubilis. NRM (Hendricks et al. 2019, p. 138, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and the core Citing Hendricks et al. 2018, they Supplemental table S2). Of the 54 of the latter occurs in the western States argued that, for example, our approach wolves from Washington and Oregon of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. The does not consider threats to the coastal that Hendricks et al. (2018) sampled, 2 western United States metapopulation is rainforest ecotype that has colonized the possessed mitochondrial DNA currently recolonizing western U.S. Pacific Northwest and overlaps haplotypes only known from wolf Washington and western Oregon, has with the distribution of C. l. fuscus. populations in coastal British Columbia. begun to recolonize California, and is in Our Response: Delisting the currently Only one of the two wolves with the the early stages of recolonizing listed gray wolf entities based on the coastal haplotype resided in the west Colorado. Moreover, dispersing wolves status of gray wolves in any of the three coast portion of the entity currently have been detected in all the States in configurations we analyzed is consistent listed as endangered (44-State entity) historical gray wolf range west of the with our 1978 commitment to conserve and, consequently, the combined listed Mississippi River except Oklahoma and subspecies. The 1978 reclassification entity, in an area considered highly Texas. Continued wolf dispersal across was undertaken because of uncertainty suitable for coastal wolves. The other western States demonstrates that gray about the taxonomic validity of some of resided within the boundary of the NRM wolves could eventually find most large

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69856 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

patches of suitable habitat in the west as Comment 46: One peer reviewer published yearly, and stated that the long as healthy core wolf populations considered our use of the term ‘‘eastern proposed recognition of these wolves as are maintained on the landscape. wolf’’—to denote wolves in the Great a species was premature (National In addition to the metapopulations of Lakes area or the Northeast—to be Center for Ecological Analysis and gray wolves in the Great Lakes area and inappropriate. According to the Synthesis 2014, unpaginated). Debate on the Western United States, the Mexican reviewer, the term ‘‘eastern wolf’’ the subject in the scientific community wolf (C. lupus baileyi) inhabits the should refer only to the genetically and, consequently, the taxonomy and Southwestern United States (Arizona distinct wolves living in and around evolutionary history of eastern wolves and New Mexico) and Mexico. The Algonquin Provincial Park in Canada. remains unresolved (USFWS 2020, pp. population in Arizona and New Mexico The same reviewer also indicated that 1 2012;3). Therefore, in this rule we is small but growing, and there is an our decision to consider eastern wolves continue to recognize wolves in the establishing population in Mexico. to be members of the species C. lupus Northeastern United States as members These wolves are listed separately as an was arbitrary and disregards the of the species C. lupus. We conclude endangered species and are unaffected precautionary principle. They stated that this is appropriate based on our by this rule; they will remain on the List that there is considerable evidence that review of the best available scientific until the subspecies has recovered. a distinct eastern wolf originally existed and commercial information. Our The standard for listing or delisting a in the Eastern United States and no decision results in a much larger species under the Act is whether it solid evidence that gray wolves historical range to the gray wolf entities meets the Act’s definition of an historically lived in the Eastern United evaluated than if we considered eastern endangered species or a threatened States outside the Great Lakes region, wolves to be a distinct entity or species. The Act defines an endangered though they noted that the historical members of the red wolf species. species as ‘‘any species which is in occurrence of gray wolves in the eastern The reviewer also argues that Federal danger of extinction throughout all or a States is uncertain. The reviewer further protection may be needed for wolves in significant portion of its range’’ and a stated that there is general scientific the Eastern United States, to protect threatened species as ‘‘any species agreement that eastern wolves and red dispersers or allow for reintroductions which is likely to become an wolves deserve separate conservation of the endangered red wolf and the endangered species within the consideration as unique ecotypes, eastern wolves found in and around foreseeable future throughout all or a ecological surrogates, DPSs, or species, Algonquin National Park that are listed significant portion of its range.’’ Neither and that Federal protection may be in Canada as threatened. In 1967, we the Act nor our regulations require that needed in the Eastern United States to listed the red wolf as endangered a listed species be restored to any protect and recover the endangered red wherever found, except where listed as threshold amount of its historic range wolf and the eastern wolves found in an experimental population (32 FR before it may be delisted. Based on our and around Algonquin National Park 4001, March 11, 1967). The species analysis of the best available scientific that are listed in Canada as threatened. remains on the List and, consequently, and commercial data, we have Our Response: Many scientists have already receives the protections of the determined that each of the gray wolf long considered eastern wolves to be Act. The rest of the combined listed entities evaluated in this rule is not in distinct from coyotes and gray wolves in entity (and 44-State entity and lower 48 danger of extinction, or likely to become the Western United States. However, the United States entity), which includes so in the foreseeable future, throughout correct taxonomic assignment and the Northeastern United States, does not all or a significant portion of its range evolutionary origin of the eastern wolf warrant the protections of the Act (see Determination of Species Status). is uncertain. Scientists have variously because, as indicated in this rule, we Comment 45: One peer reviewer described the eastern wolf as a species, have determined that it does not meet considered our treatment of a subspecies of gray wolf, an ecotype of the Act’s definition of a threatened connectivity between wolves in the gray wolf, the product of hybridization species or endangered species (see West Coast States portion of the between gray wolves and coyotes, the Determination of Species Status). combined listed entity (referred to by same species as the red wolf, or a hybrid State and Federal Agency Comments the reviewer as the Pacific Northwest) between red wolves and gray wolves and the NRM to be inconsistent and (see Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North Recovery and Delisting problematic. According to the reviewer, America). We originally listed the gray Comment 47: The Governor of Oregon we state in our proposed rule that we do wolf subspecies C. l. lycaon, the eastern indicated her belief that wolf recovery not discuss management in the NRM timber wolf, in 1967. We continued to in Oregon is a success and that wolves because the NRM is legally a distinct recognize this subspecies—and the are on the path to recovery. She also entity but also find that West Coast Northeastern United States as part of its noted that the State of Oregon and other States wolves are superfluous to the historical range—for years, as evidenced States can help lead to recovery of the gray wolf entity because the NRM by both our original (1978) and revised species across a significant portion of its population provides demographic (1992) Recovery Plan for the Eastern historical range. She expressed that support to them. Timber Wolf. In 2013, we proposed wolves are wide-ranging, and as Our Response: We considered the recognizing the species C. lycaon, Oregon’s wolves venture into California comments of this peer reviewer, and occurring in southeastern Canada and, and return, they warrant the protection other commenters, and we have historically, the Northeastern United of the Federal Endangered Species Act modified our approach in this final rule States, in our proposed rule to delist C. during their travels. (see Summary of Changes from the lupus and list C. l. baileyi as endangered Our Response: Gray wolves Proposed Rule). We evaluate the status (table 1). However, peer reviewers of (excluding Mexican wolves) are of gray wolves in three different that proposed rule considered the currently distributed in two large and configurations, including a lower 48 scientific basis for recognizing C. lycaon expanding metapopulations in the lower United States entity (see Why and How as a species to be insufficient. They 48 United States. Based on our thorough We Address Each Configuration of Gray noted that this is an area of active review of the species’ status, threats, Wolf Entities). scientific research with frequent studies and existing regulatory mechanisms, we

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69857

have determined that none of the gray Taxonomy California law. In addition, the wolf entities we evaluate in this rule Comment 50: The Michigan California Fish and Game Commission (including either of the currently listed Department of Natural Resources stated questioned the completeness of our gray wolf entities) meet the definition of that we put too much emphasis on discussion of the role of public attitudes a threatened species or endangered Mech and Paul (2008) in our discussion as it relates to human-caused mortality species under the Act (see of taxonomy, and should instead rely on and recommended additional Determination of Species Status). Heppenheimer et al. (2018). information for consideration. Our Response: While the Service Regarding wolves that move between Our Response: As noted in the rule, respects the belief that continued California and Oregon after delisting, canid taxonomy remains unsettled, Federal protections would provide an these individuals will still be afforded despite being relatively well-studied, additional deterrence to illegal take protections under the California even using advanced molecular under existing California law, the Act Endangered Species Act and the Oregon techniques. We reviewed and cited Wolf Conservation and Management requires the Service to make status Heppenheimer et al. (2018), along with determinations based on whether the Plan. a number of other genetic studies, in species meets the definition of an Comment 48: The California conducting our assessment of wolf endangered species or a threatened Department of Fish and Wildlife taxonomy. species because of the five statutory indicated that wolves in California are Human-Caused Mortality factors. Gray wolves have been illegally in the initial stages of reestablishment killed both with and without the Comment 51: The Arizona Game and and that recovery in the State relies on protection of the Act (i.e., illegal under Fish Department, the Michigan conservation and management measures other State or Federal rules or Department of Natural Resources, and provided by Federal listing. regulations), and, although some one public commenter indicated that researchers (Treves et al. 2017b) and Our Response: Consistent with the the discussion about additive and most wildlife managers would agree that Act, we are removing the currently compensatory mortality relied too much listed gray wolf entities from the List known illegal take is likely biased low, on information provided by Creel and several studies have estimated that because we have determined that gray Rotella (2010) and failed to discuss a wolves in these entities do not meet the around 10 percent of the known rebuttal by Gude et al. (2012) or use the population is illegally taken annually in definition of threatened or endangered best available information when the NRM (Smith et al. 2010, p. 625; (see Determination of Species Status). discussing the effects of mortality on Ausband et al. 2017a, p. 7), Michigan However, we expect wolves will wolf populations. Additional references (O’Neil 2017, p. 214), and Wisconsin continue to recolonize suitable habitat were provided for the discussion. (Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 104). However, in California under State management. Another public commenter supported wolf populations remain robust and See the Post-delisting Management the notion that human-caused mortality recovered in these locations, and wolves section of this rule for additional was super-additive and noted its effects continue to recolonize new areas of information. on wolf population dynamics. suitable habitat in the West Coast States Our Response: Based on the and have begun to recolonize the central Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or comments and information we received, Population Trends Rockies. Furthermore, it has been we revised and updated the Human- demonstrated that illegal take was Comment 49: The Arizona Game and caused Mortality section. In short, Creel greater during periods of Federal Fish Department recommended that we and Rotella (2010) indicated that wolf protections in Wisconsin compared to add Arizona and New Mexico to the list populations can be harvested within periods when the wolf was delisted (see of States with confirmed records of limits, but that human-caused mortality Olson et al. 2014). Surveys also indicate dispersing gray wolves, referencing was strongly additive to total mortality, that members of the public are more information provided in Odell et al. and, based on their model predictions, trusting of their State fish and wildlife population growth would decline as 2018. agencies than their State or Federal human-caused mortality increased. In Government (Manfredo et al. 2018, pp. Our Response: We did not recognize contrast, using the same dataset, Gude et 8, 58–68). Thus, they may be less Arizona as a State having a confirmed al. (2012) demonstrated that wolf inclined to illegally take a wolf, and be record of a dispersing gray wolf because population growth remained positive in more accepting of wolves on the the wolf documented in Arizona Montana, which was also supported by landscape, if they perceive that State subsequently died in Utah and was field observations, and that variations in management provides more options to included in Utah’s totals. We have growth were strongly influenced by mitigate conflicts. For further updated our final rule and biological annual recruitment. Gude et al. (2012) information, see Our Responses to report to include Arizona as an also discussed the limitations of Comment 14, as well as Comment 19. additional State with a confirmed record traditional monitoring techniques in Also see ‘‘The Role of Public Attitudes’’ of a dispersing gray wolf, noting that the addition to the need to create more in the Human-caused Mortality section wolf later died in Utah and was also efficient and accurate monitoring of this final rule. included in their total. With respect to methods to improve population Comment 53: The U.S. Department of the report relating to New Mexico (Odell estimation techniques as wolf Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health et al. 2018, p. 294), we agree it seems populations continue to increase and Inspection Service, Wildlife Services plausible that the animal observed was expand. For further information, see the (Wildlife Services) commented that the not a Mexican wolf based on its black Human-caused Mortality section of the ability to mitigate losses associated with pelage, which has not been reported in rule. wolves has contributed to wolf recovery Mexican wolves. However, because this Comment 52: The California in both the northern Rocky Mountains has not been confirmed as a gray wolf, Department of Fish and Wildlife recovery area and Great Lakes region. we decline to add New Mexico to the expressed views concerning the added Wildlife Services stated that in the list of States with ‘‘confirmed’’ gray wolf value of the Act’s protections in Northern Rocky Mountains recovery dispersal. deterring illegal take of wolves under area (Wyoming, Idaho, Montana), where

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69858 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

wolves have been delisted and State 2017–2018 winter count. In Wisconsin, Effects of Climate Change wildlife agencies have assumed issues associated with wolves have Comment 56: The Arizona Game and management authority, populations continued to increase since 2014, Fish Department noted that while continue to exceed recovery goals and including: 12 percent increase in total Hendricks et al. (2018) reports potential wolf-livestock conflicts and associated verified wolf complaints, over 36 effects on wolf prey from increased risk management costs have declined in percent increase in attacks on domestic of fire arising from climate change, fire those States. They contended that these dogs, and a 24 percent increase in farms can actually improve conditions such trends provide strong evidence that with verified livestock losses. that areas are able to support higher wolves and related conflicts can be Wisconsin noted more than a 24 percent densities of ungulate prey after fire. managed under State authority without increase in depredation payments from Additionally, the Arizona Game and the Act’s protections. They further 2017 to 2018 that totaled over $134,000 Fish Department indicated that milder stated that effective response to wolf in compensation. Suitable habitat in winter conditions in northern latitudes conflicts is a key component to building Wisconsin is occupied by wolves, and under climate change scenarios (citing and maintaining public value of wolves continued population growth will likely Rivrud et al. 2019) will increase and that the Act’s restrictions on occur in areas where human-livestock- ungulate ranges and biomass available methods for conflict management have wolf conflicts will increase. Continued for wolves. led to frustration in communities where Federal listing of Great Lakes wolves Our Response: The referenced paper conflicts occur, especially in Michigan will hamper effective management of (Rivrud et al. 2019, entire) is based on and Wisconsin, where limits on wolf conflicts in that region. a study of red deer (Cervus elaphus) use methods are most restrictive. They Our Response: The Service of winter and summer habitats in concluded that the increased appreciates the role that Wildlife Norway. The authors found that management options associated with Services has played in the recovery of delisting will facilitate prompt, effective reduced snow cover as a result of global gray wolves in the Great Lakes area and warming would increase habitat response to conflicts and enhance elsewhere, as well as the expertise and public acceptance of wolf populations. suitability and ranges of ungulate prey assistance personnel from the agency at their northern distribution limits Our Response: The Service agrees that provide to mitigate wolf-related State wildlife agencies are fully capable (Rivrud et al. 2019, p. 1). While this conflicts using both nonlethal and lethal study may not be directly applicable to of managing for sustainable wolf means. We concur with the points populations while concurrently working the gray wolf entities addressed in this raised related to wolf populations and rule based on geographic locale, we with Wildlife Services to minimize wolf-related conflicts in the Great Lakes conflicts caused by wolves using the full understand the Arizona Game and Fish area. For further information, see Our Department’s view to be that there may suite of mitigation response techniques Responses to Comment 17 and available post-delisting. For further be beneficial effects from fire on wolves Comment 52. information, see Our Responses to due to changes in habitat suitability and Comment 55: The Wisconsin Comment 17 and Comment 52. localized expansion for ungulate prey Comment 54: Wildlife Services noted Department of Natural Resources and that there is potential for new areas that the Great Lakes population of gray pointed out that they have committed to become accessible to ungulate prey wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and significant resources to ensure that via reduced snow cover. The degree and Michigan is nearly four times that of the decisions are based on sound science the future timeframe in which such Northern Rockies population, and across the spectrum of ecological and effects might take place, however, are conflicts can be more effectively social issues involved. The Wisconsin unknown. In addition, regulation of managed without the restrictions Department of Natural Resources population dynamics in ungulates is imposed by protection under the Act. contended that Holsman (2014) clearly complex and unlikely to be driven by Great Lakes wolf populations have summarized public attitudes regarding climate factors alone. See Our Response exceeded recovery goals and continue to wolves in Wisconsin and importantly to Comment 102 for more discussion of thrive. However, the region has also noted that, while the majority of ungulate populations. Moreover, wolves experienced an increase in the number, residents have positive attitudes toward are highly adaptable and are expected to diversity, and distribution of wolf wolves, there is reduced tolerance for readily respond to climate-related conflicts. Minnesota wolf populations wolves living outside of heavily forested changes in prey populations or other have exceeded 2,600, nearly double areas of the State and wide support for factors. Federal recovery goals and 1,000 more lethal wolf control as a response to Genetics than State management goals. Wolf livestock depredations and human conflicts in Minnesota have increased safety concerns. Comment 57: The California 42 percent since wolves in Minnesota Our Response: We greatly appreciate Department of Fish and Wildlife were returned to threatened status the commitment and longstanding expressed concern about the potential following a 2-year period of State contributions by Wisconsin to wolf risks inherent in small wolf populations management from 2012 to 2014. In conservation, recovery, and within the State, including the risk of Michigan, wolf population growth has management in the State. We also low or decreasing genetic diversity. slowed and stabilized around 650 for understand the diversity of opinions Our Response: Expanding the past few years following several that surround wolves and wolf populations, including the wolves in hard winters that have depressed deer management (also see Our Response to California, may be exposed to different herds. However, the Michigan wolf Comment 19 and the section titled ‘‘The pressures than core populations, population exceeds recovery goals by Role of Public Attitudes’’ in the Human- including the potential for reduced 343 percent, and suitable habitat is caused Mortality section of this final genetic diversity, Allee effects, or saturated. Wolf populations also rule) and conclude that Wisconsin is founder effects. To more thoroughly continue to grow in Wisconsin where well-equipped to manage a recovered examine issues of genetic diversity and the 2018–2019 overwinter minimum wolf population with a full how they may impact wolf viability wolf count was 914 to 978 wolves in understanding of these diverse across the range, we added the section 243 packs, a 1 percent increase over the opinions. Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding to this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69859

rule. As we note in that section, despite provides payments in instances where Comment 62: The Utah Division of the potential for such genetic effects in wolves cause confirmed damage to Wildlife Resources and one commenter California, the overall viability of the livestock. Currently Minnesota spends indicated that the proposed rule failed gray wolf entities addressed in this rule approximately $250,000 per year on to acknowledge or analyze wolf are unlikely to be significantly wolf depredation management, management plans for those States impacted. Also see the final biological excluding staff time. outside of the currently occupied range. report (USFWS 2020, pp. 18–19) for a Our Response: We thank the They believed this analysis should be discussion of the various locations from Minnesota Department of Natural included to address concerns that States which California’s wolves have Resources for this information will not manage for wolves, once descended. supporting the fact that they have delisted. The Utah Division of Wildlife invested a significant amount of time Resources also described Utah’s wolf Post-Delisting Management and resources into managing the State’s management plan goals and objectives, Comment 58: The California wolf population while wolves were and when certain phases of the plan Department of Fish and Wildlife federally listed and we fully support the will be implemented to manage wolves expressed concern that hunting seasons State’s ability and commitment to that naturally recolonize the State. They would be initiated by a number of States sustainable wolf management following also described staff preparedness and if the proposed rule is finalized. They delisting. monitoring efforts that would occur if stated that lethal management has been Comment 60: The Minnesota wolves were to recolonize the State. used in response to suspected Department of Natural Resources Furthermore, the Utah Division of depredations in other States and that the reconfirmed their commitment to the Wildlife Resources stated that they have ability of gray wolves to occupy their long-term conservation of wolves and baseline information on big game full historical range will be hindered by affirmed that, should the gray wolf be populations that could be used to hunting and lethal management. They delisted in Minnesota, they will manage understand wolf-prey relationships in further stated that Federal protection of the species for its long-term Utah, as well as programs to provide wolves from source populations outside sustainability and for the benefit of both assistance to livestock producers. of California is important for wolf present and future generations of Our Response: The Service recognizes recovery in the State. They stated they Minnesotans. Moreover, the Minnesota the preparation and willingness of the would like to see continued Federal Department of Natural Resources Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to protection of gray wolves to allow for indicated they are further committed to responsibly manage and monitor wolves continued expansion into California and managing gray wolves in Minnesota to that naturally recolonize the State post- other States. contribute to the success of wolf delisting. We also appreciate their Our Response: As demonstrated by recovery beyond the State. commitment to provide assistance to current State management of wolves in Our Response: We greatly appreciate livestock producers to minimize conflict Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, it is the longstanding contributions of the risk and to provide compensation for unlikely that moderate increases in State of Minnesota in wolf conservation wolf-caused livestock losses, as well as human-caused mortality will cause and its commitment to continued their ability to evaluate the impact dramatic declines in wolf populations sustainable wolf management following wolves may have on ungulate across the ranges of the gray wolf delisting. populations while continuing to entities addressed in this rule. Even if Comment 61: The North Dakota Game adaptively manage for sustainable big human-caused mortality increases after and Fish Department commented that game populations. An analysis of wolf delisting, we expect dispersing wolves wolves are listed as a ‘‘fur-bearer’’ with management plans was conducted for to continue to move into and out of the a closed season per State regulations. States within the current range of the West Coast States and recolonize vacant The status of wolves in North Dakota gray wolf and can be found in the Post- suitable habitat. The effects of increased will remain such even after they are delisting Management section of this human-caused mortality on wolf delisted, unless a significant change in rule. Due to recent information dispersal is discussed in the Human- the species distribution or population confirming the presence of a group of caused Mortality section of the rule. status is documented in the future. six wolves in extreme northwest Also, see Our Responses to Comments However, the removal of Federal Colorado, and their proximity to and 45, 16, and 15. protections for gray wolves would allow potential use of habitats within Utah, Comment 59: The Minnesota the North Dakota Game and Fish we conducted an analysis of the Department of Natural Resources Department the ability to timely and Colorado Wolf Management commented that, since the 1980s, their responsibly manage transient wolves Recommendations and the Utah Wolf agency has employed specific staff should they depredate livestock in the Management Plan (see Post-delisting dedicated to wolf research and future. Additionally, it would alleviate Management). We did not consider management, including implementation public interpretation difficulties management in States outside of the of the State’s wolf management plan. associated with having wolves federally current range, other than Utah, because Staff continues to contribute to the protected in North Dakota even though wolves are not expected to persist long conservation of wolves in Minnesota their jurisdiction is not part of one of term in most of those States. through coordinating management, the recognized populations, nor is it a enforcing the prohibition against illegal target for future recovery actions. Policy take, investigating livestock depredation Our Response: We appreciate the Comment 63: The California Fish and claims, and conducting population North Dakota Game and Fish Game Commission asserted that the monitoring and research. The Minnesota Department’s ability and commitment to proposed rule does not address the Department of Natural Resources’ manage wolves that enter the State via absence of gray wolf populations in conservation officers continue to dispersal as a fur-bearer with a closed most of the species’ historical range. enforce the requirements of the Wolf season and support their They expressed concern that we Management Act. Additionally, the decisionmaking and ability to manage interpret ‘‘range,’’ within the Act’s Minnesota Department of Agriculture conflicts with wolves should they occur definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and administers a compensation fund that post-delisting. ‘‘threatened species,’’ as current range.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69860 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

They stated that this creates a shifting stop growing or even decline due to of extinction in portions of Michigan baseline, discounts historical habitats in hunting and lethal management. and Wisconsin, but fail to analyze California and elsewhere, and ignores Our Response: We agree that broadly whether gray wolves currently living in science and the law. Also, the Michigan distributed, robust populations help other States are in danger of extinction Attorney General indicated that, as a ensure the long-term survival of a throughout all or a significant portion of result of the court opinion issued in species. Gray wolves have recovered in the entity’s range. For example, the Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep’t of the two broad regions of their historical Michigan Attorney General stated that Interior, 336 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1137 range in the lower 48 United States (the we did not investigate the effects of (N.D. Cal. 2018), the SPR phrase in the Great Lakes States and the NRM region), human-caused mortality on gray wolves Act’s definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ and the Mexican wolf will remain listed in North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, carries its ordinary meaning. Citing in a third broad region. In the Great Colorado, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 239 F. Lakes and the NRM, wolves occur as Illinois, Nebraska, or Kansas, and Supp. 2d 9, 21 (D.D.C. 2002), the large metapopulations distributed in asserted that we withdraw the proposed Michigan Attorney General asserted that suitable habitat across several States. rule and allow the Michigan Department the Service must explain its conclusion Based on an analysis of the best of Natural Resources to lead other that an area in which a species can no available data, we have determined that States, by example, in managing the longer live is not a significant portion of none of the gray wolf entities evaluated gray wolves within their borders into its range. in this rule are in danger of extinction, recovery, instead of into extinction. Our Response: We describe our or likely to become so in the foreseeable Our Response: We appreciate the interpretation of range and our rationale future, throughout all or a significant State of Michigan’s significant for this interpretation in detail in our portion of its range (see Determination contribution to gray wolf recovery. SPR policy, which is legally binding (79 of Species Status). Although we However, we do not make status FR 37578; July 1, 2014). Per that policy, acknowledge that human-caused determinations on a State-by-State basis. we interpret the term ‘‘range’’ in the mortality is likely to increase post- Rather, we determine whether a species Act’s definitions of ‘‘endangered delisting as some States with viable gray (in this case, each of the gray wolf species’’ and ‘‘threatened species’’ to be wolf populations begin to manage entities evaluated in this rule) meets the the general geographical area occupied wolves under the guidance of their State Act’s definition of an endangered by the species at the time the U.S. Fish management plans, it is unlikely that species or of a threatened species and Wildlife Service or National Marine moderate increases in human-caused because of the five factors throughout all Fisheries Service makes a status mortality will cause dramatic declines or a significant portion of its range. We determination under section 4 of the Act in wolf populations across the gray wolf interpret the term ‘‘range’’ as used in the (79 FR 37583, July 1, 2014). In other entities evaluated in this rule (see Our Act’s definitions of ‘‘threatened species’’ words, we interpret ‘‘range’’ in these Response to Comment 16). and ‘‘endangered species’’ to refer to the definitions to be the current range. Comment 65: The California Fish and area occupied by the species at the time Three recent court rulings have upheld Game Commission asserted that Federal we make a status determination (79 FR our interpretation (see Our Response to policy should reflect a greater 37583, July 1, 2014). As a result, our Comment 37). commitment to active gray wolf analysis of the effects of threats under We assume the Michigan Attorney recovery efforts, identifying and the five factors to the viability of each General’s statement that ‘‘the Service protecting critical habitat and of the gray wolf entities evaluated in must explain its conclusion that an area movement corridors, maintaining a this rule focuses on its occupied range. in which a species can no longer live is population level consistent with Thus, we did not assess the effects of not a significant portion of its range’’ ecosystem functionality, and threats to gray wolves in States that are refers to our conclusion that a species’ implementing innovative policy and not currently occupied by gray wolves unoccupied historical range cannot be a guidance to reduce lethal control as a (see Our Response to Comment 37). significant portion of its range. The management strategy. However, we considered impacts arising cited case, Defenders of Wildlife v. Our Response: We have been strongly from loss of each gray wolf entity’s Norton, pre-dates our SPR policy, which committed to gray wolf recovery since historical range on that entity’s viability interprets the term ‘‘range’’ in the Act’s the 1970s. As a result of our (see Historical Context of Our Analysis definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and commitment and the commitment and and Determination of Species Status). In ‘‘threatened species’’ as current range. recovery efforts of our State, Federal, other words, we thoroughly assessed the Based on that interpretation, if a portion and Tribal partners, the gray wolf effects of threats and historical range of historical range is not occupied, then entities evaluated in this rule do not loss on the viability of the gray wolf it is not part of the species ‘‘range’’ (i.e., meet the Act’s definition of an entities evaluated in this rule based on current range) and thus cannot be a endangered species or of a threatened the best available scientific and portion (significant or not) of that range. species. Therefore, we are removing the commercial data available. In so doing, In response to several comments related currently listed C. lupus entities from we have determined that each of the to our interpretation of ‘‘range,’’ we the List. (See Our Responses to gray wolf entities evaluated is not in have clarified our definition and Comments 44 and 42). danger of extinction, or likely to become treatment of range in this final rule (see Comment 66: Referring only to the so in the foreseeable future, throughout Definition and Treatment of Range). gray wolf entity currently on the List as all or a significant portion of its range Comment 64: The California Fish and endangered (the 44-State entity), the (see Determination of Species Status). Game Commission indicated that Michigan Attorney General contended Consequently, we are removing the establishing and maintaining robust that the proposed delisting rule does not currently listed C. lupus entities from gray wolf populations in suitable habitat meet the Act’s requirements because it the List. (See Our Response to Comment across the species’ historical range can does not include a complete five-factor 42). help ensure long-term survival of the analysis for the current range of the gray Comment 67: Referring only to the species and recovery success. They wolf in that entity. The Michigan gray wolf entity currently on the List as expressed concern that, if the species is Attorney General noted that we explain endangered (the 44-State entity), the delisted, populations could potentially why gray wolves are no longer in danger Michigan Attorney General indicated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69861

that the approach taken in our proposed portion of its range. (See Our Response movements, and demographics to rule is not in accordance with the Act to Comment 66). Because we have validate that goal. because it is the same approach taken in determined that each of the gray wolf Our Response: We share the Tribe’s our December 28, 2011, rule designating entities assessed in this rule is not in interest in sustainable wolf populations, and delisting the western Great Lakes danger of extinction, or likely to become and we expect the wolf metapopulation DPS (76 FR 81666), which was vacated so in the foreseeable future, throughout in the Western United States to continue by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. all or a significant portion of its range to expand into unoccupied suitable Circuit (Humane Society, 865 F.3d at (see Determination of Species Status), habitats in the West Coast States and 603). The Michigan Attorney General we are removing the currently listed central Rocky Mountains, as envisioned stated that the approach in the proposed gray wolf entities from the List (see Our in State wolf conservation and rule splits the 44-State entity into a Response to Comment 42). management plans. We support State recovered subgroup (wolves in Comment 69: The California Fish and and Tribal-led efforts to use the best Wisconsin and Michigan) and an Game Commission and several other available scientific methods for tracking unrecovered subgroup (wolves in commenters opined that much of the population trends and distribution, several other States in that listed entity) recovery analysis in the proposed rule is recognizing that in some cases tracking that will become extinct. Quoting the based on an outdated recovery plan every wolf pack will not be feasible or D.C. Circuit opinion, they indicate that using outdated science. They stated that necessary. the unrecovered subgroup is an ‘‘orphan the recovery criteria on which the rule Comment 71: The Makah Tribal to the law’’ and that our ‘‘failure to is based do not factor in the best Council indicated that the current legal address the status of the remnant is available science and, therefore, neither framework in Washington, with Federal fatal.’’ does any analysis in the rule that is protection of wolves in the western two- Our Response: In this rule, we based on the recovery criteria. thirds of Washington State and Tribal/ evaluate the status of the entire 44-State Our Response: Our determination is State management responsibility in the entity (as well as two larger entities that based on analysis of the best available eastern one-third of the State, makes include the entire 44-State entity). The information regarding the threats to, and overall management of wolves within western Great Lakes DPS that was viability of, the gray wolf entities the State extremely challenging. designated and delisted in 2011 (see 76 evaluated in this rule. Recovery plans Our Response: We thank the Tribal FR 81666, December 28, 2011) and recovery criteria are intended to Council for their comment and constitutes only a subset of the 44-State provide guidance to the Service, States, understand the challenges that have entity. Further, our approach in this rule and other partners on methods of arisen from delimiting the NRM is consistent with the Humane Society minimizing threats to listed species and population, which has continued to opinion because we assess the status of on criteria that may be used to expand beyond its legally designated the entire 44-State entity, thus there are determine when recovery is achieved. boundaries. Although our final rule is no subgroups of wolves that could be They are not regulatory documents and based solely on the best available considered ‘‘orphans to the law.’’ cannot substitute for the determinations scientific and commercial information Comment 68: The Minnesota and promulgation of regulations with respect to the status of each of the Department of Natural Resources stated required under section 4(a)(1) of the gray wolf entities we evaluated, one that a blanket delisting of gray wolves Act. We use recovery criteria in concert consequence of the delisting is that it across the United States may not be with the best scientific and commercial will resolve the challenge raised by the warranted. They also expressed concern data available at the time of the delisting Tribe. that we may not be identifying and determination, to determine whether Comment 72: The Nez Perce Tribe applying delisting criteria appropriately. threats have been minimized expressed that the sustainability of Our Response: We appreciate the sufficiently and populations have habitat conditions for wolves, including Department’s perspective and the State achieved long-term viability to their prey base, should be of high of Minnesota’s significant contribution determine whether a species meets the priority to the Service as it considers to gray wolf recovery. While our past Act’s definition of an endangered delisting. To avoid conflict, the Tribe status reviews focused on DPSs and species or of a threatened species and, recommends that the Service work taxonomic units that align with our therefore, can be reclassified from closely with Tribes and States to national wolf strategy, we have revised endangered to threatened or delisted. monitor wild ungulate populations and our approach in this rule in recognition adjust population objectives for those of the unique listing history of the gray Tribal and Tribal Organization species as necessary to ensure the robust wolf and court opinions addressing Comments availability of prey for both wolves and rules in which we designated gray wolf Comment 70: The Nez Perce Tribe humans. DPSs (see table 1). Therefore, in this expressed their interest in sustainable Our Response: Wolves can exist in rule we do not designate and assess gray wolf populations outside of the NRM. nearly any habitat with sufficient food wolf DPSs. Rather, we assess the status Specifically, they commented that the resources and limited human-caused of the two currently listed gray wolf expansion of wolves into areas of former mortality. We agree that a sustainable entities themselves (separately, and occupation in the Pacific Northwest prey base is necessary for maintaining combined into a single entity) and the outside of the NRM would contribute to robust and resilient wolf populations, lower 48 United States entity. Further, the persistence of wolves in their and we assessed the adequacy of the by ‘‘delisting criteria’’ we assume the homeland as part of a broader prey base following delisting in making Department is referring to recovery metapopulation. The Tribe encouraged our delisting determination (see Habitat criteria. We do not base our status us to take no action that threatens, and Prey Availability). We will work determinations on recovery criteria reduces, or hinders the reestablishment closely with the States and Tribes alone (see Our Response to Comment and persistence of wolves in all suitable throughout the post-delisting 69). We make our determinations based habitat outside the NRM DPS. The Tribe monitoring period to gather and assess on a species’ (in this case, each of the further recommended that the Service data on wolf status, including gray wolf entities assessed in this rule) support active, precise, and accurate information on changes to protections status throughout all or a significant monitoring of wolf pack locations, for wolves, wolf prey, or wolf habitat.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69862 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Comment 73: Several Tribes and Comment 74: Several commenters the lower 48 United States live in multi-Tribal organizations commented stated that the Service must ensure that human-dominated landscapes that are that providing Tribes with an State wolf management strategies not free of human influences. As such, opportunity to participate in regular and accommodate Tribal interests within wolf populations are subject to varied meaningful consultation is an essential reservation boundaries as well as honor levels of anthropogenic influences that component of a productive Federal- the Tribal role and authority in wolf can affect certain life-history Tribal relationship. management in the ceded territories. characteristics. Our Response: In accordance with the Furthermore, they also indicate that the In general, the loss of a wolf or wolves President’s memorandum of April 29, Federal trust responsibility, as it from a pack, regardless of the cause, 1994, Government-to-Government pertains to wolf management, must be alters the social dynamics of the pack. Relations with Native American Tribal continued after delisting. This may, in turn, affect pack cohesion Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, Our Response: The Service and the and persistence. However, the effects and the Department of the Interior’s Department of the Interior recognize the will vary depending upon the manual at 512 DM 2, we readily unique status of the federally recognized circumstances, including: The acknowledge our responsibility to Tribes, their right to self-governance, individual wolf that was lost, the time communicate meaningfully with and their inherent sovereign powers of year the loss occurred, the size of the recognized Federal Tribes on a over their members and territory. pack, and the size of the wolf government-to-government basis. In Therefore, the Department, including population in which the loss occurred. accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 the Service and the Bureau of Indian Wolves are resilient and adaptable and of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Affairs, will take all appropriate steps to have evolved mechanisms to Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust ensure that Tribal authority and compensate for human-caused, or any Responsibilities, and the Endangered sovereignty within reservation other form of, mortality. Species Act), we recognize our boundaries are respected as the States The social structure of some packs are responsibilities to work directly with implement their wolf management plans affected by increased human-caused Tribes in developing programs for and revise those plans in the future. mortality, especially on the peripheries healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Furthermore, there may be Tribal of occupied ranges where wolf survival tribal lands are not subject to the same activities or interests associated with is generally lower than in core areas. controls as Federal public lands, to wolves encompassed within the Tribes’ However, we conclude that regulatory remain sensitive to Indian culture, and retained rights to hunt, fish, and gather mechanisms within occupied wolf range to make information available to Tribes. in treaty-ceded territories. The are adequate to maintain sufficient wolf We take seriously our government-to- Department of the Interior is available to population sizes after delisting such that government relationship with Tribes assist in the exercise of any such rights. increases in human-caused mortality and respect Tribal sovereignty, and we If biological assistance is needed, the will have a minimal effect on wolf coordinated with the affected Tribes Service will provide it via our field populations. Refer to the Human-caused when preparing the March 15, 2019, offices. Upon delisting, all Service Mortality—Effects on Wolf Social proposed rule (84 FR 9648). management, and protection authority Structure and Pack Dynamics section of Furthermore, throughout several years under the Act, of the gray wolf entities this rule for further information of development of earlier related rules will end, although the Service will regarding the effects of increased and the March 15, 2019, proposed rule, remain involved in the post-delisting human-caused mortality on pack we have endeavored to consult with monitoring of gray wolves. Legal dynamics. Also, refer to the Human- Native American Tribes and Native assistance will be provided to the Tribes caused Mortality and Post-delisting American organizations in order to both by the Department of the Interior, with Monitoring sections of the rule and Our (1) provide them with a complete the involvement of the Bureau of Indian Response to Comment 120 for understanding of the changes, and (2) Affairs as needed. We strongly information related to regulatory understand their concerns with those encourage the States and Tribes to work mechanisms that will be in place post- changes. As we were preparing this rule, cooperatively toward post-delisting wolf delisting and the effects of harvest on we met with the Chippewa Ottawa management. wolf populations. See Our Response to Resources Authority Board and the Comment 75: Two Tribal Comment 17 for further information Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife organizations and several commenters about lethal control. Commission’s Voigt Inter-Tribal Task indicated that we did not adequately Comment 76: A few commenters Force to discuss the proposal. We also analyze the effects of increased human- stated that Tribal plans that address the offered to meet individually and discuss caused mortality on wolf pack social management, protection, and/or the proposal with any Tribe that wanted structure, pack dynamics, and livestock stewardship of gray wolves should be to do so, and we met with the Fond du depredations. Two commenters noted considered to the same degree as State Lac Band of Chippewa Indians and the that wolf populations are self-regulating management plans. Nez Perce. Additionally, we have fully and are limited by prey availability. Our Response: We recognize the considered all of the comments on the Some commenters felt that we needed to measures by Tribes to conserve wolves proposed rule submitted by Tribes and reassess regulatory mechanisms in State on their lands. We included additional Tribal organizations, and we have management plans that allow for available information on Tribal attempted to address their concerns and ‘‘substantial sport-hunting,’’ which management in the delisted NRM considered any information they could affect wolf persistence and (Management in the NRM DPS) and on provided, incorporating it into the rule ecosystem health. Tribal management post-delisting for where appropriate. We invite Native Our Response: We acknowledge the other areas (Tribal Management and American Tribes and multi-Tribal importance group living has for a social Conservation of Wolves) in this final organizations to reach out to us after animal such as the wolf. We are also rule. However, because State wildlife publication of this final rule so that we aware that wolf populations may, under management agencies will assume most may engage in discussions aimed at certain conditions, be regulated by management responsibilities when facilitating the transition to State and density-dependent, intrinsic wolves are delisted, we assessed the Tribal management of wolves. mechanisms. However, most wolves in State management plans in greater

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69863

detail. We recognize that the Public Comments delisting Management section of this conservation of wolves by Tribes on In this section we do not repeat issues rule and Our Response to Comment 58. Tribal lands after delisting may provide that we’ve already addressed above. We We are not, however, relying on such additional benefits to the species. only address new issues raised that expansion for our determination that Comment 77: Many Tribes, multi- were not raised by peer reviewers, State wolves in each of the gray wolf entities Tribal organizations, and Tribal or Federal agencies, or Tribes. evaluated in this rule do not meet the members expressed the significant definition of a threatened species or an cultural and spiritual relationship Recovery and Delisting endangered species under the Act. between Native Americans and the gray Comment 79: Multiple commenters Comment 80: One commenter wolf. and two Tribal organizations expressed indicated that the Service has Our Response: We appreciate the concern that while wolves have abandoned its responsibility to recover cultural and spiritual significance of the rebounded from near-extinction in parts wolves in the lower 48 United States, wolf to many Native Americans. of the northern Rocky Mountains region which the commenter believed is Although we acknowledge the and Great Lakes area, most of the contrary to its duty to conserve species under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. importance of the cultural and spiritual suitable habitat remains unoccupied Our Response: In this final rule we significance of wolves to native people, and current population levels are lower analyze gray wolves in the lower 48 we cannot consider it as a factor in our than historical population levels. They determination. Rather, we must evaluate United States entity, and we conclude asserted that recovery of wolves where that they do not meet the definition of the five statutory factors, consistent they currently exist is due to Federal with the purpose of the Act to provide an endangered species or threatened protections; thus, it is premature to species. The commenter’s reliance on for the conservation of endangered remove Federal protections because section 7(a)(1) of the Act is misplaced. species and threatened species, and the wolves occupy only a small portion of Section 7(a)(1) directs Federal agencies ecosystems upon which they depend. their historical suitable habitat and/or to use their authorities in furtherance of The Act defines conservation as the use range in the lower 48 United States. the purpose of the Act by carrying out of all methods and procedures which Some of these commenters stated that programs for the conservation of species are necessary to bring any endangered the Act provides for restoration that are currently listed under the Act. or threatened species to the point at throughout the historical range of Section 7(a)(1) does not impose a which the measures provided pursuant wolves, and without protection by the separate requirement to conserve to the Act are no longer necessary. Act, dispersing wolves could be shot or species that no longer warrant listing Under our implementing regulations (50 trapped before they are able to establish due to recovery. When a species no CFR 424.11), a species should be viable populations in unoccupied longer meets the definition of a delisted when the best scientific and habitat. Commenters were also threatened species or an endangered commercial data available indicate that concerned that there is a lack of species under the Act and is delisted, it no longer meets the definition of an protection for wolves and promotion for section 7(a)(1) does not apply to that endangered species or a threatened wolf recovery in States not currently species. As described in Our Response species under the Act. None of the gray occupied by wolves. Similarly, some to Comment 79, the Act does not require wolf entities we evaluated meets the argued that the Act goes beyond just us to restore the gray wolf (or any other definition of an endangered species or a protecting the minimum number of species) to all of its historical range or threatened species; therefore, we are individuals to prevent extinction. any specific percentage of currently removing the currently listed entities In contrast, some commenters noted suitable habitat before we may conclude from the List. that occupancy of wolves across the that the species is recovered. Rather, Comment 78: Two commenters stated entire historical range is not possible, that analysis is based on the five that the Service should use Tribes’ practical, or necessary to support viable statutory factors. Based on the analyses traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) wolf populations, and that wolves will in this final rule, we have concluded in the delisting decision and future gray return to unoccupied areas if suitable that the gray wolf entities currently wolf management plans. One habitat exists. listed are recovered—that is, they no commenter noted that Service Our Response: We acknowledge that longer meet the statutory definition of a publications describe TEK as ‘‘Native wolves do not occupy all of the threatened species or an endangered Science’’ gained ‘‘over hundreds or potentially suitable habitat in the lower species. Thus, upon the effective date of thousands of years through direct 48 United States. However, the Act does this final rule (see DATES, above), section contact with the environment.’’ The not describe recovery in terms of the 7(a)(1) of the Act will not apply because commenter also stated that Service proportion of historical range or the two currently listed gray wolf publications acknowledge how TEK potential habitat that must be occupied entities will no longer be listed. ‘‘encompasses the world view of by a species, nor does it include Comment 81: One commenter was indigenous people which includes restoration throughout the entire concerned that shifting management of ecology, spirituality, human and animal historical range as a conservation wolves to States post-delisting is not an relationships, and more.’’ The purpose. Thus, the Act does not require adequate policy alternative to the commenter asserts that TEK is the very us to restore the gray wolf (or any other Service’s mandate to develop a definition of the best available science. species) to all of its historical range or substantive plan for gray wolf recovery Our Response: We agree that TEK may any specific percentage of currently per its responsibility under the Act. The constitute the best available science, suitable habitat. We find that the current commenter further stated that rather and it should be used in our decisions level of occupied habitat is sufficient than focusing on the active recovery of as appropriate, which is determined on because it has supported recovery of the the wolf, the Service issued multiple a case-by-case basis. We sought species. We also expect that wolf rulemakings to delist wolves. information from Tribes in preparation populations will continue to grow and Our Response: There is no uniform of the proposed rule and incorporated expand post-delisting in the West Coast definition for what constitutes recovery any scientific information we received States and central Rocky Mountains and how recovery must be achieved (see from them. under State management (see Post- Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69864 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Implementation). Our recovery strategy with implications for disease resistance lower 48 United States, or nationwide, for gray wolves in the lower 48 United and reproductive output. The before proceeding with any delisting States consists of recovery of the species commenter noted that disease outbreaks action. Some commenters provided in three broad regions (NRM, have caused ‘‘sudden and severe’’ suggestions regarding the development Southwestern United States, and the mortality in Yellowstone wolves three of such a plan, including specific areas East) that capture different subspecies times in the past decade. in which wolves could be recovered. and habitats, and we have, for decades, Our Response: There is no evidence Other commenters stated that the demonstrated a consistent commitment that gray wolves in the lower 48 United Service should base recovery on to this strategy. Recovery plans and States suffer from low genetic diversity, subspecies or identify distinct recovery criteria are intended to provide except where they occur in isolated population segments across the gray guidance to the Service, States, and areas at extremely low population wolf’s historical range, and that these other partners on methods for numbers (e.g., Isle Royale). High should replace or supplement the eliminating, ameliorating, and dispersal rates and long dispersal current recovery zones. The Pacific minimizing threats to listed species and distances facilitate population Northwest, California, central Rockies, on criteria that may be used to connectivity between wolves in the and Northeastern United States were determine when recovery is achieved. United States and Canada (Fain et al. mentioned most frequently for We use recovery criteria, along with an 2010, p. 1758; Forbes and Boyd 1996, additional recovery programs. Still other analysis of the five factors to determine pp. 1088–1089; Treves et al. 2009, p. commenters expressed their opinion whether threats have been abated 200; Jimenez et al. 2017, pp. 7 2012;10), that additional recovery efforts across sufficiently and populations have which is not expected to change the entire lower 48 United States were achieved long-term viability, such that a following delisting. While human- unwise and unnecessary. species no longer meets the definition of caused mortality is likely to increase in Our Response: Recovery plans are endangered or threatened. The multiple some States following delisting, we have non-binding documents that are rulemakings to delist wolves are a result determined that post-delisting intended to provide guidance to the of the Service’s commitment to this management is sufficient to maintain Service, States, and other partners on recovery strategy. Returning viable metapopulations of the gray wolf methods of minimizing threats to listed management of gray wolves to the States (see Determination of Species Status species and criteria that may be used to is appropriate because each of the section). The viability of these determine when recovery is achieved. currently listed gray wolf entities has metapopulations is enhanced, but not However, our determination of the recovered and does not warrant Federal dependent upon, their connectivity with status of each of the gray wolf entities protections. We have explained Canada, since we expect population assessed in this rule is based on the elsewhere in this rule why State numbers to be sufficiently high to status of each entity relative to the Act’s management is sufficient to ensure the maintain genetic diversity without the definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or conservation of the gray wolf after need for genetic rescue. The fact that ‘‘threatened species,’’ not based on the delisting. Also see Our Response to wolves have sustained bouts of achievement of specific recovery Comment 84. heightened mortality due to disease in criteria. Possible future wolf recovery Comment 82: Several commenters some years is not evidence of a genetic efforts are beyond the scope of this stated that we inappropriately relied on deficiency. While infectious disease is rulemaking because such actions are not wolf populations in Canada to one of the key factors, along with prey necessary as a result of our determine that the combined listed abundance and social competition, determination that the gray wolf entities entity is not in danger of extinction or affecting wolf population dynamics, the assessed in this rule do not meet the likely to become so in the foreseeable ability of wolves in the Greater Act’s definition of an endangered future. While the reviewer refers to the Yellowstone Ecosystem to rebound from species or threatened species. combined listed entity, their comment disease outbreaks, in most instances the As noted in the March 9, 1978, could apply to the analysis of other following year, demonstrates the reclassification rule (43 FR 9607), we entities now included in this final rule. resilience of individual wolves and replaced the previous subspecies Our Response: We have concluded packs as well as the limited effects listings with a listing for gray wolves in that each of the entities assessed in this disease has on the dynamics of wolf Minnesota as threatened and gray rule—Minnesota, 44-State entity, populations. wolves elsewhere in the lower 48 combined listed entity, and lower 48 Comment 84: Several commenters United States and Mexico as endangered United States entity—contains sufficient stated that we should have modified our in order to most conveniently handle resiliency, redundancy, and recovery planning and implementation the gray wolf listing. Our 1978 representation to sustain gray wolf efforts after revising the listing to a reclassification rule provided populations over time. We provided single lower 48 United States listing in assurances that we would continue to general information on populations in 1978. Some expressed that delisting is recognize valid biological subspecies for Canada to acknowledge that they premature or in violation of the Act purposes of our research and provide additional resiliency, because recovery goals have not been conservation programs (see 39 FR 1171, redundancy, and representation to these identified or met for some or all January 4, 1974), and we developed gray entities beyond that necessary to sustain unoccupied areas of the lower 48 United wolf recovery plans accordingly. populations within the gray wolf States, or because the 1992 Eastern We have satisfied our statutory entities we evaluated. We have clarified Timber Wolf Recovery Plan is responsibilities for recovery planning. this point in this final rule. inadequate for guiding recovery in the Section 4(f)(1) of the Act instructs us to Comment 83: One commenter combined listed entity because it is develop plans for the conservation and expressed concern that we were relying outdated and not the best available survival of endangered and threatened too heavily on genetic rescue from science and/or is geographically species. The Act further states that Canada to ensure wolf recovery in the restricted. Commenters requested we priority should be given to species that United States. The commenter was also develop, or believe the Act and/or our are most likely to benefit from such concerned that State management might implementing regulations require us to plans. To this end, we prioritized gray result in significant genetic bottleneck develop, a single recovery plan for the wolf recovery planning efforts to focus

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69865

on the NRM, the Eastern United States, evaluate the status of a species, we this topic (see Human-caused Mortality, and the Southwestern United States. We evaluate the impacts of the species’ ‘‘The Role of Public Attitudes’’). completed a recovery plan for the NRM historical range loss on the viability of Comment 87: Some commenters were in 1980, and revised it in 1987. In the the species in its current range (see concerned that human-caused mortality East, we completed a recovery plan in Historical Context of Our Analysis and after delisting may halt or reverse gray 1978, and revised it in 1992. In the Determination of Species Status). As wolf ‘‘restoration.’’ Southwest, a recovery plan was described in detail in this rule, each of Our Response: As we stated in the completed in 1982, and revised in 2017. the gray wolf entities we assessed does Human-caused Mortality section of the We disagree with commenters who not meet the Act’s definition of proposed rule, and this final rule, suggested that we should have ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened human-caused mortality is likely to developed a single recovery plan for the species.’’ Therefore, delisting the increase post-delisting. This may lower 48 United States. We are not currently listed gray wolf entities is include increased use of lethal control required to revise our recovery plans warranted. to mitigate depredations on livestock and, even if we were, we continue to Some of the commenters’ suggestions and the implementation of public believe that it is appropriate to focus are inconsistent with the purposes of harvest to stabilize or reduce wolf recovery efforts on these three regions. the Act. The purpose of the Act is to population growth rates. Nonetheless, With the delisting of the currently listed prevent extinctions and provide for the based on past delisting efforts in the gray wolf entities, we will focus our conservation of endangered and Great Lakes area, and as demonstrated wolf recovery efforts on recovering gray threatened species. The Act defines by current State management of wolves wolves in the Southwest (the subspecies conservation as the use of all methods in the northern Rocky Mountains, we C. l. baileyi) and red wolves (Canis and procedures which are necessary to conclude that moderate increases in rufus) in the Southeast. Also see Our bring any endangered or threatened human-caused mortality after delisting Response to Comment 69. species to the point at which the are unlikely to cause dramatic declines Comment 85: Commenters offered measures provided pursuant to the Act in wolf populations across any of the many reasons why they thought are no longer necessary (i.e., recovery). gray wolf entities evaluated. Wolves in delisting was premature or not Our conservation efforts have been California, Colorado, and Washington warranted. Some commenters indicated successful for the gray wolf, and the will continue to remain State-listed and that wolf recovery requires, should Act’s protections are no longer required receive protections through State laws require, or could be improved by: (1) for the currently listed gray wolf and regulations. Although wolves are Establishment of large populations in entities. delisted at the State level in Oregon, more, or all, suitable or potentially Comment 86: One commenter opined they continue to receive protections suitable habitat within the species’ that the absence of wolves in areas of through the State Plan, its associated historical range; (2) natural connectivity high human densities and areas where regulation, and Oregon’s wildlife policy. or linkage between populations; (3) prey populations are not adequate to Comment 88: A few commenters were protective regulatory mechanisms maintain viable wolf populations is a concerned that with gray wolf delisting, throughout the species’ historical range, positive aspect of historical range loss a lack of Federal protection and funding or in all or portions of its unoccupied that is missing from our analysis of the will mean wolves will not be able to historical range; and/or (4) protection status of the combined listed entity. The reestablish in Colorado or contribute to and enhancement of existing population commenter claimed that historical range ecosystem benefits in Colorado. In levels. Some claimed that we ignored reduction has provided support to the addition, they were concerned that post- historical range or historical population recovery of the combined listed entity delisting, human-caused mortality of numbers when assessing recovery, by reducing the levels of human-wolf gray wolves in Wyoming will preclude while others expressed concern about conflict and by concentrating wolf wolf movements from Wyoming to impacts to other species, ecosystems, or populations in areas where there is an Colorado, in turn failing to reestablish the economy if wolves are delisted. adequate prey base, and that the final populations in Colorado. The Other commenters provided additional rule should recognize this positive commenters indicated that there are reasons why delisting now is factor. currently no wolf packs in Colorado, appropriate, citing damages from wolves Our Response: We are not aware of and that dispersal of wolves from in the form of livestock and dog injuries any information indicating a positive Canada to the northern Rocky and fatalities and other indirect causal relationship between gray wolf Mountains region was not quick even damages in reduced farm productivity historical range loss (extirpation from following the end of ‘‘routine shooting after interactions with wolves. most of the species’ historical range) of wolves.’’ They indicated that the Our Response: Under our and gray wolf recovery. An active presence of wolf populations in implementing regulations (50 CFR eradication program is the sole reason Colorado would provide resiliency and 424.11), a species should be delisted that wolves were extirpated from their redundancy if wolf populations collapse when the best scientific and commercial historical range in the United States, in other States due to habitat loss from data available indicate that it no longer and the regulation of human-caused human development, disease, prey meets the definition of an endangered wolf mortality is the primary reason population declines, or human-caused species or a threatened species under wolf numbers have significantly mortality. the Act. This final delisting increased and their range has expanded Our Response: In January 2020, a determination is based upon our since the 1970s (see Human-caused group of six gray wolves was observed evaluation of the status of each of the Mortality). The commenter may be traveling together in the northwestern gray wolf entities assessed in this rule referring to factors that potentially part of Colorado, indicating that gray in light of the Act’s definition of an influence human attitudes and tolerance wolves are in the beginning stages of ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened of wolves, and the effects of attitudes recolonizing the State. In addition, since species.’’ Thus, we consider potential and tolerance on the illegal killing and publication of the proposed rule, a threats to the species (in this case, the overall mortality of wolves. We have dispersing individual from entities assessed in this rule) as outlined revised this final rule to provide northwestern Wyoming was in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. When we additional information and clarity on documented in Colorado in July 2019

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69866 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

and has remained in the State using a the NRM DPS. See 72 FR 6112–6113, for considered, in our assessment of wolf defined territory since that time. additional information. viability, the likelihood of habitat Additional populations of wolves in Comment 90: One commenter changes in a significant portion of the Colorado would add to the resiliency believed that delisting wolves at this range of the combined listed entity. and redundancy of gray wolves in the time is not appropriate because there are While the reviewer refers to the lower 48 United States. However, as large areas of unoccupied habitat, combined listed entity, their comment explained in this final rule, it is not which, if occupied, could help maintain could apply to the analysis of other necessary for wolves to occupy all, or genetic diversity and resilience, entities now included in this final rule. most, of their historical range for us to especially as climate change alters Our Response: We did not develop a conclude that delisting is appropriate. habitats and prey availability. The quantitative model of wolf population Our delisting of the gray wolf does not commenter cited Hendricks et al. (2019) dynamics for wolves in the Great Lakes preclude the continued recolonization as using newer genetic techniques to area. Once established, wolf populations in Colorado or the future explain how wolves adapt to different are known to be remarkably resilient to reestablishment of wolves in any other environments. In light of this research, human-caused mortality and are not State. We appreciate the concern that the commenter believed it was particularly sensitive to changes in wolf dispersal may be affected by premature to declare that self-sustaining habitat as long as sufficient prey increases in human-caused mortality, populations in the Great Lakes or populations are maintained (see Habitat which may delay recolonization of Northern Rocky Mountains are adequate and Prey Availability section). The basis vacant, suitable habitats in Colorado. for long-term survival of the species. for our conclusions that wolves are no Although recolonization of vacant, Our Response: As is described in the longer threatened or endangered in the suitable habitats can occur relatively March 15, 2019, proposed rule and this entities evaluated in this rule are quickly, it does still take time, whether final rule, we evaluated the resiliency summarized in the Determination of or not human-caused mortality is highly (in addition to other factors) of the Status Throughout All of Its Range and regulated. However, the innate behavior Minnesota entity, 44-State entity, Determination of Status Throughout a combined listed entity, and lower 48 of wolves to disperse and locate other Significant Portion of Its Range sections United States entity, and determined dispersing individuals across vast for each of the entities. In short, wolf that none of these entities meet the Act’s landscapes to, in some cases, fill social populations have remained above definition of an endangered species or openings in existing packs or form new recovery targets in the Great Lakes threatened species. As part of this packs in part explains why wolf region for almost two decades, and the evaluation, we assessed climate change, populations are resilient to moderate States have committed to maintaining prey availability, and the Hendricks et increases in human-caused mortality wolf populations well above these al. (2019, entire) study. The northern targets for the foreseeable future. (See and are highly capable of continuing to Rocky Mountains wolves remain also Our Response to Comment 20.) recolonize vacant suitable habitats delisted and continue to expand beyond Comment 93: Several commenters where they exist. the NRM DPS boundary. We expect that were concerned that the removal of Comment 89: Two commenters wolves in the Great Lakes area will Federal protections would inhibit the opined that wolf recovery cannot be remain recovered post-delisting. Also recovery progress of gray wolves, setting achieved, and delisting is not see Our Response to Comment 113, populations on a path toward extinction appropriate, until wolves have returned which addresses concerns related to that would upset ecological systems to Utah. They indicated that much of climate change effects on habitat and kept in balance by wolves. Several Utah is historical and current gray wolf prey. Our Response to Comment 79 is commented that loss of apex predators habitat, and pointed out that the also relevant to concerns raised by this substantially diminishes the functions exclusion of Utah from the recovery area commenter. and resiliency of ecosystems. The for gray wolves is not explained. One Comment 91: Several commenters commenters claimed that ignoring the commenter claimed that northern Utah asked specifically for the inclusion of gray wolf’s role in ecosystem function was included in the NRM DPS as an more details regarding suitable habitat similarly ignores the best available intended ‘‘migratory corridor,’’ and in unoccupied Rocky Mountain States science on this matter. Similarly, they asked why it was included as a in our biological report and final rule. contended that the understanding of migratory corridor if it will never They cited Carroll et al. (2006) and other wolf ecology and recovery has changed function as one. studies that found that Colorado and since recovery plans were developed. Our Response: As is stated in this Utah could support a population of over Additional commenters asserted that final rule, gray wolves need not occupy 1,000 wolves. the Act protects ecosystems needed by all, or most, of their historical range in Our Response: Due to recent endangered species and goes beyond order for us to conclude that delisting is information confirming the presence of just protecting the minimum number of appropriate. See Our Response to a group of six wolves in extreme individuals to prevent extinction. Comment 79 for additional information. northwestern Colorado, and their Commenters also indicated that the The NRM DPS boundary was delineated proximity to and potential use of Service should consider ecosystem to encompass an area sufficient for habitats within Utah, we conducted an value when evaluating a significant recovery of gray wolves in the northern evaluation of suitable habitat in portion of the range and the indirect Rocky Mountains. The northeast portion Colorado and Utah in this rule (see effects of wolf population decline post- of Utah was most recently delisted as Habitat and Prey Availability). delisting on ecosystem health and part of the NRM DPS in 2011. Similar Comment 92: One commenter asked function. Along these lines, commenters to many other areas in the NRM DPS, about the basis for our conclusions stated that wolves ‘‘need to be restored that area will continue to provide regarding continued wolf viability in the to ecologically functional population connectivity to areas outside the NRM western Great Lakes and whether we sizes sufficient to influence ecosystems’’ DPS, and this rule will not affect the had conducted population viability (citing Belant and Adams 2010, entire). ability of wolves to use both suitable analyses. They requested that we state Commenters pointed to numerous and unsuitable habitats as dispersal our assumptions and clarify definitions studies in the northern Rocky routes to recolonize new areas outside of terms. They also asked whether we Mountains region and the Great Lakes

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69867

area, where wolf populations were Comment 27). We used this information remain listed as an endangered species determined to influence ungulate and to reach our determination that gray and continue to receive the protections other predator populations in such a wolves do not meet the Act’s definition of the Act. The Act prohibits activities way that the dynamics of biological of an endangered species or threatened that ‘‘take’’ endangered and threatened diversity and ecosystem functions species and no longer require Federal species unless a Federal permit allows produced trophic cascades. Finally, protections. Any influence this final such ‘‘take’’ (16 U.S.C. 1538). Therefore, another commenter stated that sufficient rule may have on funding additional it will remain illegal under the Act for research is not available on wolf- research is beyond the scope of this members of the public to shoot a ecosystem effects, and that such rulemaking process. Mexican wolf, regardless of State laws research needs to be conducted while Comment 94: Multiple commenters pertaining to gray wolves or the wolves are still federally protected so favored the reintroduction of wolves to potential for mistaking a Mexican wolf the information can be used to inform suitable historical ranges ‘‘for the sake for a gray wolf or coyote, and members delisting decisions; when wolves are of wolves’’ and to repair damages in of the public are obligated to ensure that delisted it would be difficult to obtain ecosystems due to a lack of large their activities are lawful. We will funding to support this research. predators. continue to assess significant causes of Our Response: Wolves play a key role Our Response: As discussed in this mortality as the experimental in ecosystems, including their potential final rule, we have determined that each population expands numerically and to contribute to trophic cascades. While of the gray wolf entities evaluated does geographically within the Mexican Wolf some believe wolves should remain not meet the Act’s definition of an Experimental Population Area. listed until these cascading ecological endangered species or threatened Furthermore, although no information effects are restored throughout species and does not warrant protection exists that indicates Mexican wolves are ecosystems, this approach is not under the Act (see Determination of currently dispersing into neighboring required by the Act and is not necessary Species Status). Therefore, additional States, our 10(j) rule specifies that such for a determination that a species has reintroduction efforts by the Service are dispersers will be captured and returned recovered (no longer meets the Act’s not planned, as the currently listed gray to the Mexican Wolf Experimental definition of an endangered species or wolf entities have recovered. Because Population Area south of I–40 in threatened species). The Service is not we have determined that gray wolves Arizona and New Mexico, maintained required to achieve or maintain should not be federally listed, any in captivity, or transferred to Mexico ‘‘ecological effectiveness’’ (i.e., future wolf reintroduction into (see 50 CFR 17.84(k)). Finally, if genetic occupancy with densities that maintain additional areas would be at the rescue is determined to be a necessary critical ecosystem interactions and help discretion of State and Tribal agencies. tool for the Mexican wolf at some time ensure against ecosystem degradation) The interaction of wolves and in the future, appropriate techniques (Soule et al. 2003, p. 1239). That said, ecosystems is addressed in Our will be used at that time. the concern that delisting would result Response to Comment 93. in declines or extinction is unfounded. Comment 95: One commenter asked Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or Service policy calls for an ecosystem that, rather than delist the gray wolf, we Population Trends approach to carrying out programs for reclassify C. lupus to accurately reflect Comment 97: One commenter stated fish and wildlife conservation (National the species’ historical range and the that we misrepresented the best Policy Issuances 95–03 and 96–10; 59 scope of the Service’s obligations under available science pertaining to the FR 34274, July 1, 1994). The goal of this the Act. population and metapopulation approach is to contribute to the effective Our Response: We interpret this structure of wolves. They noted sections conservation of natural biological comment as a recommendation to revise of the proposed rule in which we stated diversity through perpetuation of the boundaries of the currently listed that wolves in the West Coast States and dynamic, healthy ecosystems when gray wolf entities. For reasons explained the Great Lakes are both part of larger carrying out our various mandates and in this rule (see Approach for this Rule), metapopulations of wolves. They noted functions. Preserving and recovering we evaluated the status of each of the that dispersal between those two areas endangered and threatened species is currently listed entities separately, has not been documented and dispute one of the more basic aspects of an combined into a single entity, and the their connectivity. Further, they stated ecosystem approach to conservation. two currently listed entities combined that there is no evidence that wolves in Successful recovery of an endangered with the NRM DPS (lower 48 United the Great Lakes comprise western gray species or threatened species requires States entity). Because we determined wolves and eastern wolves, due to the that the necessary components of its that none of the gray wolf entities aforementioned lack of connectivity habitat and ecosystem be conserved, evaluated meets the Act’s definition of between wolves in the northern Rocky and that diverse partnerships be an endangered species or a threatened Mountains and the Pacific Coast and the developed to ensure the long-term species, we are removing the currently Great Lakes. protection of those components. Thus listed gray wolf entities from the List. Our Response: In this final rule we the recovery success demonstrated for Comment 96: A few commenters clarify our statements about gray wolves, a keystone or ‘‘highly expressed concern that delisting gray metapopulations. Our intention in the interactive species’’ (as defined by Soule wolves could harm Mexican wolves, proposed rule was to convey that et al. 2003, p. 1239), also is an example either by increasing human-caused wolves in the northern Rocky of the success of the ecosystem mortality of Mexican wolves dispersing Mountains and West Coast States were approach. outside the Mexican Wolf Experimental part of a metapopulation that included Many new studies of wolf ecology and Population Area, or by potentially wolves in western Canada, and that its implications for recovery have been reducing the likelihood of ‘‘genetic wolves in the Great Lakes area were part published since the species was rescue’’ via interbreeding with of another metapopulation that included originally listed. We incorporated the dispersing gray wolves. wolves in those States as well as in best available scientific and commercial Our Response: This final rule has no Ontario and Manitoba, Canada. The data into the proposed rule and this effect on the separate listing for the intent was not to imply that all of those final rule (see Our Response to Mexican wolf. The Mexican wolf will wolves were meaningfully connected as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69868 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

part of a single metapopulation; we about the correct interpretation of the Comment 102: Several commenters agree that there are no data to show conflicting data. However, we conclude addressed the influence a delisted wolf effective dispersal between those two that our approach satisfies the population might have on acceptance larger areas. We have reviewed and requirement to use the best available and tolerance of wolves by sportsmen clarified the text where necessary to scientific data. and -women. Most of these commenters help ensure the correct interpretation. indicated that hunters and State wildlife Human-Caused Mortality As for the commenter’s statement about agencies share the burden of a recovered western wolves in the Great Lakes area, Comment 100: One commenter wolf population due to reduced game it is important to note that the term opined that there is a need for greater populations resulting in a reduction of ‘‘western gray wolves’’ is used in the public involvement in wildlife tags allocated for the hunt and reduced taxonomy section to distinguish conservation and management issues, revenue. One commenter indicated between western and eastern wolves. particularly related to predator control. wolves have had little impact on big There is general agreement that western Our Response: While we appreciate game populations. Commenters cited a wolves are Canis lupus, unlike the the commenter’s perspective, the level reference highlighting the need for eastern wolves, about which there is of public involvement in wildlife support from local communities to significant debate, as explained in the conservation is not a relevant factor in recover Mexican wolf populations and a rule. These ‘‘western gray wolves,’’ our analysis for this final rule. However, reference noting that hunter and trapper therefore, are widely agreed to be the we note that at least three State agencies tolerance would decline if wolves were same taxonomic species as the wolves (Washington Department of Fish and to be relisted in Montana. in the northern Rocky Mountains, but Wildlife, Minnesota Department of Our Response: We believe that local that does not imply, nor do we indicate Natural Resources, and Wisconsin support was critical to, and continues to in the rule, that there is current Department of Natural Resources) have be critical to, the recovery and dispersal or connectivity between the convened citizen advisory groups to successful management of the gray wolf. ‘‘western gray wolves’’ in the Great engage multiple stakeholders in Delisting may slowly improve tolerance Lakes area and wolves in the northern discussing present and future wolf for the species among certain Rocky Mountains or other parts of the management in their respective States. stakeholders. However, we acknowledge Western United States. We acknowledge Furthermore, State wildlife agencies that other stakeholder groups may that the terminology surrounding generally have a citizen commission experience frustration and reduced population structure and taxonomy can that sets policy and regulation for the tolerance for wolf management as it be confusing and have tried to clarify agency through a public process that changes from Federal to State authority. where possible. allows for input from all members of the Accordingly, we have updated and public interested in a particular topic revised the section Human-Caused Taxonomy prior to the commission voting on Mortality—‘‘The Role of Public Comment 98: Some commenters policy decisions. Attitudes’’ in this rule. Specifically, we indicated that the eastern wolf is a Comment 101: Two commenters addressed the tolerance of wolves by species (C. lycaon) recognized as noted that USDA 2015 found that hunters/trappers and overall acceptance threatened in Canada, and that wolves have minimal impact on the of hunting and trapping as a tool used dispersers into the Northeastern United livestock industry compared to other to manage wolf populations. The States should be protected. causes. One commenter stated that references provided by the commenters Our Response: We consider these lethal control is not effective. have been incorporated into the wolves to be part of the gray wolf Our Response: The report cited by the discussion as appropriate. Although the entities we assess. As explained in this commenters surveys a random sample commenter referenced a survey that rule, we have determined that none of of producers nationwide then noted tolerance of respondents for the entities we assess meet the Act’s extrapolates information for each State wolves would decrease if wolves were definition of a threatened species or an based on survey results. Although this relisted in Montana, neither our endangered species (see Determination report demonstrates the minimal effect proposed rule or this final rule of Species Status) and, therefore, none wolves have on the entire livestock considered relisting wolves in Montana. warrant the protections of the Act. See industry at the national level, we We conclude that big game Our Response to Comment 46 and How conclude that it does not adequately populations remain of sufficient size to We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties in address the local, and sometimes support both a viable wolf population this Rule. significant, effects that repeated and recreational opportunities for both Comment 99: We received several depredations caused by wolves may consumptive and nonconsumptive users comments that questioned how we have on individual livestock producers of wildlife. However, we acknowledge handled the uncertainty surrounding in occupied wolf range. Because the that, in some localized areas, wolves the taxonomy of the gray wolf and the report lacks actual numbers based on may be a significant factor in observed distribution of subspecies. confirmed and probable depredations, big game population declines, which Our Response: We have clarified our the information presented is best used could result in reduced allocation of view of the taxonomy and distribution to identify general cattle and calf death hunting licenses and reduced revenue of wolves to the extent possible given loss trends over time at a very large for both local communities and State ongoing scientific uncertainty. The Act spatial scale. We rely more heavily on wildlife agencies. While models requires us to conduct our analysis the empirical information compiled by indicate that predators can limit prey based on the best available science. In State, Federal, and Tribal wildlife populations (Eberhardt 1997, entire), the the case of canid taxonomy, that science management agencies that investigate root cause of observed ungulate declines remains unresolved. In light of that and classify depredations caused by or lack of population growth is often uncertainty, we made certain wolves. Much of this information is more complex, and involves many more assumptions and provided justification provided in annual reports that are factors, than simply the presence of as appropriate. We understand that, available for public dissemination. See wolves. For example, habitat conditions absent complete scientific agreement on Our Response to Comment 17 for on summer ranges and environmental the subject, there will be disagreement information about lethal control. factors (i.e., winter severity) across the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69869

Western United States can have a under State authority. Surveys also which also allow certain hunting and significant influence on the nutritional indicate that members of the public are trapping activities outside of Tribal condition of adult female elk. This, in more trusting of their State fish and lands; and (d) the loss of wolves at the turn, affects pregnancy rates, the wildlife agencies than their State or behest of livestock producers. The nutritional condition of calves, and Federal Government (Manfredo et al. commenter asserted that the threat to ultimately calf survival and recruitment 2018, pp. 8, 58–68). wolves from human-caused mortality is into the population (Cook et al. 2013, Comment 104: One commenter noted exacerbated by the lack of nonlethal entire; Middleton et al. 2013, entire; that attitudes towards wolves are largely coexistence practices in key wolf Proffitt et al. 2016, entire; Horne et al. positive. They stated that wildlife habitats in the West Coast States. 2019b, entire). As a result, the effects of should not be managed based on the Our Response: With regards to lethal predation on elk may be more public’s attitude regarding a species; management (including hunting) in the pronounced in populations suffering rather, it should be based on sound NRM DPS and how that might impact from poor nutrition (Proffitt et al. 2016, science. The commenter also indicated West Coast States wolves, see Our pp. 2167–2168). that agencies should work to dispel Response to Comment 15. We address Even if it is determined that predators misperceptions about wolves. Several the impacts of lethal management of have a significant role in the dynamics commenters stated that humans West Coast States, NRM DPS, and Great of ungulate populations, in many cases continue to pose a major threat to wolf Lake States wolves in our Human- further research would be necessary to populations. caused Mortality and Post-delisting determine which predator is having the Our Response: Regardless of the Management sections. While nonlethal most significant effect. Although some current level of public tolerance for coexistence practices are not in place studies have documented the ability of wolves, we conclude that public everywhere, State and Federal agencies wolves to limit the abundance of support may decrease if the species has and Tribal governments have made recovered, yet remains on the List. The ungulates (Boertje et al. 1996, entire; significant progress in deploying goal of the Act is to recover listed Hebblewhite et al. 2002, entire; Hayes et nonlethal deterrents to address wolf- species and then delist them when they al. 2003, entire), recent studies of elk livestock interactions in the West Coast no longer require the Act’s protections population dynamics across Idaho States. We have contributed because they do not meet the definition (Horne et al. 2019b, p. 1114) and in the approximately $400,000 per year toward of a threatened species or endangered Bitterroot Valley of Montana (Eacker et a national wolf-livestock grant program species. After careful consideration of al. 2016, pp. 1354–1357) indicate that, (inclusive of Mexican wolf) to aside from the nutritional condition of the best commercial and scientific incentivize livestock producers to adult female elk, mountain lions play a information, the Service has determined implement nonlethal deterrents. Oregon larger role in the dynamics of elk that the gray wolf listed entities are no and Washington have received a portion populations than either black bears or longer in need of the Act’s protections of these funds for the past several years, wolves. In the Great Lakes area, and warrant removal from the List. See while livestock producers or the State environmental conditions have a greater the Human-Caused Mortality—‘‘The have contributed an equal amount of influence than predation on white-tailed Role of Public Attitudes’’ section of the their own funding or in-kind services deer populations, the wolf’s primary rule for more information about human toward nonlethal coexistence practices. prey in much of this region. The effects dimensions and wolves. of environmental conditions on white- The Service agrees that humans The commenter is correct that some tailed deer populations in turn play a continue to pose the most significant Tribes immediately outside of the 44- large role in the dynamics of wolf threat to wolf populations in the lower State entity (and, consequently, the populations in the region, particularly 48 United States. We also conclude that combined listed entity) allow wolf in regards to wolf abundance and adequate regulatory mechanisms that harvest. We have updated this final rule population growth rates (see the ‘‘Great will be, or currently are, implemented to include this information (see Human- Lakes Area: Prey Availability’’ section of by State, Federal, and Tribal wildlife caused Mortality and Management in this rule). For further information about management agencies provide sufficient the NRM DPS sections); although, we big game populations in the gray wolf protections to allow for the continued note that the area affected by these entities evaluated in this rule, refer to natural recolonization of wolves where regulations is entirely within the NRM the Habitat and Prey Availability vacant suitable habitat exists and will DPS, where wolves are already federally section of the rule. ensure wolf populations remain viable delisted. Comment 103: One commenter into the foreseeable future. For further Habitat and Prey Availability claimed that the livelihoods of people information, see the Human-caused who live in rural areas with wolves are Mortality and Post-delisting Comment 106: We received multiple at stake; that wolves are killing their Management sections of the rule. Also comments related to habitat in the West livestock, pets, and working animals; see Our Response to Comment 120. Coast States and the potential for and that, if not provided relief, these Comment 105: One commenter was continued occupancy and expansion of residents will fight back against wolves concerned with our analysis of human- wolves into these States. Specifically, and wolves will die. The commenter caused mortality in the West Coast commenters noted that wolves are believed implementing the proposed States. The commenter stated that the highly mobile and adaptable and are rule was best for wolves and people proposed rule did not discuss: (a) Lethal likely to find suitable habitats amongst because it returns control to the States. management by State and Federal land the large blocks of State and Federal Our Response: As noted in the and wildlife managers; (b) the impact of land in those States. Similarly, Human-Caused Mortality—‘‘The Role of recreational hunting in the NRM and its commenters noted that land use Public Attitudes’’ section of the rule, effects on wolf dispersal and planning in some States ensures that research and empirical data indicate recolonization of West Coast States; (c) private lands providing habitat will not that illegal take occurs at a higher rate recreational hunting seasons on Tribal be significantly altered. In addition, when gray wolves are federally lands, such as the unlimited, year-round commenters noted that under State protected by the Act as compared to wolf hunting season on Confederated management, wolves are likely to periods when wolves are managed Tribes of the Colville Reservation lands, continue to recolonize the West Coast

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69870 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

States, at least partially via dispersal on areas currently occupied by wolves. management of ungulate habitat, and from the northern Rocky Mountains. Because new information has emerged ungulate diseases on the viability of Our Response: We recognize the since publication of our proposed rule wolves. While predation can reduce the contributions of suitable wolf habitats in indicating that wolves now occupy a prevalence of infection in prey in some the areas described by the commenters. portion of northwest Colorado, we have circumstances (see Hobbs 2006, p. 8; Wolves dispersing from the northern included an analysis of wolf habitat and Wild et al. 2011, pp. 82–88; Tanner et Rocky Mountains are important to the prey availability in the central Rocky al. 2019, pp. 5–7), in areas of high CWD continued expansion of wolf Mountains in this final rule (see Habitat disease prevalence this may not always populations in the West Coast States. and Prey Availability section). be true (see Miller et al. 2008, entire). While continued wolf dispersal from the We also fully considered the We decline to speculate whether or not northern Rocky Mountains into the adequacy and certainty of State CWD would have become established if West Coast States is not required for our regulations and wolf management plans. wolves were present to reduce or findings in this final rule, we affirm that Our analysis of post-delisting eliminate its spread, as such speculation post-delisting management by States management considers the likelihood is immaterial to our decision. will continue to allow wolves to that wolves will persist in the Pacific Comment 109: One commenter stated disperse and occupy West Coast States Northwest following Federal delisting that the U.S. Forest Service could help (see Post-delisting Management and (see ‘‘State Management in the West the gray wolf by fully implementing the Post-delisting Monitoring). Coast States’’). After delisting, wolves forest management goals in existing Comment 107: One commenter stated will continue to be State-listed in National Forest Management Plans. that the Pacific Northwest section 4 Washington and California until those They stated that creation of early seral analysis in the proposed rule is flawed States determine that wolves are habitats, which are generally favored by for the following reasons: (a) The rule’s recovered. Although wolves will not be large ungulate species, would benefit analysis of suitable habitat was based State-listed in Oregon following Federal wolves. They requested that we primarily on road density and human delisting, the Oregon Department of recognize that not only do the National population density, and does not Fish and Wildlife is required by State Forests provide large blocks of properly consider many other vital regulations to follow the Oregon Wolf contiguous habitat that are unlikely to habitat components (such as forest cover Conservation and Management Plan. be converted to other uses, but that they and the availability of federally That plan includes program direction, also provide management opportunities protected or State-protected lands) and objectives, and strategies to manage gray to increase prey availability through fails to properly assess the threats facing wolves in Oregon and defines the gray forest management. wolf habitat on a broader scale; (b) the wolf’s special status game mammal Our Response: Some National Forests rule’s failure to consider important designation (Oregon Administrative provide large blocks of contiguous connectivity corridors and habitats Rule 635–110). Thus, there will habitat for the gray wolf (see necessary to foster movement into and continue to be substantial regulatory Management on Federal Lands allow the recolonization of habitats protections for gray wolves in the sections), although wolves are not across the West Coast States by Pacific Northwest following Federal limited to these areas. While it is true dispersing wolves from the NRM DPS; delisting. that some forest management practices (c) the rule’s failure to consider the vast Comment 108: One commenter asked can increase prey availability, wolves areas of suitable habitat currently that we provide the basis for several can also persist in areas without unoccupied by wolves in the West Coast statements regarding changes to prey significant active forest management. States; and (d) the rule’s failure to availability or habitat in the western Finally, we did not find habitat or prey consider the adequacy or certainty of Great Lakes. Specifically, they asked for availability to be a limiting factor in our State regulations and wolf management the basis of our conclusions regarding analysis of threat factors in this rule (see plans (the commenter specifically notes the effects of ungulate harvest, Habitat and Prey Availability section). the lack of State-level listing protections management of ungulate habitat, or Comment 110: One commenter asked in Oregon). ungulate diseases on wolf prey that we not specify road densities in Our Response: Our biological report, availability. delisting decisions, as they may limit as well as our proposed and final rules, On the topic of ungulate diseases, management flexibility on National considered vital habitat components, several commenters proposed that the Forests. They pointed to research (e.g., habitat corridors, and threats to habitat. spread of chronic wasting disease Wydeven et al. 2001) that appears to As noted in our final biological report (CWD) can be controlled or otherwise indicate wolves can persist in some (see Suitable Habitat section) and this inhibited by wolves. They indicated that areas with relatively high road densities. final rule (see Habitat and Prey the lack of large predators, including The commenter is concerned that lower Availability section), wolves are not wolves, played a role in the current road densities will limit access for forest habitat specialists and can persist, and unnatural distribution and prevalence of management and the creation of early travel through, nearly any habitat with CWD, and that wolves prey upon seral habitats for ungulates. sufficient prey, provided that sources of vulnerable animals, such as the weak, Our Response: In this final rule, we human-caused mortality are regulated. sick, young, or old; killing sick animals refer to road densities reported in the While road density and human reduces the transmission of diseases, scientific literature because they have population density are considered in including CWD. Commenters further been found to be correlated with wolf some of the wolf habitat models we cite, opined that CWD may never have mortality in some areas. We are not other covariates include forest cover, become established if wolves were aware of any scientific basis for the livestock density or stocking rates, and present to reduce or eliminate its spread concern that lower road densities would land ownership (see Suitable Habitat via selective predation on sick animals. substantially reduce prey availability for section of the biological report). While Our Response: We have updated our wolves to the extent that it would there are large areas of unoccupied analysis in the Habitat and Prey impact population viability. suitable gray wolf habitat in the lower Availability section of this rule to clarify Comment 111: One commenter 48 United States, we focused our the basis for our conclusions regarding questioned why we believed wolves analysis of habitat and prey availability the effects of ungulate harvest, would continue to expand in California

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69871

with the removal of Federal protections Effects of Climate Change may benefit white-tailed deer under the Act. Comment 113: Three commenters populations (Weiskopf et al. 2019, pp. Our Response: Wolves in California disagreed with our assessment of 775–776), the wolf’s primary prey in the are classified as endangered under the climate change effects to wolves and region. Because historical evidence California Endangered Species Act, wolf prey. One commenter was indicates gray wolves and their prey which prohibits take (defined as hunt, concerned about climate change-related survived in hotter, drier environments, pursue, catch, capture, kill, or attempts declines in moose populations (citing we expect wolves could easily adapt to to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill) Mech et al. 2018 and Nadeau et al. the warmer and drier conditions that are of listed wildlife species (California Fish 2017), changes to ungulate predicted with climate change, and Game Codes sections 86 and 2080). susceptibility to chronic wasting disease including any northward expansion of This will not change with Federal (CWD), and loss of ungulate habitat to diseases, parasites, or reduction in delisting. As we discuss in the Habitat uncharacteristic fire in the West, which species currently at or near the southern and Prey Availability section, the extent of their range. raised a question about the resilience of available scientific literature shows With regard to decreased snow cover wolves in the future. The commenter significant amounts of suitable in winter and the concern that prey felt a broader distribution of wolves is unoccupied wolf habitat in California. would have an advantage, we note that Given their dispersal abilities (Jimenez needed to address the potential for local such changes in snow cover could also et al. 2017, entire), and continued State population decreases or extirpations as improve over-winter survival of prey. regulatory protections in Oregon and a result of these concerns. Another Increases in overall ungulate California (see Our Response to commenter noted that, without populations would thereby provide Comment 16), we expect wolves to snowpack, large hoofed animals will be more prey for wolves. Although climate continue to disperse into California able to out-run wolves and implied that change may negatively affect moose in from Oregon and to spread outward ungulate prey may become less parts of its range, in many areas, moose from the wolf pack currently located in accessible to wolves. Similarly, this are secondary or tertiary prey items for California. Additionally, as the number commenter was concerned about the wolves behind elk and deer in the West of wolves and wolf packs increase in loss of ice bridges in Isle Royale and white-tailed deer in much of the western Oregon, this increase will National Park, leading to isolation and Great Lakes area. Therefore, the effects provide an additional supply of population declines of wolves on the of declining moose populations on dispersers to recolonize California. island. A third commenter stated that overall prey availability within the the role of climate change on wolf entities evaluated is expected to be Disease and Parasites recovery is unknown and recommended minimal. Comment 112: One commenter stated that the impacts of climate change Because the wolves on Isle Royale do that the Service addressed disease only should be researched before delisting not meaningfully contribute to the as a threat to wolves in the Great Lakes occurs. viability of the gray wolf entities area and did not address this issue for Our Response: In this final rule, we evaluated in this rule, the continued west coast wolves. The commenter also find that each of the gray wolf listed occurrence or loss of ice bridges does indicated that diseases are known entities evaluated is recovered and not warrant further analysis. factors for wolf population crashes in warrants delisting. Through this Comment 114: We received a number small and isolated populations, similar process, we evaluated factors potentially of comments that stated climate change to those in the West Coast States. threatening the gray wolf in the lower and its effects should be analyzed more Another commenter sought clarification 48 United States, including climate thoroughly as a threat to wolves, and as to which States collect biological change (see Effects of Climate Change). that climate change poses serious samples for disease monitoring, how We determined that climate change is challenges for many ecosystems and disease monitoring will occur in the not causing negative effects to the species. These commenters provided future, and if States are able to viability of the gray wolf populations in citations that document the current sufficiently monitor disease as wolf each of the entities evaluated and that global extinction crisis, relate that crisis expansion continues. it is not likely to do so in the foreseeable to climate change, report on the Our Response: The analysis in the future. These comments do not alter the ecosystem effects of losing top predators Disease and Parasites section of this substance of our analysis, for the or other megafauna, and discuss how final rule applies to the gray wolf reasons explained below. wolves may help to buffer climate throughout its range in the lower 48 As discussed under Effects of Climate impacts. United States and is not limited to Change, wolves are highly adaptable, Our Response: While we do not wolves in the Great Lakes area. Further, habitat and prey generalists. Similarly, dispute the findings in the sources cited wolves in the West Coast States are an prey species including ungulates also by the commenter, they are outside the extension of wolves from the NRM and have reasonable adaptive capacity to scope of our analysis in this rule. Our western Canada and are actively shift habitats in response to changing analysis is limited to the specific threats recolonizing Washington, Oregon, conditions or potentially persist in affecting the gray wolf in the lower 48 California, and Colorado. Thus, they are place. Mech et al. (2018, pp. 45–46) and United States. Literature addressing not considered ‘‘small and isolated’’ as Nadeau et al. (2017, pp. 107–109) global conservation challenges can indicated by the first commenter. speculate that climate change and its provide important context, but are not Similarly, our discussion of disease and combined potential habitat-related relevant to our analysis unless they parasite monitoring clearly indicates conditions, including potential for heat relate to threats faced by the gray wolf that all States that currently have stress and rates of spread of disease and in the lower 48 United States. wolves monitor for disease. Through the parasites, may be limiting factors for Additionally, in assessing the impacts of various State wolf management plans moose populations at the southern climate change and other factors on that are in place, and will be in place extents of their range in Minnesota and wolves, we are not required to evaluate post-delisting, we conclude that States the Western United States. While any effects the loss of wolves may have are capable of adequately monitoring climate change may be detrimental to on other species, because those effects, disease and parasites into the future. moose populations in the Midwest, it even if significant, do not affect the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69872 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

status of the gray wolf entities addressed data addressing wolf population expect genetic issues to significantly in this rule. genetics (Genetic Diversity and impact the viability of those entities. Comment 115: Several commenters Inbreeding). This section includes Additional Threats requested a more thorough analysis of relevant literature on available estimates climate change effects on wolf habitat. of effective population size and why or Comment 118: One commenter They noted that patterns of drought and how it relates to other genetic issues for recommended that we consider wildfire, changes in snowpack, and wolves. Effective population size, as it domestic and international trade as a suitability for different vegetation types, relates to viability, is generally potential threat, including, for example, including certain forest types, are likely described as being important in the export of wolf skins. to change. One commenter cited short term to avoid the effects of Our Response: Regardless of demand Gonzalez et al. (2018), which indicates inbreeding, and in the long term to for wolf skins, specimens collected for climate change effects may be more allow for evolutionary processes and domestic or international trade likely pronounced in national parks, while adaptive capacity. As discussed in the occur through intentional means such as another cited the U.S. Global Climate Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding trapping or hunting. Because we already Change Research Program’s Fourth section, the available data do not addressed intentional means of National Assessment (2018), which indicate that inbreeding or associated mortality in our analysis of human- includes projections of habitat effects in effects are likely to pose a significant caused mortality, we find that this is not regions across the country. threat to the gray wolf in the lower 48 a separate or different threat that Our Response: The cited papers and United States. In the long term, we requires additional analysis. Comment 119: One commenter stated other research indicate there are likely expect that connectivity among States in that agricultural development is a to be habitat-level effects within the the Great Lakes area and between those source of historical ‘‘near extirpation’’ of range of the gray wolf in the lower 48 States and Canada will continue to wolves. The commenter indicated that United States due to climate change, support a large and genetically diverse this threat still exists today, as there is including changes in precipitation, population, as will connectivity among more agricultural land present than forest composition, and other factors. the NRM States and West Coast States historically. Depending on the region, there are also and between those States and Canada. likely to be shifts in the specific Our Response: In our March 15, 2019, Moreover, we also recognize that a proposed rule and this final rule, we composition, but not availability of, the species’ adaptive capacity is derived not ungulate prey base as climate change acknowledge that large portions of the only from genetic diversity, but also gray wolf’s historical range are no longer effects may be beneficial for some from phenotypic plasticity and dispersal ungulate species and detrimental for suitable habitat to support wolves. ability (Nicotra et al. 2015, entire; However, we determined that sufficient others (Weiskopf et al. 2019). Wolves, Beever et al. 2016, entire). These factors however, are highly adaptable and able suitable habitat exists to continue to are not included in general thresholds to exploit available resources, making it support wolves into the future (see such as that provided by Frankham et unlikely that such shifts will become ‘‘Habitat and Prey Availability al. (2014). Considering the life-history limiting. As stated in our discussion of Summary’’ in this final rule). characteristics of the wolf, including life history and biology, wolf population high dispersal capability and Post-Delisting Management dynamics are strongly driven by the adaptability, along with the factors availability of prey and protection from Comment 120: Several commenters discussed in the Genetic Diversity and persecution, not by specific habitat or stated that there is a mentality among Inbreeding section, it is unlikely that the vegetation types. While there are many some segments of the public to kill wolf will be limited by adaptive habitat changes that may have local or every wolf on the landscape, and capacity in the foreseeable future. short-term effects, including wildfires, without the protections of the Act, this or forest tree composition, the best Comment 117: Several commenters mentality could result in the increased available information about wolf biology recommended that we provide a more intentional killing of wolves (either indicates that these changes are not explicit assessment of wolf population through legal or illegal actions) that likely to significantly impact wolf genetics and a discussion of potential could once again threaten the continued population dynamics. issues or concerns related to genetic existence of wolves. One commenter diversity, including inbreeding or believed wildlife agencies were Genetics reductions in genetic diversity. complicit in this mentality and assist Comment 116: Several commenters Our Response: In response to these the public by providing information to recommended we address effective comments, we added the section further reduce wolf populations. Many population size, citing Frankham et al. Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding, which commenters were critical of the (2014) and the ‘‘50/500’’ or ‘‘100/1000’’ evaluates potential genetic issues in adequacy of regulatory mechanisms at rules as targets for minimum effective wolves, both generally and within the the State level to maintain a recovered population sizes to ensure viability in gray wolf in the lower 48 United States wolf population. One commenter both the short term and in perpetuity. specifically. We acknowledge the indicated that management plans are They noted that effective population importance of considering genetic issues not legally binding documents so there size has not been measured for the more explicitly as they relate to the is no guarantee States will manage entire combined listed entity and that current status of wolves and to potential wolves above recovery levels, and we provided no calculated ratio of changes upon delisting. As stated in that others questioned the State management census size to effective population size, section, studies of genetic diversity have agencies’ commitment or ability to do and stated that management in generally found it to be relatively high so. Several commenters took issue with Michigan and other States may allow within the lower 48 United States (with the adequacy of State monitoring effective population sizes to drop below the exception of the wolves on Isle programs to accurately document wolf sustainable levels. Royale). Given our understanding of populations post-delisting. Five Tribal Our Response: In response to these population dynamics, dispersal, and organizations and numerous comments, we added a section to connectivity within and outside of the commenters noted the declining trend evaluate more thoroughly the available gray wolf entities analyzed, we do not in wolf numbers and the total number

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69873

of wolves harvested post-delisting in the Human-caused mortality is the develop a post-recovery wolf NRM DPS. These commenters argue that primary mortality factor for wolves management plan that would guide the the same will occur elsewhere if wolves outside of large, protected areas and, if long-term conservation and are delisted. One commenter was left unregulated, can be a significant management of the species in the State. concerned about State funding for wolf threat to wolf populations. However, we Wolves in Oregon are classified as a programs and its effect on State determined that regulatory mechanisms ‘‘special status game mammal’’ under monitoring programs to ensure a viable currently in place provide sufficient Oregon Revised Statutes 496.004(9); wolf population is maintained. protections to ensure sustainable and however, regulated take is not Numerous commenters were concerned recovered wolf populations will persist anticipated to be a management option about the potential for increased into the foreseeable future. We conclude for some years (see Our Response to mortality under State management and that it is reasonable to rely on State Comment 107 for further information the effect it may have on recolonization statutes, regulations, and wolf about Oregon). It is expected that wolf of unoccupied, suitable habitat. management plans to understand how populations in these States will Several other commenters stated that wolves will be managed after delisting. continue to increase as they recolonize wolves will continue to disperse after Wolf management plans from the Great vacant, suitable habitat within the the protections of the Act have been Lakes States of Michigan, Minnesota, region. removed, as has been observed in the and Wisconsin indicate that their As stated previously in this rule, we NRM wolf population after delisting. primary goal is to ensure the long-term fully expect human-caused mortality to Commenters noted that hunting has had survival of wolves while concurrently increase post-delisting in Michigan, little impact on wolf populations and minimizing wolf-related conflicts. State Minnesota, and Wisconsin, as these that wolf populations continue to grow statutes and regulations are developed States attempt to stabilize or reduce in number and expand geographically. and adopted to assist each individual wolf population growth, but we do not Commenters stated that State State in achieving this goal. Based on anticipate those declines will be management plans and regulatory our review of available information, we significant enough to threaten the mechanisms have been more than expect that States will adaptively recovered status of wolves. The NRM adequate to maintain wolf populations manage wolves to ensure the continued States of Idaho and Montana provide an well above recovery criteria and that the viability and recovered status of the example of how wolf populations might public should be commended for the species, which has already been respond to increased human-caused work they have done to complete and demonstrated by wildlife managers in mortality post-delisting. In Idaho, the implement management plans. the Great Lake States during past wolf population peaked in 2009 at 870 Our Response: While we acknowledge delisting efforts (see Our Response to animals and under State management, that some people have negative attitudes Comment 130 and Post-delisting including public harvest in all but one towards wolves and may illegally kill Management). In addition, we may use year since 2009, the population wolves as a result, we disagree with the the Act’s listing provisions, including declined slightly and stabilized between assertion that State wildlife agencies emergency listing under sections 4(b)(7) 659 and 786 wolves during 2010–2015 assist members of the public in any way and 4(g)(2) of the Act, if appropriate, to (see table 3). Likewise, Montana wolves to carry out these actions. States and address any future threats to the have been managed under State Tribes have rules and regulations viability and sustainability of the wolf authority in all but one year since 2009. governing the take of wolves and all Population estimates acquired by patch population. wildlife, with professional staff occupancy modeling (Rich et al. 2013, available to monitor wildlife The West Coast States of Oregon, entire) indicate wolf numbers reached a populations and enforce wildlife laws Washington, and California have high of 1,088 wolves in 2013, but have under their jurisdiction. We adopted wolf-management plans since (from 2016–2018) stabilized acknowledge that human-caused intended to provide for the continued between 800 and 850 animals (Inman et mortality will likely increase post- recolonization and conservation of al. 2019, p. 7). Wolf populations in the delisting. Based on knowledge and wolves while also working to minimize Great Lakes States will likely follow a experience in areas that are already wolf-related conflicts. Wolves similar trend of an initial decline delisted, we expect wolf numbers to inhabiting the eastern one-third of both followed by long-term stabilization that initially decline, followed by a period of Oregon and Washington were federally will fluctuate slightly around an stabilization with slight fluctuations delisted in 2011 (see 76 FR 25590; May equilibrium as managers gain more around an equilibrium in subsequent 5, 2011) and have been managed under experience in adaptively managing years as State and Tribal managers begin State authority since that time. As a wolves. This equilibrium is expected to to adaptively manage for sustainable result, lethal control has been used on be well above minimum recovery wolf populations. We conclude that occasion to resolve repeated conflicts criteria. The Service will evaluate regulatory mechanisms that will guide with livestock in the delisted portions of potential threats and wolf population wolf management post-delisting are each State. Despite the delisting and responses to delisting and subsequent adequate to ensure the long-term, subsequent use of lethal control, wolves increases in human-caused mortality for recovered status of wolves into the have continued to increase in number 5 years post-delisting. It would not be in foreseeable future and will provide and recolonize vacant, suitable habitats the best interest of the Great Lake States opportunities for the continued within each State. Wolves in California to severely reduce wolf populations or recolonization of vacant suitable and Washington are classified as manage wolves down to minimum habitats in the West Coast States and the endangered at the State level and, management levels, because doing so central Rocky Mountains (refer to the regardless of Federal status, are likely to would severely limit State flexibility to Post-delisting Management section of remain so until recovery objectives address wolf conflict issues, limit wolf this rule for detailed information about outlined in their respective management harvest opportunities, and increase the State plans). For further information, see plans are achieved and statutory and risk of relisting. Our Response to Comments 14, 16, 19, regulatory changes are made to Another factor we considered and 52 and the Human-caused Mortality reclassify wolves in each State. regarding likely long-term wolf section of the rule. Washington recently initiated work to population levels is the practical

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69874 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

challenge of reducing wolf populations States where resident packs in Indemnity Program may decline post- down to levels that may threaten their California, Oregon, and Washington delisting, States and Tribes will viability and maintaining such contribute annually to the number of continue to have the opportunity to reductions long term through legal, dispersing wolves on the landscape apply for Federal grants (Wolf-Livestock public harvest alone (e.g., hunting and available to fill social openings in Demonstration Funds) that can be used trapping). These challenges include: existing packs or to recolonize suitable to help offset some of the costs Wolves’ reproductive capacity, which habitat both within and outside of each associated with the implementation of will require increased levels of mortality State. By contrast, wolves have already nonlethal mitigation techniques and to maintain populations well below recolonized most of the available State compensation programs. carrying capacity; wolf dispersal suitable habitat in the Great Lake States, Comment 122: Several commenters capability, which allows for rapid and any wolves that attempt to expressed concern that State recolonization of vacant, suitable recolonize areas outside of the currently management would not be adequate to habitats and the ability to locate social occupied range are not likely to persist recover and maintain viability of wolves openings in existing packs; the long term due to the increased post delisting. Specifically, they likelihood that wolves will become probability of conflict in more contend that: more challenging to harvest as their agriculturally oriented and human- • California’s plan is relatively new; numbers are reduced and as they dominated landscapes (see Mech et al. • Oregon’s plan has become less become more wary of humans; and the 2019, entire). For further information on protective; likelihood that hunter and trapper this topic, see the Human-caused • wolves are not State-listed in interest and dedication will diminish as Mortality section of the rule and Our Oregon; the wolf population is reduced, impacts Response to Comment 15. • Washington’s plan is under are less pronounced, and success rates Comment 121: Two commenters legislative pressure and the State has decline. It was primarily due to the expressed concerns about Federal allowed lethal control; unregulated use of poisons that wolf compensation programs and the Federal • the Great Lakes States previously populations were extirpated in the Government’s role in compensation allowed and will again allow lower 48 United States outside of programs post-delisting. One spoke recreational hunting and trapping; Minnesota. At present, poisons are specifically about the Livestock • penalties for illegally killing wolves either not used at all, or their use is Indemnity Program and how funds from are inadequate; • highly regulated and has not posed a this program may be unavailable to some States will manage wolves significant threat to wolf populations in livestock producers who experience only to the point that they would not the United States in recent decades. losses to wolves in States that do not again require Federal listing; For information related to State currently have compensation programs • many States lack wolf management monitoring programs and the already in place. This commenter plans or protections or will manage to methodology used to accurately believes that, without compensation prevent establishment of wolves; and document wolf populations post- programs, social tolerance for wolves • dispersal would be limited by delisting see Our Response to Comment will decrease, and wolves will be at hunting. 14. greater risk of increased human-caused Our Response: We conclude Wolf conservation and management mortality. The other commenter stated otherwise, as reflected in the Post- programs can be costly, which, as that the Federal Government did not delisting Management and Management discussed earlier, is a primary reason fulfill its responsibility to provide in the NRM DPS sections of this rule. many States are at the forefront in compensation for wolf-caused livestock These State management plans contain developing alternative wolf monitoring losses and instead relied on States to objectives to conserve and/or recover methods and continue to gather develop compensation programs and gray wolves. To ensure healthy information and explore techniques to distribute compensation funds. This populations are maintained, States will minimize risk associated with wolf commenter would like to see a Federal monitor population abundance and conflicts. Because cost effective wolf program that provides funds to States to trends, habitat and prey availability, and monitoring and management requires assist with compensation to livestock impacts of disease, and they will take adequate funding, each State wolf producers who experience losses to actions as needed to maintain management plan discusses current and wolves. populations. Overall, State management future funding sources and needs. At Our Response: We agree that plans demonstrate State commitment to present, States within occupied wolf compensation programs alleviate some wolf conservation, thus providing a high range generally use a combination of of the financial burdens experienced by level of assurance that healthy wolf State and Federal funds and/or grants to livestock producers resulting from wolf populations will persist. We do not have support wolf programs. depredations on livestock or pets and authority to require specific State Although increased human-caused may indirectly increase tolerance among management measures. Rather, our role mortality may result in an overall members of this stakeholder group for is to ensure that States implement decrease in the number of dispersers on having wolves on the landscape. management and protective measures an annual basis, as well as a reduction However, the Act does not allow us to that effectively conserve the wolves in in dispersal distance as dispersers locate make listing determinations based on their States, such that the species will vacant territories or fill social openings whether State, Federal, or private not require Federal relisting. nearer to their natal pack, dispersal is compensation programs are adequate or Comment 123: One commenter innate to the biology of the wolf and will continue to be available to questioned the basis and rationale for both short- and long-distance dispersal producers post-delisting. At present, all the conclusion in the proposed rule that events will continue to occur. These States within occupied wolf range, wolf populations in Wisconsin and movements will make it possible for except California and Colorado, Michigan have exceeded 200 animals wolves to recolonize areas of vacant, currently have some form of State for about 20 years. suitable habitat outside of currently compensation to reimburse producers Our Response: The statement the occupied range, especially in the central for livestock lost to wolves. Although commenter references is included in our Rocky Mountains and the West Coast the usefulness of the Livestock discussion of Recovery Progress toward

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69875

meeting the recovery criteria from the commenter objected to the use of carrying capacity or human attitudes revised recovery plan (USFWS 1992, pp. hounds to legally harvest a wolf in and tolerance of wolves in the State. 24–26). The second recovery criterion in Wisconsin when wolves were delisted. Our Response: After delisting, the the recovery plan states that at least one Our Response: We recognize that States will be responsible for setting viable wolf population should be many find some or all forms of human- specific wolf management goals. Thus, reestablished within the historical range caused wolf mortality ethically and Wisconsin may decide to manage for a of the eastern timber wolf outside of morally objectionable. We have higher number of wolves following Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan encouraged hunting as a long-term delisting. For the purposes of this (USFWS 1992, pp. 24–26). Per the strategy to conserve wolf populations delisting determination, we evaluate recovery plan, if that population is because it is a valuable, efficient, and whether wolves are endangered or likely isolated, it should consist of at least 200 cost-effective tool to help manage many to become endangered in the foreseeable wolves for at least 5 years to be wildlife populations (Bangs et al. 2009, future throughout all or a significant considered viable. The populations in p. 113). However, the methods that may portion of their range. In that context, Wisconsin and Michigan (although not be used to legally harvest wolves after we considered all aspects of the isolated) have been above 200 for about delisting are not relevant to our Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan, 20 years (since 1998–1999 in Wisconsin, analysis. The Act requires that we make including that they would manage for a and since 1999–2000 in Michigan); listing determinations based on whether minimum of 350 wolves in the State, therefore, they have met the recovery the species meets the definition of a and whether that, in combination with criteria for an isolated population. threatened species or an endangered management in the rest of the entity Comment 124: One commenter felt species because of the five statutory evaluated, would maintain wolves such that wolves should remain federally factors. The manner in which that they are not endangered or likely to protected on all Federal lands in the individuals may be harvested post- become endangered in the foreseeable western Great Lakes. Other commenters delisting is not a factor we consider, future throughout all or a significant indicated we failed to analyze forest unless it would affect the viability of the portion of their range. management plans in Michigan, species. How wolves may be legally Comment 128: Several commenters Minnesota, and Wisconsin and how harvested post-delisting will be subject expressed concern that the States would those plans affect wolves through to State authority and regulation. Based implement a public harvest or livestock grazing, maintenance of prey on the available information, we do not recreational hunting after wolves are populations, and regulation of hunting find any persuasive information to federally delisted. Others commented and trapping activities. One of these indicate that the manner in which that they support a public harvest or commenters further opined that we wolves may be harvested will affect recreational hunting. should have analyzed plans of every their viability in the lower 48 United Our Response: Unregulated killing other Federal agency in the Midwest, States. (specifically, killing through the use of and must evaluate every rule and Comment 126: One commenter poisons and government bounties) was regulation that may affect wolves and indicated that, without protection the primary threat to the gray wolf in their habitat. provided by the Act, wolves will have the lower 48 United States historically. Our Response: Different Federal land a more difficult time establishing a Current rules and regulations as well as management agencies have varied population in California. The State management plans that will be missions that guide the use of their commenter stated that the Service failed implemented after delisting provide lands, and some Federal lands play an to consider threats to gray wolves from protection from unregulated killing. For essential role in wolf recovery. ‘‘other manmade factors,’’ specifically the purposes of this rule, we are not However, maintaining Federal illegal killing and poaching. required to decide whether a regulated protections for wolves on Federal lands Our Response: Our March 15, 2019, harvest is an appropriate management is not necessary for the continued proposed rule and this final rule address tool. Instead, we evaluate whether the viability of wolves in the Great Lakes human-caused mortality, as do multiple use of that management tool may reduce region. Unregulated take, inclusive of responses to comments from peer the number of wolves in the gray wolf targeted poisoning across all land reviewers and State agencies (see entities to the extent that they would ownerships, was the primary factor Human-Caused Mortality section of this meet the definition of a threatened leading to the near extirpation of wolves final rule and Our Responses to species or an endangered species under across the lower 48 United States. In Comments 15, 18, and 52. Our analysis the Act. As has been observed in the addition to protections afforded by the of threats sufficiently considers ‘‘other NRM States of Idaho, Montana, and Act, changes in State and Federal rules manmade factors,’’ including illegal Wyoming, we conclude that regulated and regulations that provided regulatory killing and poaching. wolf harvest can be carried out in a mechanisms that prevented or limited Comment 127: One commenter stated manner that would not threaten their take and prosecuted illegal take of that, while the Wisconsin population recovered status. wolves have allowed for the management goal of 350 wolves is above Comment 129: Several commenters conservation and recovery of the gray the goal required for Federal delisting, expressed distrust for State wolf wolf in the lower 48 United States to a that goal was generally considered protection, based on past State programs level that warrants removal of both gray ‘‘unscientific and outdated’’ by aimed at wolf eradication. Another wolf listed entities from the Federal List Wisconsin wildlife professionals. The commenter noted that delisting is based of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. commenter stated that a goal of 650 was in part on the adequacy of State For further information, see considered ‘‘more reasonable’’ and management plans, without taking into Management on Federal Lands section ‘‘realistic,’’ and relatively ‘‘better’’ than consideration the fact that aspects of of this rule. the alternatives presented. The these plans have been and will continue Comment 125: Several commenters commenter further opined that the to be altered by State legislation. The noted that killing predators for sport or previous wolf management goal of 350 commenter expressed concern that trophy hunts is morally and ethically should be reevaluated, as it is no longer politically based management is a wrong, and will threaten the viability of compatible with the scientific serious threat to wolves and cannot be wolf populations post-delisting. One understanding of wolf biological underestimated.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69876 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Our Response: We acknowledge the achieve a management outcome using objective of reducing wolf abundance past involvement of State and Federal the best information possible. Managers while maintaining wolf populations Government agencies in intensive, and then evaluated the results of harvest in well above State management goals. largely successful, programs to eradicate conjunction with other population The Michigan Department of Natural wolves. Based on existing State laws metrics obtained through population Resources implemented public harvest and State management plans, as well as monitoring efforts, as well as other of wolves during the 2013 season only, the track record of States where wolves factors, and made minor adjustments to and a total of 22 wolves were harvested have been federally delisted, we the following season’s harvest during the season. Although the effect of conclude that it is appropriate to rely on regulation. These adjustments were harvest may have been evaluated by the States to provide sufficient evaluated and made on an annual basis Michigan Department of Natural protection to wolves. We will monitor and are likely to be evaluated annually Resources biologists, no changes were any changes in regulatory mechanisms post-delisting. implemented since no seasons occurred affecting the protection or management For example, Minnesota’s wolf in subsequent years. population objective is to maintain a of wolves, their prey, and their habitat Post-Delisting Monitoring for at least 5 years following delisting late-winter wolf population of at least and evaluate whether, as a result of 1,600 wolves. Using the best Comment 131: A few commenters those changes, the delisted gray wolf information available, Minnesota urged the Service to update the 2008 entities meet the definition of a Department of Natural Resources set a post-delisting monitoring plan. threatened species or an endangered quota of 400 wolves for the first season Our Response: The post-delisting species. in 2012, and a total of 413 wolves were monitoring plan that was developed in Comment 130: One commenter harvested. After evaluating the harvest 2008 for wolves in the Great Lakes area questioned whether Minnesota, and other factors, the Minnesota is adequate under section 4(g)(1) of the Wisconsin, and Michigan adaptively Department of Natural Resources Act and remains applicable today (for managed wolves in the past to maintain decreased the quota to 220 wolves in more information, see Post-delisting wolf populations at or above minimum 2013, and a total of 238 wolves were Monitoring). The post-delisting management levels or if it was just harvested. Once again, after evaluation, monitoring plan for wolves in the Great written into each State’s management the 2014 quota was raised slightly to Lakes area relies on a continuation of plans, and asked whether we analyzed 250 wolves, and a total of 272 wolves State monitoring activities, similar to this information. were harvested. Population estimates those that have been conducted by Our Response: In responding to the indicated wolf numbers fluctuated Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan comment, we assume that the between 2,200 and 2,400 animals during Departments of Natural Resources in commenter refers to the period between this time. Thus, harvest had minimal recent years, and Tribal monitoring. 2012 and 2014 when wolves were impact on the population, and it Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan federally delisted in the western Great remained well above Minnesota’s Departments of Natural Resources have Lakes and States implemented regulated management objective. monitored wolves for several decades public harvests. During that time, the Similarly, the Wisconsin Department with significant assistance from States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and of Natural Resources designed harvest numerous partners, including the U.S. Michigan adaptively managed their zones and quotas for the first season in Forest Service, National Park Service, respective wolf populations and 2012, to begin reducing the population Wildlife Services, Tribal natural maintained wolf populations well above toward the management goal of 350 resource agencies, and the Service. To minimum management levels defined in wolves off reservation lands, while maximize comparability of future post- their respective management plans. This concurrently directing harvest to areas delisting monitoring data with data information is discussed in the Post- with the greatest number of wolf-related obtained before delisting, all three State delisting Management section of the conflicts. Although seasons were Departments of Natural Resources have rule for each State. Nonetheless, we designed using a total quota system, committed to continue their previous further clarify below how the western separate quotas were developed for wolf-population-monitoring Great Lake States used an adaptive lands on and off reservations in the methodology, or to make changes only approach to manage wolf harvest State. In 2012, a quota of 201 wolves if they will not reduce the comparability between 2012 and 2014. (116 off reservation; 85 on reservation) of pre- and post-delisting data. Adaptive management may be used to was set, and a total of 117 wolves were evaluate the effects of a management harvested, all of which were taken off General action to determine if it is being reservation lands. Harvest quotas were Comment 132: A few commenters implemented effectively to achieve a adjusted for the start of the 2013 season noted that the Federal Government has desired outcome. In wildlife science, it with a quota of 275 wolves (251 off a public trust responsibility to maintain is an effective method to manage reservation; 24 on reservation), and a wolves for future generations and the populations when the effect of the total of 257 wolves were harvested, all ecosystem functions they support, and, management action is unknown or is of which were taken, again, off generally, to preserve our Nation’s not well understood, or if managers reservation lands. After evaluating heritage. simply want to take a cautious harvest and population metrics, the Our Response: Our responsibilities approach. This allows managers to 2014 quota was reduced to 156 wolves with respect to wolves and other listed evaluate population responses over a set (150 off reservation; 6 on reservation), species are not defined by general time period and then make minor and 154 wolves were harvested (all off principles of public trust, but by the adjustments, if necessary, prior to reservation lands). Meanwhile, between requirements of the Act. As a result of implementing the management action 2012 and 2015, Wisconsin’s wolf the efforts of many partners in the over another set time period in order to population was estimated to be 815 and private and public sector to conserve, continue working toward the desired 746, respectively. Although this protect, and enhance gray wolf management outcome. In the case of represented an 8 percent decline, the populations, the gray wolf entities wolf harvest in the western Great Lakes, Wisconsin Department of Natural evaluated in this rule do not qualify for States developed harvest quotas to Resources partially achieved their protection under the Act.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69877

Comment 133: One commenter submit relevant information to us for review for gray wolves in the Pacific submitted a petition for reclassification our consideration. The Act requires us Northwest (78 FR 35709–35713, June of gray wolves in the lower 48 United to cooperate with the States to ‘‘the 13, 2013). This included analysis of States. In this petition, they request that maximum extent practicable’’ (16 U.S.C. discreteness based on physical, we determine the listing status of gray 1535(a)). However, although we physiological, ecological, and wolves (1) in the lower 48 United States, acknowledge the unique positions of behavioral factors and included analysis or (2) in two entities: the Eastern United States and our obligation to consult with of historical information on wolves in States and the Western United States, or them, we do not assign different weight the region. We concluded that wolves in (3) in four entities: the U.S. West Coast to the scientific information that they the West Coast States are not discrete region, the southern Rocky Mountains, provide. Rather, we evaluate all from wolves in the NRM DPS. Recent the Northeastern United States, and the information we receive, from all scientific information only confirms our Midwestern United States. It is the same sources, to determine whether it is 2013 conclusion. Wolf numbers on both petition the commenter submitted relevant to our assessment and sides of the NRM DPS boundary in directly to us on December 17, 2018, constitutes the best available scientific Washington, Oregon, and California and supplemented on February 26, and commercial data. For additional continue to increase, and wolf range in 2019, prior to the publication of our information on data collected by States, the West Coast States continues to proposal (84 FR 9648, March 15, 2019) see Our Response to Comment 120. expand (USFWS 2020, p. 28, Appendix for this final rule. Comment 136: A few commenters 2). Also, data from collared wolves, as Our Response: We have addressed the stated that combining the two currently well as genetic analyses, show wolves petition, as a separate action, elsewhere listed gray wolf entities, i.e., (1) are dispersing between West Coast in this document (see Evaluation of a Minnesota and (2) the lower 48 United States where gray wolves are federally Petition to Revise the Listings for the States and Mexico outside of Minnesota, protected (California, western Oregon, Gray Wolf Under the Act). We reviewed excluding the NRM DPS, for evaluation and western Washington) and the NRM all information submitted with the was inappropriate. They argued that where wolves are delisted (Idaho, petition and incorporated information, combining the entities is arbitrary and Montana, Wyoming, eastern Oregon, as appropriate, into this final rule. not based on science. Some also eastern Washington, and north-central maintained that we are obligated, Utah) (USFWS 2020, pp. 5, 17–18, 28). Policy through regulations, to assess each of Moreover, recent genetic research shows Comment 134: One commenter the two entities separately. that most wolves in Washington and asserted that wolves are an ‘‘endangered Our Response: We clarify in this final Oregon are dispersers from the NRM or species’’ or ‘‘threatened species’’ rule our reasons for combining the two descendants of those dispersers because they inhabit only about 15 currently listed C. lupus entities for (Hendricks et al. 2018, entire). Thus, the percent of their historical range, which analysis, and our regulations regarding best available information indicates that is not a significant portion of their listed entities that are not ‘‘species’’ as wolves in the West Coast States portion historical range. defined by the Act (see The Currently of the combined listed entity (and 44- Our Response: The assertion that the Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the State entity) are not discrete from NRM gray wolf has not recolonized enough of Statutory Definition of a ‘‘Species’’ and wolves. its range in the lower 48 United States Why and How We Address Each Comment 138: Referring to statements to reach the standard of a significant Configuration of Gray Wolf Entities). in the Approach for This Proposed Rule portion is inconsistent with Service Further, while not required by our section of our March 15, 2019, proposed policy because it equates the term regulations, in response to these and rule, one commenter stated that ‘‘Pacific ‘‘range’’ in the Act’s definitions of other comments we have added separate Northwest’’ wolves (wolves in western ‘‘threatened species’’ and ‘‘endangered analyses of the status of each of the two Washington, western Oregon, and species’’ with historical range. (See Our currently listed entities to this rule (See northern California) harbor genetic Response to Comment 37). Approach for this Rule). ancestry from Pacific coastal rainforest Comment 135: One commenter Comment 137: Some commenters wolves not present in the northern suggested that data collected by the questioned our conclusion that West Rocky Mountains and are not, therefore, States may be biased against wolves and Coast States wolves are not discrete simply an extension of the NRM should therefore be excluded from our from NRM wolves. They felt that our population. analysis. They also stated that our status application of ‘‘discreteness’’ is not Our Response: Wolves with Pacific assessment process for gray wolves is consistent with our DPS policy (61 FR coastal wolf genetic ancestry have been biased in favor of agencies, 4722, 4725, February 7, 1996), historical reported from both the NRM DPS and organizations, and individuals that information on wolves in the Pacific the West Coast States. See Our Response support the killing of wolves and Northwest, or wolf biology. to Comment 43. requested clarification on how agencies, Our Response: Our DPS policy states Comment 139: One commenter organizations, and individuals are that a population segment of a indicated that the proposed rule chosen to participate in the process. vertebrate species may be considered requires further environmental Our Response: We are required by the discrete if it ‘‘is markedly separated assessment under the National Act to make our determinations based from other populations of the same Environmental Policy Act of 1969 solely on the best scientific and taxon as a consequence of physical, (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). commercial data available. Therefore, physiological, ecological, or behavioral Our Response: As noted in the March we include in our analysis any relevant factors. Quantitative measures of genetic 15, 2019, proposed rule, NEPA does not data collected by the States, Tribes, or or morphological discontinuity may apply to our actions taken pursuant to members of the public that falls into this provide evidence of this separation.’’ section 4(a) of the Act (i.e., listings, category. We conducted a detailed analysis of the delistings, and reclassifications). Thus, To assist us in gathering all available discreteness of ‘‘Pacific Northwest’’ we are not required to prepare an information, we ask all members of the wolves (wolves in the West Coast States environmental assessment or public, including States, Tribes, portion of the combined listed entity environmental impact statement, or organizations, and individuals, to and 44-State entity) in our 2013 status otherwise meet the requirements of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69878 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

NEPA, before issuing this final rule. A by looking at whether they may be rule, we find those regulatory notice outlining the Service’s reasons biologically meaningful in terms of the protections to be sufficient to conserve for this determination was published in resiliency, redundancy, or wolves after delisting. the Federal Register on October 25, representation of the entity being Evaluation of a Petition To Revise the 1983 (48 FR 49244). evaluated (see Determination of Species Listings for the Gray Wolf Under the Comment 140: One commenter Status). indicated that a lack of reliable data Comment 142: One commenter stated Act precludes us from making a finding on that the Washington Wolf Plan lacks Background the status of the gray wolves. regulatory assurances or binding Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) Our Response: The Act instructs us to commitments that we could reasonably and its implementing regulations in title make our determinations based on the rely upon to know how the Washington 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations best scientific and commercial data Department of Fish and Wildlife intends available. We cannot await the to manage wolves into the future. They (50 CFR part 424) set forth the development of additional scientific also noted that the Washington procedures for adding species to, information; rather, we must act on the Department of Fish and Wildlife is removing species from, or reclassifying basis of the data currently available to embarking on a State-level species on the Federal Lists of us. Moreover, we disagree with the Environmental Policy Act process to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife commenter that we lack sufficient consider potential changes to the and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part reliable data to support our Washington Wolf Plan and its guidance 17. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires determination. Wolves are among the for wolf management in Washington. that we make a finding on whether a most studied mammals in the world. A The commenter contended that this petition to add a species to the List (i.e., great deal of reliable information exists process could lead to fundamental ‘‘list’’ a species), remove a species from on their ecology and population changes to how Washington manages the List (i.e., ‘‘delist’’ a species), or dynamics. wolves, especially in a post-Federal change a listed species’ status from Comment 141: Several commenters listing environment, giving the Service endangered to threatened or from questioned our SPR analysis. Some no regulatory assurances as to whether threatened to endangered (i.e., thought our SPR analysis was gray wolves will be responsibly ‘‘reclassify’’ a species) presents inadequate or inconsistent with case managed in Washington after a Federal substantial scientific or commercial law because they believed we relied on delisting decision. The commenter information indicating that the the viability of the Great Lakes believed this to be a clear violation of petitioned action may be warranted. To metapopulation to render all other the Act. the maximum extent practicable, we are portions insignificant, or because we Our Response: The commenter to make this finding within 90 days of did not assess areas of unoccupied presents no information that would our receipt of the petition and publish historical range to determine if they are indicate that Washington is likely to the finding promptly in the Federal significant portions of the range of the abandon wolf recovery. To the contrary, Register. combined listed entity. Some disagreed Washington has been proactive in Our regulations establish that with our conclusions, providing managing the recolonization of wolves. substantial scientific or commercial arguments for why they believed The State developed a science-based information with regard to a 90-day specific portions were significant and in conservation and management plan that petition finding refers to ‘‘credible danger of extinction. Commenters has been implemented since 2011. The scientific or commercial information in focused mainly on the West Coast States plan was developed with the assistance support of the petition’s claims such portion and specific areas of of a 17-member citizen advisory wolf that a reasonable person conducting an unoccupied historical range. working group over nearly 5 years impartial scientific review would Our Response: To determine whether (2007–2011). The process included conclude that the action proposed in the any portions of the entity’s range may be extensive public review (23 public petition may be warranted’’ (50 CFR significant, and thus warrant further meetings and nearly 65,000 comments 424.14(h)(1)(i)). consideration in our SPR analysis, we submitted) and a blind scientific peer A species may be determined to be an evaluated whether any portions could review. The Washington Fish and endangered species or a threatened be considered significant under any Wildlife Commission unanimously species because of one or more of the reasonable definition of ‘‘significant.’’ adopted the plan in December 2011. The five factors described in section 4(a)(1) We asked whether any portions of the purpose of the more recent planning of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The range may be biologically meaningful in effort, referenced by the commenter, is five factors are: terms of the resiliency, redundancy, or to proactively identify how Washington (a) The present or threatened representation of the entity being Department of Fish and Wildlife will destruction, modification, or evaluated. This approach is consistent manage wolves to ensure their curtailment of its habitat or range with the Act, our implementing continued conservation once they are (Factor A); regulations, our policies, and case law. removed from the State’s endangered (b) Overutilization for commercial, As explained in this rule, we consider species list. The Department is being recreational, scientific, or educational the term ‘‘range’’ in the SPR phrase to proactive in seeking public input in purposes (Factor B); be the area occupied by the species at designing their post-delisting (c) Disease or predation (Factor C); the time we make our determination management strategy. Following Federal (d) The inadequacy of existing (see Our Response to Comment 37). delisting, wolves will retain regulatory regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and Thus, we did not evaluate portions of protections under Washington State law (e) Other natural or manmade factors unoccupied historical range in our SPR (Revised Code of Washington 77.15.120; affecting its continued existence (Factor analysis. We also did not rely on the Washington Administrative Code 220– E). viability of the Great Lakes portion to 610–010) until they meet their State These factors represent broad determine whether portions might be recovery criteria and are delisted by the categories of natural or human-caused significant. Rather, we determined Washington Department of Fish and actions or conditions that could have an whether any portions may be significant Wildlife. As explained elsewhere in this effect on a species’ continued existence.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69879

In evaluating these actions and Species and Range revising the current gray wolf listed conditions, we look for those that may The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is entities may be warranted. Based on our have a negative effect on individuals of currently listed as: (1) Threatened in review of the petition, sources cited in the species, as well as other actions or Minnesota; and (2) endangered in all or the petition, and other readily available conditions that may ameliorate any portions of 44 of the contiguous United information, regarding development and negative effects or may have positive States. The petition includes three unoccupied suitable habitat (Factor A), effects. alternatives, each representing a human-caused mortality and mortality We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in separate petitioned action, for revising rates (Factor B), disease (Factor C), and general to actions or conditions that are the currently listed gray wolf entities. reduced genetic diversity (Factor E), we known to, or are reasonably likely to, Each of the alternatives involve splitting find that the petition does not provide affect individuals of a species substantial scientific or commercial and/or combining the gray wolf in the negatively. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes information indicating that revising the lower 48 United States into DPSs, and actions or conditions that have a direct listings for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) all exclude the Mexican wolf impact on individuals (direct impacts), to: (1) A threatened lower-48 DPS; or (2) subspecies. Two of the alternatives as well as those that affect individuals threatened Western and Eastern DPSs involve relisting gray wolves in the through alteration of their habitat or may be warranted. required resources (stressors). The term Northern Rocky Mountains. Because ‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either each alternative represents a separate Alternative 3 together or separately—the source of the petitioned action, we evaluated them Based on our review of the petition, action or condition, or the action or separately. sources cited in the petition, and other condition itself. However, the mere 1. lower-48 DPS—list as threatened; readily available information, we find identification of any threat(s) may not or that the petition does not provide 2. Western and Eastern DPSs—both be sufficient to compel a finding that the substantial scientific or commercial list both as threatened; or information in the petition is substantial information indicating that the West 3. Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) information indicating that the Coast, Southern Rockies, or Northeast DPS—remain delisted, petitioned action may be warranted. The gray wolf petitioned entities may qualify Midwest DPS—list as threatened, as DPSs and, therefore, that they may be information presented in the petition West Coast DPS—list as endangered, listable entities under the Act. Although must include evidence sufficient to Southern Rockies DPS—list as we find the petition provides substantial suggest that these threats may be endangered, and information indicating that the Midwest affecting the species to the point that the Northeast DPSs—list as endangered. species may meet the definition of an population may qualify as a valid DPS, endangered species or threatened Petition History we do not undertake further evaluation species under the Act. On December 17, 2018, we received a of Alternative 3 because the petitioners If we find that a petition presents petition from the Center for Biological failed to present substantial information such information, our subsequent status Diversity and the Humane Society of the for us to conclude that this entire set of review will evaluate all identified United States, requesting that the petitioned entities, comprising five threats by considering the individual-, existing listing for gray wolf be revised. DPSs (including the currently delisted population-, and species-level effects The petition clearly identified itself as NRM DPS), is a valid option for revising and the expected response by the such and included the requisite the current gray wolf (Canis lupus) species. We will evaluate individual identification information for the listed entities. Petitioners presented threats and their expected effects on the petitioners, required at 50 CFR substantial information only with species, then analyze the cumulative 424.14(c). Additional supporting respect to a Midwest DPS of gray wolf, effect of the threats on the species as a materials required under 50 CFR and did not present any information whole. We also consider the cumulative 424.14(b) were received on February 26, that would allow us to evaluate whether effect of the threats in light of those 2019. This finding addresses the the remainder of the currently listed 44- actions and conditions that are expected petition. State entity may be a listable entity and, to have positive effects on the species— if so, whether it may warrant listing as such as any existing regulatory Findings threatened or endangered. Finally, we mechanisms or conservation efforts that Alternatives 1 and 2 would reach this same conclusion even may ameliorate threats. It is only after if the petitioner had provided conducting this cumulative analysis of We reviewed the petition, sources substantial information that the threats and the actions that may cited in the petition, and other readily Southern Rockies petitioned entity may ameliorate them, and the expected effect available information. We considered qualify as a valid listable entity under on the species now and in the the factors under section 4(a)(1) and the Act. foreseeable future, that we can assessed the cumulative effect that the The basis for our findings on this determine whether the species meets threats identified within the factors may petition, and other information the definition of an endangered species have on the species now and in the regarding our review of the petition, can or threatened species under the Act. If foreseeable future. We considered a be found as an appendix at http:// we find that a petition presents ‘‘threat’’ as any action or condition that www.regulations.gov under Docket No. substantial scientific or commercial may be known to, or is reasonably likely FWS–HQ–ES–2018–0097 under the information indicating that the to, negatively affect individuals of a Supporting Documents section. petitioned action may be warranted, the species. This includes those actions or Act requires that we promptly conditions that may have a direct Determination of Species Status commence a review of the status of the impact on individuals, as well as those Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) species, and we will subsequently that may affect individuals through and its implementing regulations (50 complete a status review in accordance alteration of their habitat or required CFR part 424) set forth the procedures with our prioritization methodology for resources. The mere identification of for determining whether a species meets 12-month findings (81 FR 49248, July threats is not sufficient to constitute the definition of an ‘‘endangered 27, 2016). substantial information indicating that species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69880 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Act defines endangered species as a With the protections of the Act, gray occasional influxes of individuals from species ‘‘in danger of extinction wolves began to increase in numbers other subpopulations in the throughout all or a significant portion of and expand their range in Minnesota; metapopulation, which can increase or its range,’’ and a threatened species as because of this progress toward better maintain genetic diversity. Thus, a species ‘‘likely to become an recovery, they were reclassified as a the high levels of genetic diversity endangered species within the threatened species in 1978. Since that evident in Minnesota wolves (see foreseeable future throughout all or a time, the number of wolves and the discussion under Genetic Diversity and significant portion of its range.’’ For a overall extent of their range in Inbreeding) are supported through more detailed discussion on the factors Minnesota have increased further; interconnections with wolves in Canada considered when determining whether a wolves in Minnesota now exist as a and neighboring States. This genetic species meets the definition of an large, stable population of about 2,655 diversity provides wolves in Minnesota endangered species or a threatened individuals that are biologically with a greater ability to adapt to both species and our analysis on how we connected to expansive and robust short-term and long-term changes in determine the foreseeable future in populations in Canada and adjacent their environment. making these decisions, see Regulatory States of Wisconsin and Michigan. Wolves in Minnesota are highly Framework. To sustain populations over time, a resilient to perturbations because of If we determine that any of the species must have a sufficient number their abundance and broad distribution entities evaluated in this rule are not in and distribution of healthy populations across high-quality habitat in the State. danger of extinction now or likely to to withstand annual variation in its Biological factors also play an important become so in the foreseeable future environment (resiliency), novel changes part in the resiliency of wolves in throughout all of its range, we then in its biological and physical Minnesota, namely their high consider whether it may be in danger of environment (representation), and reproductive capacity and genetic extinction or likely to become so in the catastrophes (redundancy) (Shaffer and diversity. Those factors provide foreseeable future in a significant Stein 2000, pp. 308–311; Smith et al. resiliency in the face of stochastic portion of its range 6— that is, whether 2018, p. 304). A species with a sufficient variability (annual environmental there is any portion of the species’ range number and distribution of healthy fluctuations, periodic disturbances, and for which it is true that both (1) the populations is generally better able to impacts of anthropogenic stressors). portion is significant; and (2) the species adapt to future changes and to tolerate Life-history characteristics of the wolf, is in danger of extinction now or likely stressors (factors that cause a negative including high dispersal capability and to become so in the foreseeable future in effect to a species or its habitat). adaptability, along with the high genetic Wolves in Minnesota are highly that portion. Depending on the case, it diversity evident in Minnesota wolves, abundant, have a stable trend (USFWS might be more efficient for us to address provides sufficient adaptive capacity 2020, pp. 20–22 and Appendix 1), and the ‘‘significance’’ question or the such that their long-term survival in the are broadly distributed throughout high- State is assured. Additionally, ‘‘status’’ question first. We can choose to quality habitat in the State (see Great catastrophic events have not affected address either question first. Regardless Lakes Area Suitable Habitat—MN wolf populations at a State-wide scale in of which question we address first, if we discussion). Their high reproductive Minnesota, and we found no indication reach a negative answer with respect to potential (USFWS 2020, p. 8) enables that these events would impact the long- the first question that we address, we do them to withstand high mortality levels term survival of wolves throughout this not need to evaluate the other question and their ability to disperse long State in the future. for that portion of the species’ range. distances allows them to quickly The recovery of wolves in Minnesota Currently Listed Entities expand and recolonize vacant habitats is attributable primarily to successful (USFWS 2020, p. 7). Wolves are also interagency cooperation in the Minnesota: Determination of Status highly adaptable animals; they are able management of human-caused Throughout All of Its Range to inhabit and survive in a variety of mortality. That mortality is the most When wolves in Minnesota were first habitats and are efficient at shifting their significant barrier to the long-term listed under the Act in 1974, there were prey to exploit available food resources conservation of wolves. Therefore, this approximately 750 wolves occupying (USFWS 2020, p. 6). Furthermore, source of mortality remains the primary the northeast corner of the State. The wolves in Minnesota do not function as challenge in managing the wolf primary cause of the decline of wolves an isolated population occurring only population to maintain its recovered was targeted elimination by humans. within the boundaries of the State. They status into the foreseeable future. Legal However, gray wolves are highly are interconnected with the large, harvest and agency control to mitigate adaptable; their populations are expansive population of wolves in depredations on livestock are the remarkably resilient as long as prey Canada and with wolves in Wisconsin primary human-caused mortality factors availability, habitat, and regulation of and Michigan (USFWS 2020, p. 28). that managers can manipulate to human-caused mortality are adequate. Populations that are connected to and achieve management objectives and Wolf populations can rapidly overcome interact with other populations of the minimize depredation risk associated severe disruptions, such as pervasive same species (metapopulations) are with repeated conflicts, respectively, human-caused mortality or disease, widely recognized as being more secure once delisting occurs. Wolves in once those disruptions are removed or over the long term than are several Minnesota now greatly exceed the reduced. isolated populations that contain the recovery criteria in the revised recovery same total number of packs and plan that the Minnesota population 6 ‘‘Portion of its range’’ refers to the members of individuals (USFWS 1994, appendix 9). must be stable or growing and its the species that occur in a particular geographic This security arises because adverse continued survival be assured, with a area of the species’ current range (not the habitat effects experienced by one of its population goal of 1,251–1,400 wolves. in which those members occur). This is because, subpopulations resulting from genetic As a result, we can expect to see some while ‘‘portion of the range’’ is part of the species’ range (i.e., a geographical area), when we evaluate drift, demographic shifts, and local reduction in wolf populations in a significant portion of its range, we consider the environmental fluctuations can be Minnesota as managers begin to contribution of the individuals in that portion. asynchronous and countered by institute management strategies with the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69881

objective of stabilizing or reversing packs, or small, isolated populations above the recovery criteria established population growth while continuing to (e.g., Isle Royale), seldom do they pose in the revised recovery plan (USFWS maintain wolf populations well above a significant threat to large wolf 1992, pp. 25–28). Federal recovery criteria. populations, such as those that occur in We have identified the best available Using an adaptive-management Minnesota. As long as wolf populations scientific studies and information approach that adjusts harvest based on are managed above recovery levels, assessing human-caused mortality; population estimates and trends, the these factors are not likely to threaten habitat and prey availability; the initial objectives of the State may be to the viability of the wolf population in impacts of disease and parasites; reduce wolf populations and then Minnesota at any point in the commercial, recreational, scientific, or manage for sustainable populations, foreseeable future. Climate change is educational uses; gray wolf adaptability, similar to how States manage all other also likely to remain an insignificant including with respect to changing game species. factor affecting the population dynamics climate; recovery activities and Based on our analysis, we conclude of wolves into the foreseeable future, regulatory mechanisms that will be in that Minnesota will maintain an due to the adaptability of the species. place following delisting; and abundant and well-distributed wolf Finally, based on our analysis, we predictions about how these may affect population that will remain above conclude that cumulative effects of wolves in Minnesota in making recovery levels for the foreseeable threats do not now, nor are likely to determinations about their future status, future, and that the threat of human- within the foreseeable future, threaten and we conclude that it is reasonable to caused mortality has been sufficiently the viability of wolves throughout their rely on these sources. Therefore, after addressed. The State of Minnesota has range in Minnesota. assessing the best available information, wolf-management laws, plans, and We have carefully assessed the best we have determined that wolves in regulations that adequately regulate scientific and commercial information Minnesota are not in danger of human-caused mortality. The State has available regarding the past, present, extinction throughout all of their range, committed to manage its wolf and future threats to wolves in nor are they likely to become so in the population at or above recovery levels, Minnesota. We evaluated the status of foreseeable future. has recently demonstrated this wolves in Minnesota and assessed the Because we determined that wolves in commitment, and expect this factors likely to negatively affect them, Minnesota are not in danger of commitment to continue into the including threats identified at listing, at extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Adequate wolf- the time of reclassification, now, and foreseeable future throughout all of their monitoring programs, as described in into the foreseeable future. The best range, we will consider whether there the State wolf-management plan, are available information indicates that are any significant portions of their likely to identify high mortality rates or wolves in Minnesota are recovered and range in Minnesota that are in danger of low birth rates that warrant corrective do not meet the definition of an extinction or likely to become so in the action by the management agency. endangered species or a threatened foreseeable future. Based on our review, we conclude that species because of any one or a Minnesota: Determination of Status regulatory mechanisms in Minnesota are combination of the five factors set forth Throughout a Significant Portion of Its adequate to maintain the recovered in the Act. Range status of wolves in the State once they Specifically, we have determined, are federally delisted. based on the best available information, Under the Act and our implementing Based on the biology of wolves and that human-caused mortality (Factor C); regulations, a species warrants listing if our analysis of threats, we conclude that habitat and prey availability (Factor A); it is in danger of extinction or likely to wolf populations in Minnesota will disease and parasites (Factor C); genetic become so in the foreseeable future continue to be maintained at or above diversity and inbreeding (Factor E); throughout all or a significant portion of identified recovery levels. As a result, commercial, recreational, scientific, or its range (SPR). Having determined that wolf biology (namely the species’ educational uses (Factor B); climate wolves in Minnesota are not in danger reproductive capacity, adaptability, and change (Factor E); or other threats, of extinction now or likely to become so dispersal ability) and the availability of singly or in combination, are not of in the foreseeable future throughout all large, secure blocks of suitable habitat sufficient imminence, intensity, or of their range in Minnesota, we now within the occupied areas will ensure magnitude to indicate that wolves in consider whether they may be in danger the maintenance of populations capable Minnesota are in danger of extinction or of extinction or likely to become so in of withstanding all other foreseeable likely to become so within the the foreseeable future in a significant threats. The amount and distribution of foreseeable future throughout all of their portion of their range in Minnesota. occupied wolf habitat currently range. We have also determined that After reviewing the biology of and provides, and will continue to provide ongoing effects of recovery efforts, potential threats of wolves in into the foreseeable future, large core which resulted in a significant Minnesota, we have not identified any areas that contain high-quality habitat of expansion of the occupied range of and portions of the State for which both (1) sufficient size and with sufficient prey number of wolves in Minnesota over the gray wolves may be in danger of to support a recovered wolf population. past decades, in conjunction with State, extinction or likely to become so in the Our analysis of land management shows Tribal, and Federal agency wolf foreseeable future (i.e., areas in which these areas, specifically Minnesota wolf management and regulatory threats may be concentrated) and (2) the management zone A, will maintain their mechanisms that will be in place portion may be significant. While some suitability into the foreseeable future. following delisting across their portions may be at increased risk from Therefore, we conclude that, Minnesota occupied range, will be adequate to human-caused mortality or factors contains a sufficient amount of high- ensure the conservation of wolves in related to small numbers, we did not quality wolf habitat to support wolf Minnesota. These activities will find that any of these portions may be populations above recovery levels into maintain an adequate prey base, significant. We provide our analysis the future. preserve denning and rendezvous sites, below. While disease and parasites can monitor disease, restrict human take, First, portions outside the core wolf temporarily affect individuals, specific and maintain wolf populations well range in northern Minnesota may be at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69882 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

greater risk from human-caused representation of wolves in Minnesota populations in Minnesota and Canada. mortality or from factors related to small because they are genetically similar to Wolves in the 44-State entity now numbers of individuals. However, these other wolves in the core area of primarily exist as a large, stable to portions are not biologically meaningful Minnesota and because gray wolves are growing, population of about 1,576 in terms of their contribution to the a highly adaptable generalist species individuals in Wisconsin and Michigan resiliency, redundancy, or with high dispersal capability, thus that is biologically connected to representation of wolves in Minnesota allowing them to adapt to changing expansive and robust populations in because they contain only lone environmental conditions. Therefore, Canada and the adjacent State of dispersers from the core wolf range that we do not find that these portions may Minnesota. Within the 44-State entity are not members of established breeding be significant under any reasonable there are also a small number of packs. Thus, they do not contribute to definition of ‘‘significant’’ because they colonizing wolves in the West Coast the overall demographic or genetic are not biologically meaningful to States and central Rocky Mountains that health of the Minnesota population and wolves in Minnesota in terms of represent the expanding edge of a larger they lack genetic or ecological resiliency, redundancy, or population outside the 44-State entity uniqueness relative to other wolves in representation. (in the northern Rocky Mountains and Minnesota. Therefore, we find that these western Canada) (figure 2). We focus our Minnesota: Final Determination portions are not ‘‘significant’’ under any analysis where wolves occur. reasonable definition of that term After a thorough review of all The recovery criteria for wolves in the because they are not biologically available information and an evaluation Eastern United States, as outlined in the meaningful to the Minnesota entity in of the five factors specified in section Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan and terms of its resiliency, redundancy, or 4(a)(1) of the Act, as well as Revised Recovery Plan, includes the representation. consideration of the definitions of maintenance of the Minnesota Second, the State wolf-management ‘‘threatened species’’ and ‘‘endangered population and reestablishment of at zone (Zone B) in which post-delisting species’’ contained in the Act and the least one viable wolf population within depredation control would be allowed reasons for delisting as specified at 50 the historical range of the eastern timber under a broader set of circumstances CFR 424.11(e), we conclude that wolf outside of Minnesota and Isle than in the core population zone, and, removing the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in Royale, Michigan (see Recovery Criteria thus, would likely experience higher Minnesota from the List of Endangered for the Eastern United States). The levels of human-caused mortality upon and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) viable population outside of Minnesota delisting, is not significant under any is appropriate. Although this entity is has been reestablished in Wisconsin and reasonable definition of ‘‘significant.’’ not a species as defined under the Act, Michigan. The wolves in this zone occur on the we have collectively evaluated the Within the 44-State entity, the wolf periphery of the large core population, current and potential threats to gray population in Wisconsin and Michigan occur in areas of limited habitat wolves in Minnesota, including those is stable to slightly increasing and suitability, and do not contribute that result from past loss of historical currently numbers at least 1,576 (914 in appreciably to (and are thus not range. Wolves in Minnesota do not meet Wisconsin and 695 in Michigan) biologically meaningful to) the the definition of a threatened species or (USFWS 2020, pp. 21–24 and Appendix resiliency, redundancy, or an endangered species as a result of the 1). Wolves are broadly distributed representation of the Minnesota entity. reduction of threats as described in the throughout high-quality habitat in the Wolves in this higher intensity analysis of threats and are neither northern portions of both States (see management zone are not meaningful to currently in danger of extinction, nor Great Lakes Area Suitable Habitat—WI the resiliency of the Minnesota entity likely to become so in the foreseeable and MI discussions). Their high because they constitute a small future, throughout all or a significant reproductive potential (USFWS 2020, p. proportion of wolves in Minnesota portion of their range within the State. 8) enables them to withstand increased (Zone B contains about 15 percent of the levels of human-caused mortality and 44-State Entity: Determination of Status Minnesota wolf population). Thus, their ability to disperse long distances wolves in the higher intensity Throughout All of Its Range allows them to quickly expand and management zone do not contribute In 1978, when gray wolves were listed recolonize vacant habitats (USFWS meaningfully to the ability of wolves in in the conterminous States other than 2020, p. 7). Wolves are also highly Minnesota to withstand stochastic Minnesota, there was a small group of adaptable animals; they are able to processes. wolves on Isle Royale (Michigan) in inhabit and survive in a variety of Likewise, the higher intensity Lake Superior and perhaps a few habitats and take advantage of available management zone is not meaningful to individual wolves in northern Michigan food resources (USFWS 2020, p. 6). the redundancy of the Minnesota entity and Wisconsin. The primary cause of Furthermore, biologically, wolves in because wolves in this zone represent a the decline of wolves in the 44-State Wisconsin and Michigan do not relatively small number and distribution entity was targeted elimination by function as an isolated population. They of wolves in Minnesota and catastrophic humans. However, gray wolves are are interconnected with the large, events have not affected wolf highly adaptable; their populations are expansive population of wolves in populations at a State-wide scale in remarkably resilient as long as prey Canada and with wolves in Minnesota Minnesota, and we found no indication availability, habitat, and regulation of (USFWS 2020, p. 28). that these events would impact the long- human-caused mortality are adequate. Populations that are connected to and term survival of wolves throughout this Wolf populations can rapidly overcome interact with other populations of the State in the future. Thus, wolves in the severe disruptions, such as pervasive same species (metapopulations) are higher intensity management zone do human-caused mortality or disease, widely recognized as being more secure not contribute meaningfully to the once those disruptions are removed or over the long term than are several ability of wolves in Minnesota to reduced. isolated populations that contain the withstand catastrophic events. Wolves With the protections of the Act, gray same total number of packs and in the higher intensity management wolves began to repopulate Michigan individuals (USFWS 1994, appendix 9). zone are not meaningful to the and Wisconsin through expansion of the This is because adverse effects

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69883

experienced by one of its Oregon, Washington, California, and harvest quota by 43 percent in response subpopulations resulting from genetic Colorado (figure 2). With ongoing State to a reduced (compared to the previous drift, demographic shifts, and local management in the NRM DPS, further year) estimated size of the wolf environmental fluctuations can be expansion of wolves into the 44-State population. We expect Washington, asynchronous and countered by entity is likely to continue in the West Oregon and California will manage occasional influxes of individuals from Coast States and possibly the central wolves through appropriate laws and other subpopulations in the Rocky Mountains. Although wolves in regulations to ensure that the recovery metapopulation, which can increase or these areas would add to resiliency, objectives outlined in their respective better maintain genetic diversity. Thus, redundancy, and representation, they wolf management plans are achieved, the genetic diversity of the wolves in are not necessary in order to conserve even though wolves in these areas are Wisconsin and Michigan (see discussion wolves to the point that they no longer not necessary in order to conserve under Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding) meet the definitions of endangered or wolves to the point that they no longer is supported through interconnections threatened under the Act. Furthermore, meet the definitions of endangered or with wolves in Canada and neighboring although having wolves in unoccupied threatened under the Act. Minnesota. This genetic diversity areas could also contribute to resiliency, Based on our analysis, we conclude provides wolves in Wisconsin and redundancy, and representation, they that Wisconsin and Michigan will Michigan with a greater ability to adapt are not necessary in order to conserve maintain an abundant and well- to both short-term and long-term wolves to the point that they no longer distributed wolf population in their changes in their environment. A meet the definitions of endangered or States above recovery levels for the mixture of western gray wolves and threatened under the Act. foreseeable future, and that the threat of eastern wolves in the Great Lakes area The recovery of the 44-State entity is human-caused mortality has been may provide additional adaptive attributable primarily to successful sufficiently reduced. Both States have capacity (USFWS 2020, pp. 2–3). interagency cooperation in the wolf-management laws, plans, and Wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan management of human-caused regulations that adequately regulate are highly resilient to perturbations mortality. That mortality is the most human-caused mortality. Each of the because of their abundance and broad significant barrier to the long-term States has committed to manage its wolf distribution across high-quality habitat conservation of wolves. Therefore, this population at or above viable in these States. Biological factors also source of mortality remains the primary population levels (at least 350 in play an important part in the resiliency challenge in managing the wolf Wisconsin and at least 200 in Michigan; of wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan, population to maintain its recovered see State Management in Minnesota, namely their high reproductive capacity status into the foreseeable future. Legal Wisconsin, and Michigan), and we do and genetic diversity. Those factors harvest and agency control to mitigate not expect this commitment to change. provide resiliency in the face of depredations on livestock are the Adequate wolf-monitoring programs, as stochastic variability (annual primary human-caused mortality factors described in the State wolf-management environmental fluctuations, periodic that management agencies can plans, are likely to identify high disturbances, and impacts of manipulate to achieve management mortality rates or low birth rates that anthropogenic stressors). Life-history objectives and minimize depredation warrant corrective action by the characteristics of the wolf, including risk associated with repeated conflicts, management agencies. Based on our high dispersal capability and respectively, once delisting occurs. review, we conclude that regulatory adaptability, along with the high genetic Wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan mechanisms in both States are adequate diversity evident in wolves in now greatly exceed the recovery criteria to maintain the recovered status of Wisconsin and Michigan, provides in the revised recovery plan for a second wolves in the 44-State entity once they sufficient adaptive capacity such that population outside Minnesota and Isle are federally delisted. Further, while their long-term survival is assured. Royale (for both a population that is relatively few wolves occur in the west Additionally, catastrophic events have connected to Minnesota (at least 100 coast portion of the 44-State entity at not affected wolf populations at a multi- wolves) and a population that is this time, and State wolf-management State scale in Wisconsin and Michigan, separated from Minnesota (at least 200 plans for Washington, Oregon, and and we found no indication that these wolves)). As a result, we can expect to California do not yet include population events would impact the long-term see some reduction in wolf populations management goals, these plans include survival of wolves throughout these in Wisconsin and Michigan as those recovery objectives intended to ensure States in the future. States begin to institute management the reestablishment of self-sustaining The wolves in Wisconsin and strategies (such as increased populations in these States. In addition, Michigan contain sufficient resiliency, depredation control and wolf-hunting we expect wolves in the NRM and redundancy, and representation to seasons) with the objective of stabilizing western Canada to continue to expand sustain populations within the 44-State or reversing population growth while into unoccupied suitable habitats in the entity over time. Therefore, we conclude continuing to maintain wolf populations Western United States, as envisioned in that the relatively few wolves that occur well above Federal recovery State wolf conservation and within the 44-State entity outside of requirements. Using an adaptive- management plans. Although this range Wisconsin and Michigan, including management approach that adjusts expansion would provide for additional those in the West Coast States and harvest based on population estimates redundancy, it is not needed to recover central Rocky Mountains as well as lone and trends, the initial objectives of the gray wolf in the 44-State entity. dispersers in other States, are not States may be to reduce wolf Based on the biology of wolves and necessary for the recovered status of the populations and then manage for our analysis of threats, we conclude 44-State entity. However, the viability of sustainable populations, similar to how that, as long as wolf populations in the entity is further enhanced by wolves States manage all other game species. Wisconsin and Michigan are maintained that occur outside of Wisconsin and For example, in 2013–2014, during a at or above identified recovery levels, Michigan. Wolves from the northern period when gray wolves were federally wolf biology (namely, the species’ Rocky Mountains and western Canada delisted in the Great Lakes area, reproductive capacity) and the are expanding into the 44-State entity in Wisconsin reduced the State’s wolf availability of large, secure blocks of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69884 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

suitable habitat within the occupied habitat and prey availability (Factor A); 44-State Entity: Determination of Status areas will enable the maintenance of disease and parasites (Factor C); genetic Throughout a Significant Portion of Its populations capable of withstanding all diversity and inbreeding (Factor E); Range other foreseeable threats. Although commercial, recreational, scientific, or After reviewing the biology of the 44- much of the historical range of the 44- educational uses (Factor B); climate State entity and potential threats, we State entity is no longer occupied, we change (Factor E); or other threats, have not identified any portions of the find that the amount and distribution of singly or in combination, are not of 44-State entity for which both (1) gray occupied wolf habitat currently sufficient imminence, intensity, or wolves may be in danger of extinction provides, and will continue to provide magnitude to indicate that the 44-State or likely to become so in the foreseeable into the foreseeable future, large core entity is in danger of extinction or likely future (i.e., areas in which threats may areas that contain high-quality habitat of to become so within the foreseeable be concentrated) and (2) the portion sufficient size and with sufficient prey may be significant. We reiterate that to support a recovered wolf population. future throughout all of its range. We ‘‘range’’ refers to the general Our analysis of land management shows have also determined that ongoing geographical area within which the these areas, specifically Wisconsin Wolf effects of recovery efforts, which species is found at the time of our Zone 1 and the Upper Peninsula of resulted in a significant expansion of determination (see Definition and Michigan, will maintain their suitability the occupied range of and number of Treatment of Range). ‘‘Portion of its into the foreseeable future. Therefore, wolves in the 44-State entity over the range’’ refers to the members of the we conclude that, despite the loss of past decades, in conjunction with State, species that occur in a particular large areas of historical range for the 44- Tribal, and Federal agency wolf State entity, Wisconsin and the Upper management and regulatory geographic area of the species’ current range. This is because, while ‘‘portion of Peninsula of Michigan contain a mechanisms that will be in place the range’’ is part of the species’ range sufficient amount of high-quality wolf following delisting of the entity across (i.e., a geographical area), when we habitat to support wolf populations its occupied range, will be adequate to evaluate a significant portion of its above recovery levels into the future. ensure the conservation of wolves in the While disease and parasites can range, we consider the contribution of 44-State entity. These activities will the individuals that are in that portion temporarily affect individuals, specific maintain an adequate prey base, packs, or small, isolated populations at the time we make a determination. preserve denning and rendezvous sites, While some portions may be at (e.g., Isle Royale), seldom do they pose monitor disease, restrict human take, a significant threat to large wolf increased risk from human-caused and keep wolf populations well above populations, such as those found in mortality or factors related to small Wisconsin and Michigan. As long as the recovery criteria established in the numbers, we did not find that any of wolf populations are managed above revised recovery plan (USFWS 1992, pp. these portions may be significant. We recovery levels, these factors are not 25–28). provide our analysis below. likely to threaten the viability of the We have identified the best available First, portions peripheral to the wolf population in the 44-State entity at scientific studies and information Wisconsin-Michigan population that any point in the foreseeable future. assessing human-caused mortality; may frequently contain lone dispersing Climate change is also likely to remain habitat and prey availability; the wolves (e.g., the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, eastern North and South an insignificant factor affecting the impacts of disease and parasites; Dakota) or may contain few wolves (e.g., population dynamics of wolves into the commercial, recreational, scientific, or Isle Royale) may be at greater risk from foreseeable future, due to the educational uses; gray wolf adaptability, human-caused mortality or from factors adaptability of the species. Finally, including with respect to changing based on our analysis, we conclude that related to small numbers of individuals. climate; recovery activities and However, these portions are not cumulative effects of threats do not regulatory mechanisms that will be in now, nor are they likely to within the biologically meaningful to the 44-State place following delisting; and foreseeable future, threaten the viability entity in terms of resiliency, predictions about how these may affect of the 44-State entity throughout the redundancy, or representation because range of wolves in the 44-State entity. the 44-State entity in making they contain only lone dispersers from We have carefully assessed the best determinations about the 44-State the core wolf range or few or no scientific and commercial information entity’s future status, and we conclude breeding pairs. Thus, they do not available regarding the past, present, that it is reasonable to rely on these contribute to the overall demographic or and future threats to the 44-State entity. sources. Therefore, after assessing the genetic diversity of the Wisconsin- We evaluated the status of the 44-State best available information, despite the Michigan population and they lack entity and assessed the factors likely to large amount of lost historical range (see genetic or ecological uniqueness relative negatively affect it, including threats Historical Context of Our Analysis), we to other wolves in the States. Therefore, identified at listing, at the time of have determined that the 44-State entity we find that these portions are not reclassification, now, and into the is not in danger of extinction throughout ‘‘significant’’ under any reasonable foreseeable future. While wolves in the all of its range, nor is it likely to become definition of that term because they are 44-State entity currently occupy only a so in the foreseeable future. not biologically meaningful to the 44- portion of wolf historical range, the best State entity in terms of its resiliency, Because we determined that the gray available information indicates that the redundancy, or representation. 44-State entity is recovered and does not wolf 44-State entity is not in danger of Second, State wolf-management zones meet the definition of an endangered extinction or likely to become so in the in which post-delisting depredation species or a threatened species because foreseeable future throughout all of its control would be allowed under a of any one or a combination of the five range, we will consider whether there broader set of circumstances than in factors set forth in the Act. are any significant portions of its range core population zones (and, thus, would Specifically, we have determined, that are in danger of extinction or likely likely experience higher levels of based on the best available information, to become so in the foreseeable future. human-caused mortality upon the 44- that human-caused mortality (Factor C); State entity’s delisting), such as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69885

Wisconsin Wolf Management Zones 3 the central Rocky Mountains are not a recovery in the NRM DPS. Therefore, we and 4, are not significant under any significant portion of the 44-State entity. do not find that this portion may be reasonable definition of ‘‘significant.’’ Our evaluation of whether any portions significant, under any reasonable The wolves in these zones occur on the of the range may be ‘‘significant’’ is a definition of ‘‘significant,’’ to the 44- periphery of a large population (the biological inquiry. We consider whether State entity in terms of its resiliency, Wisconsin-Michigan population), occur any portions are biologically meaningful redundancy, or representation. in areas of limited habitat suitability, in terms of the resiliency, redundancy, We conclude that there are no and do not contribute appreciably to or representation of gray wolves in the portions of the 44-State entity for which (and are thus not biologically 44-State entity. When the gray wolf was both (1) gray wolves may be in danger meaningful to) the resiliency, listed in 1978, there were about 1,200 of extinction or likely to become so in redundancy, or representation of the 44- wolves in Minnesota, and those wolves the foreseeable future and (2) the State entity. later expanded into Wisconsin and portion may be significant. As discussed Wolves in these higher intensity Michigan (USFWS 2020, pp. 20–23). above, portions that may be in danger of management zones are not meaningful Unlike wolves that are dispersing from extinction or likely to become so in the to the resiliency of the 44-State entity the Great Lakes metapopulation, the foreseeable future are not significant because, even though they contain wolves that are presently found in the under any reasonable definition of that multiple established packs in addition West Coast States and the central Rocky term. Conversely, other portions that are to lone wolves, they constitute a small Mountains originated primarily from the or may be significant (i.e., the core areas proportion of wolves in the Wisconsin- NRM wolves (USFWS 2020, pp. 3–5). of the Wisconsin-Michigan population) Michigan population and, consequently, As the delisted NRM population has are not in danger of extinction or likely the 44-State entity (Zones 3 and 4 continued to expand under State to become so in the foreseeable future. contain about 6 percent of the management, those wolves have moved Because we did not identify any Wisconsin wolf population). Upon into California, Oregon, and portions of the 44-State entity where delisting, a large population of wolves Washington, and most recently into threats may be concentrated and where will still exist in Wisconsin and Colorado. Those wolves are not the portion may be biologically Michigan outside of these areas. Thus, connected biologically to the core meaningful in terms of the resiliency, wolves in these higher intensity populations in the 44-State entity, and redundancy, or representation of the 44- management zones do not contribute are not biologically ‘‘significant’’ to this State entity, a more thorough analysis is meaningfully to ability of wolves in the entity. not required. Therefore, we conclude 44-State entity to withstand stochastic that the 44-State entity is not in danger processes. We acknowledge that both the West of extinction or likely to become so in Likewise, these higher intensity Coast States and central Rocky the foreseeable future within a management zones are not meaningful Mountains portions of the 44-State significant portion of its range. to the redundancy of the 44-State entity entity may be at greater risk from because wolves in these zones represent human-caused mortality or from factors 44-State Entity: Final Determination a relatively small number and related to small numbers of individuals. After a thorough review of all distribution of populations or packs in However, wolves in these portions are available information and an evaluation Wisconsin and Michigan and not meaningful to the redundancy or of the five factors specified in section catastrophic events have not affected resiliency of the 44-State entity because 4(a)(1) of the Act, as well as wolf populations at a multi-State scale they occur in small numbers and consideration of the definitions of in Wisconsin and Michigan, and we include relatively few breeding pairs. ‘‘threatened species’’ and ‘‘endangered found no indication that these events There are seven known breeding pairs species’’ contained in the Act and the would impact the long-term survival of in the West Coast States, and a single reasons for delisting as specified at 50 wolves throughout these two States in group of six known individuals in CFR 424.11(e), we conclude that the future. Thus, wolves in these higher Colorado. Because these wolves removing the 44-State entity of the gray intensity management zones do not represent the expanding edge of a wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of contribute meaningfully to the ability of recovered and stable source population Endangered and Threatened Wildlife the Wisconsin-Michigan population, or (the NRM DPS), and are therefore not an (50 CFR 17.11) is appropriate. Although 44-State entity, to withstand independent population within the 44- this entity is not a species as defined catastrophic events. State entity, the relatively small number under the Act, we have collectively Finally, wolves in these higher of wolves there do not contribute evaluated the current and potential intensity management zones are not meaningfully to the ability of any threats to gray wolves in the 44-State meaningful to the representation of the population to withstand stochastic entity, including those that result from 44-State entity because they are events, nor to the entire entity’s ability past loss of historical range. Wolves in genetically similar to other wolves in to withstand catastrophic events. These the 44-State entity do not meet the the Wisconsin-Michigan area of the 44- portions are also not meaningful in definition of a threatened species or an State entity and because gray wolves are terms of representation, because (1) gray endangered species as a result of the a highly adaptable generalist species wolves are a highly adaptable generalist reduction of threats as described in the with high dispersal capability, thus carnivore capable of long-distance analysis of threats and are neither allowing them to adapt to changing dispersal, and (2) the gray wolves in this currently in danger of extinction, nor environmental conditions. Therefore, area are an extension of a large likely to become so in the foreseeable we do not find that these portions may population of wolves in the northern future, throughout all or a significant be significant under any reasonable Rocky Mountains. They are not an portion of their range. definition of ‘‘significant’’ because they isolated population with unique or Although substantial contraction of are not biologically meaningful to the markedly different genotypic or gray wolf historical range occurred 44-State entity in terms of its resiliency, phenotypic traits that is evolving within the 44-State entity since redundancy, or representation. separate from other wolf populations. European settlement, the range of the Third, the small number of wolves They are also well-represented in the gray wolf has expanded significantly occurring in the West Coast States and lower 48 United States as a result of since its original listing in 1978, and the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69886 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

impacts of lost historical range are no expanded outside of northeastern diversity. Those factors provide longer manifesting in a way that Minnesota to central and northwestern resiliency in the face of stochastic threatens the viability of the species. Minnesota, northern and central variability (annual environmental The causes of the previous contraction Wisconsin, and the entire Upper fluctuations, periodic disturbances, and (for example, targeted extermination Peninsula of Michigan, and is in the impacts of anthropogenic stressors). efforts), and the effects of that early stages of expanding into western Life-history characteristics of the wolf, contraction (for example, reduced Washington, western Oregon, northern including high dispersal capability and numbers of individuals and California, and Colorado. Wolves in the adaptability, along with the high genetic populations, and restricted gene flow), combined listed entity now primarily diversity evident in wolves in the Great in addition to the effects of all other exist as a large, stable to growing, Lakes area, provides sufficient adaptive threats, have been ameliorated or metapopulation of about 4,200 capacity such that their long-term reduced such that the 44-State entity no individuals in the Great Lakes area and survival is assured. Additionally, longer meets the Act’s definitions of a small number of colonizing wolves in catastrophic events have not affected ‘‘threatened species’’ or ‘‘endangered the West Coast States and Colorado that wolf populations at a multi-State scale species.’’ represent the expanding edge of a large in the Great Lakes area, and we found metapopulation outside the combined no indication that these events would Combined Listed Entity listed entity (in the northern Rocky impact the long-term survival of wolves Combined Listed Entity: Determination Mountains and western Canada and, throughout the Great Lakes area in the of Status Throughout All of Its Range more recently the central Rocky future. Mountains (figure 2)). We focus our We have determined that Minnesota Thus, the metapopulation of wolves analysis where wolves occur. in the Great Lakes area and, and the 44-State entity are each not an The recovery criteria for wolves in the consequently, the combined listed endangered species or a threatened Eastern United States, as outlined in the entity, contain sufficient resiliency, species. Therefore, no entity which Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan and redundancy, and representation to includes any of those components can Revised Recovery Plan, includes the sustain populations within the be in danger of extinction or likely to maintenance of the Minnesota combined listed entity over time. become so in the foreseeable future population and reestablishment of at Therefore, we conclude that the throughout all of its range because we least one viable wolf population within relatively few wolves that occur within have already conclude that it is not the historical range of the eastern timber threatened or endangered throughout wolf outside of Minnesota and Isle the combined listed entity outside of the some of its range. Nonetheless, below Royale, Michigan (see Recovery Criteria Great Lakes area, including those in the we independently analyze whether the for the Eastern United States). The West Coast States and central Rocky combined listed entity is in danger of viable population outside of Minnesota Mountains as well as lone dispersers in extinction or likely to become so has been reestablished in Wisconsin and other States, are not necessary for the throughout all of its range. Then we turn Michigan. recovered status of the combined listed to the question, not already resolved, of Within the combined listed entity, the entity. However, the viability of the whether that entity is in danger of wolf metapopulation in the Great Lakes entity is enhanced even further by extinction or likely to become so in a area is stable to slightly increasing, wolves that occur outside of the Great significant portion of its range. currently numbers at least 4,231 wolves Lakes area and also by those that occur Prior to listing in the 1970s, wolves in (2,655 in Minnesota, 914 in Wisconsin, outside the combined listed entity. First, the combined listed entity had been and 695 in Michigan) (USFWS 2020, pp. the viability of the combined listed reduced to about 1,000 individuals and 21–24 and Appendix 1), is broadly entity is increased even further via extirpated from all of their range except distributed throughout high-quality connectivity of the entity to populations northeastern Minnesota and Isle Royale, habitat in the northern portions of the in Canada. Connection of the Michigan. The primary cause of the three States (see Great Lakes Area metapopulation of wolves in the Great decline of wolves in the combined listed Suitable Habitat—MN, WI and MI Lakes area to a population of about entity was targeted elimination by discussions), and contains high levels of 12,000–14,000 wolves in eastern Canada humans. However, gray wolves are genetic diversity (see Genetic Diversity further increases the resiliency and highly adaptable; their populations are and Inbreeding). Further, the high representation (via gene flow) of wolves remarkably resilient as long as prey reproductive potential of gray wolves in the Great Lakes area, increasing the availability, habitat, and regulation of (USFWS 2020, p. 8) enables them to viability of the combined listed entity. human-caused mortality are adequate. withstand increased levels of mortality, Second, wolves from the northern Wolf populations can rapidly overcome their ability to disperse long distances Rocky Mountains and western Canada severe disruptions, such as pervasive allows them to quickly expand and are expanding into the combined listed human-caused mortality or disease, recolonize vacant habitats (USFWS entity in Oregon, Washington, once those disruptions are removed or 2020, p. 7), and the fact that they are California, and Colorado (figure 2). With reduced. highly adaptable animals enables them ongoing State management in the NRM With the protections of the Act, the to inhabit and survive in a variety of DPS, further expansion of wolves into size of the gray wolf population habitats and take advantage of available the combined listed entity is likely to increased to over four times that at the food resources (USFWS 2020, p. 6). continue in the West Coast States and time of the initial gray wolf listings in The wolf metapopulation in the Great possibly the central Rocky Mountains. the early 1970s, and more than triple Lakes area is highly resilient to Although wolves in these areas would that at the time of the 1978 perturbations because of its abundance add to resiliency, redundancy, and reclassification (a figure which does not and broad distribution across high- representation, they are not necessary in include the wolves currently found in quality habitat in the Great Lakes area. order to conserve wolves to the point the northern Rocky Mountains, which Biological factors also play an important that they no longer meet the definitions was part of those earlier listings, part in the resiliency of wolves in the of endangered or threatened under the although not now part of the current Great Lakes area, namely their high Act. Furthermore, although having combined listed entity). The range has reproductive capacity and genetic wolves in unoccupied areas could also

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69887

contribute to resiliency, redundancy, regulations that adequately regulate high-quality wolf habitat to support and representation, they are not human-caused mortality. Each of the wolf populations into the future. necessary in order to conserve wolves to three States has committed to manage While disease and parasites can the point that they no longer meet the its wolf population at or above viable temporarily affect individuals, specific definitions of endangered or threatened population levels, and we do not expect packs, or small, isolated populations under the Act. this commitment to change. Adequate (e.g., Isle Royale), seldom do they pose The recovery of the combined listed wolf-monitoring programs, as described a significant threat to large wolf entity is attributable primarily to in the State wolf-management plans, are populations (e.g., core populations in successful interagency cooperation in likely to identify high mortality rates or the NRM DPS and Great Lakes area) as the management of human-caused low birth rates that warrant corrective a whole. As long as wolf populations are mortality. That mortality is the most action by the management agencies. managed above recovery levels, these significant barrier to the long-term Based on our review, we conclude that factors are not likely to threaten the conservation of wolves. Therefore, this regulatory mechanisms in all three viability of the wolf population in the source of mortality remains the primary combined listed entity at any point in States are adequate to maintain the challenge in managing the wolf the foreseeable future. Climate change is recovered status of wolves in the population to maintain its recovered also likely to remain an insignificant combined listed entity once they are status into the foreseeable future. Legal factor affecting the population dynamics harvest and agency control to mitigate federally delisted. Further, while of wolves into the foreseeable future, depredations on livestock are the relatively few wolves occur in the west due to the adaptability of the species. primary human-caused mortality factors coast portion of the combined listed Finally, based on our analysis, we that management agencies can entity at this time, and State wolf- conclude that cumulative effects of manipulate to achieve management management plans for Washington, threats do not now, and are not likely objectives and minimize depredation Oregon, and California do not yet to within the foreseeable future, risk associated with repeated conflicts, include population management goals, threaten the viability of the combined respectively, once delisting occurs. these plans include recovery objectives listed entity throughout the range of Wolves in the Great Lakes area greatly intended to ensure the reestablishment wolves in the combined listed entity. exceed the Federal recovery of self-sustaining populations in these We have carefully assessed the best requirements defined in the revised States. In addition, we expect the wolf scientific and commercial information recovery plan. As a result, we can metapopulation in the western U.S. and available regarding the past, present, expect to see some reduction in wolf western Canada to continue to expand and future threats to the combined populations in the Great Lakes areas as into unoccupied suitable habitats in the listed entity. We evaluated the status of States begin to institute management Western United States, as envisioned in the combined listed entity and assessed strategies (such as increased State wolf conservation and the factors likely to negatively affect it, depredation control and wolf-hunting management plans. including threats identified at listing, at seasons) with the objective of stabilizing Based on the biology of wolves and the time of reclassification, now, and or reversing population growth while our analysis of threats, we conclude into the foreseeable future. While continuing to maintain wolf populations that, as long as wolf populations in the wolves in the combined listed entity well above Federal recovery Great Lakes States are maintained at or currently occupy only a portion of wolf requirements. Using an adaptive- above identified recovery levels, wolf historical range, the best available information indicates that the combined management approach that adjusts biology (namely the species’ listed entity is recovered and does not harvest based on population estimates reproductive capacity) and the meet the definition of an endangered and trends, the initial objectives may be availability of large, secure blocks of species or a threatened species because to reduce wolf populations and then suitable habitat within the occupied of any one or a combination of the five manage for sustainable populations, areas will enable the maintenance of similar to how States manage all other factors set forth in the Act. populations capable of withstanding all game species. For example, in 2013– Specifically, we have determined, other foreseeable threats. Although 2014, during a period when gray wolves based on the best available information, much of the historical range of the were federally delisted in the Great that human-caused mortality (Factor C); combined listed entity is no longer Lakes area, Wisconsin reduced the habitat and prey availability (Factor A); State’s wolf harvest quota by 43 percent occupied, we find that the amount and disease and parasites (Factor C); genetic in response to a reduced (compared to distribution of occupied wolf habitat diversity and inbreeding (Factor E); the previous year) estimated size of the currently provides, and will continue to commercial, recreational, scientific, or wolf population. We expect provide into the foreseeable future, large educational uses (Factor B); climate Washington, Oregon, and California will core areas that contain high-quality change (Factor E); or other threats, manage wolves through appropriate habitat of sufficient size and with singly or in combination, are not of laws and regulations to ensure that the sufficient prey to support a recovered sufficient imminence, intensity, or recovery objectives outlined in their wolf population. Our analysis of land magnitude to indicate that the combined respective wolf management plans are management shows these areas, listed entity is in danger of extinction or achieved. specifically Minnesota Wolf likely to become so within the Based on our analysis, we conclude Management Zone A (Federal Wolf foreseeable future throughout all of its that Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Management Zones 1–4), Wisconsin range. We have also determined that Michigan will maintain an abundant Wolf Zone 1, and the Upper Peninsula ongoing effects of recovery efforts, and well-distributed metapopulation in of Michigan, will maintain their which resulted in a significant the Great Lakes area that will remain suitability into the foreseeable future. expansion of the occupied range of and above recovery levels for the foreseeable Therefore, we conclude that, despite the number of wolves in the combined future, and that the threat of human- loss of large areas of historical range for listed entity over the past decades, in caused mortality has been sufficiently the combined listed entity, Minnesota, conjunction with State, Tribal, and reduced. All three States have wolf- Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of Federal agency wolf management and management laws, plans, and Michigan contain a sufficient amount of regulatory mechanisms that will be in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69888 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

place following delisting of the entity the species’ range (i.e., a geographical limited habitat suitability, and do not across its occupied range, will be area), when we evaluate a significant contribute appreciably to (and are thus adequate to ensure the conservation of portion of its range, we consider the not biologically meaningful to) the wolves in the combined listed entity. contribution of the individuals that are resiliency, redundancy, or These activities will maintain an in that portion at the time we make a representation of the combined listed adequate prey base, preserve denning determination. While we identified entity. In fact, the Revised Recovery and rendezvous sites, monitor disease, some portions that may be at increased Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf restrict human take, and keep wolf risk from human-caused mortality or advises against restoration of wolves in populations well above the recovery factors related to small numbers, we did State Zone B (Federal Zone 5). criteria established in the revised not find that any of these portions may Wolves in these higher intensity recovery plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 25– be significant. We provide our analysis management zones are not meaningful 28). below. to the resiliency of the combined listed We have identified the best available First, portions peripheral to the Great entity because, even though they scientific studies and information Lakes metapopulation that may contain multiple established packs in assessing human-caused mortality; frequently contain lone dispersing addition to lone wolves, they constitute habitat and prey availability; the wolves (e.g., Lower Peninsula of a small proportion of wolves in the impacts of disease and parasites; Michigan, eastern North and South Great Lakes metapopulation and, commercial, recreational, scientific, or Dakota) or may contain few wolves (e.g., consequently, the combined listed educational uses; gray wolf adaptability, Isle Royale) may be at greater risk from entity (Zone B contains approximately including with respect to changing human-caused mortality or from factors 15 percent of the Minnesota wolf climate; recovery activities and related to small numbers of individuals. population; Zones 3 and 4 contain about regulatory mechanisms that will be in However, wolves in these portions are 6 percent of the Wisconsin wolf place following delisting; and not meaningful to resiliency or population). Thus, wolves in these predictions about how these may affect redundancy of the combined listed higher intensity management zones do the combined listed entity in making entity because they are lone dispersers not contribute meaningfully to the determinations about the combined from core wolf range or few or no ability of wolves in the combined listed listed entity’s future status, and we breeding pairs or are few in number and entity to withstand stochastic processes. conclude that it is reasonable to rely on likely to remain so (e.g., Isle Royale). Likewise, these higher intensity these sources. Therefore, after assessing They are not contributing to management zones are not meaningful the best available information, despite representation of the combined listed to the redundancy of the combined the large amount of lost historical range entity because they dispersed or listed entity because wolves in these (see Historical Context of Our Analysis), descend from the core wolf populations zones represent a relatively small we have determined that the combined in the Great Lakes metapopulation or, in number and distribution of packs in listed entity is not in danger of the case of Isle Royale, are genetically their respective States and catastrophic extinction throughout all of its range, isolated and therefore have a low events have not affected wolf nor is it likely to become so in the probability of long-term genetic health. populations at a multi-State scale in the foreseeable future. Thus, these portions do not contribute Great Lakes area, and we found no Because we determined that the to the overall demographic or genetic indication that these events would combined listed entity is not in danger diversity of the lower 48 United States impact the long-term survival of wolves of extinction or likely to become so in entity and they lack genetic uniqueness throughout these States in the future. the foreseeable future throughout all of relative to other wolves in the entity. Thus, wolves in these higher intensity its range, we will consider whether Further, gray wolves are a highly management zones do not contribute there are any significant portions of its adaptable species with high dispersal meaningfully to the ability of wolf range that are in danger of extinction or capability, thus allowing them to adapt populations in these States, the Great likely to become so in the foreseeable to changing environmental conditions. Lakes metapopulation, or, consequently, future. Therefore, we find that these portions the combined listed entity, to withstand catastrophic events. Wolves in these Combined Listed Entity: Determination are not ‘‘significant’’ because they are higher intensity management zones are of Status Throughout a Significant not biologically meaningful to the not meaningful to the representation of Portion of Its Range combined listed entity in terms of its resiliency, redundancy, or the combined listed entity because they After reviewing the biology of the representation. are genetically similar to other wolves combined listed entity and potential Second, State wolf-management zones in the Great Lakes area of the combined threats, we have not identified any in which post-delisting depredation listed entity and because gray wolves portions of the combined listed entity control would be allowed under a are a highly adaptable species with high for which both (1) gray wolves may be broader set of circumstances than in dispersal capability, thus allowing them in danger of extinction or likely to core population zones (and, thus, would to adapt to changing environmental become so in the foreseeable future (i.e., likely experience higher levels of conditions. Therefore, we do not find areas in which threats may be human-caused mortality upon the that these portions may be significant concentrated) and (2) the portion may combined listed entity’s delisting), such because they are not biologically be significant. We reiterate that ‘‘range’’ as Minnesota Wolf Management Zone B meaningful to the combined listed refers to the general geographical area (Federal Wolf Management Zone 5) or entity in terms of its resiliency, within which the species is found at the Wisconsin Wolf Management Zones 3 redundancy, or representation. time of our determination (see and 4 may be at greater risk from Third, the small number of wolves Definition and Treatment of Range). human-caused mortality or from factors occurring in the West Coast States and ‘‘Portion of its range’’ refers to the related to small numbers of individuals. the central Rocky Mountains are not a members of the species that occur in a However, the wolves in these portions significant portion of the combined particular geographic area of the occur on the periphery of a large listed entity. Our evaluation of whether species’ current range. This is because, metapopulation (the Great Lakes any portions of the range may be while ‘‘portion of the range’’ is part of metapopulation), occur in areas of ‘‘significant’’ is a biological inquiry. We

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69889

consider whether any portions are in terms of its resiliency, redundancy, or since its original listing in 1978, and the biologically meaningful in terms of the representation. impacts of lost historical range are no resiliency, redundancy, or We conclude that there are no longer manifesting in a way that representation of gray wolves in the portions of the combined listed entity threatens the viability of the species. combined listed entity. When the gray for which both (1) gray wolves may be The causes of the previous contraction wolf was listed in 1978, there were in danger of extinction or likely to (for example, targeted extermination about 1,200 wolves in Minnesota, and become so in the foreseeable future and efforts), and the effects of that those wolves later expanded into (2) the portion may be significant. As contraction (for example, reduced Wisconsin and Michigan (USFWS 2020, discussed above, some may be in danger numbers of individuals and pp. 20–23). Unlike wolves that are of extinction or likely to become so in populations, and restricted gene flow), dispersing from the Great Lakes the foreseeable future, but we do not in addition to the effects of all other metapopulation, the wolves that are find that these portions may be threats, have been ameliorated or presently found in the West Coast States significant under any reasonable reduced such that the combined listed and the central Rocky Mountains definition of that term because they are entity does not meet the Act’s originated primarily from the NRM not biologically meaningful to the definitions of ‘‘threatened species’’ or wolves (USFWS 2020, pp. 3–5). As the combined listed entity in terms of its ‘‘endangered species.’’ delisted NRM population has continued resiliency, redundancy, or Lower 48 United States Entity to expand under State management, representation. Conversely, other those wolves have moved into portions that are or may be significant Lower 48 United States Entity: California, Oregon, and Washington, (i.e., the core areas of the Great Lakes Determination of Status Throughout All and most recently into Colorado. Those metapopulation) are not in danger of of Its Range extinction or likely to become so in the wolves are not connected biologically to We have determined that Minnesota, the core populations in the combined foreseeable future. Because we could not answer both screening questions in the 44-State entity, and the combined listed entity, and are not biologically listed entity are each not an endangered ‘‘significant’’ to this entity. the affirmative for these portions, we conclude that these portions of the species or a threatened species. We acknowledge that both the West range do not warrant further Therefore, no entity which includes any Coast States and central Rocky consideration as a significant portion of of those components can be in danger of Mountain portions of the combined its range. Therefore, we conclude that extinction or likely to become so in the listed entity may be at greater risk from the combined listed entity is not in foreseeable future throughout all of its human-caused mortality or from factors danger of extinction or likely to become range because we have already conclude related to small numbers of individuals. so in the foreseeable future within a that it is not threatened or endangered However, wolves in these portions are significant portion of its range. throughout some of its range. not meaningful to the redundancy or Nonetheless, below we independently resiliency of the combined listed entity Combined Listed Entity: Final analyze whether the lower 48 United because they occur in extremely small Determination States entity is in danger of extinction numbers and include relatively few After a thorough review of all or likely to become so throughout all of breeding pairs. There are seven known available information and an evaluation its range. Then we turn to the question, breeding pairs in the West Coast States, of the five factors specified in section not already resolved, of whether that and a single group of six known 4(a)(1) of the Act, as well as entity is in danger of extinction or likely individuals in Colorado. Because these consideration of the definitions of to become so in a significant portion of wolves represent the expanding edge of ‘‘threatened species’’ and ‘‘endangered its range. a recovered and stable source species’’ contained in the Act and the At the time gray wolves were first population (the NRM DPS), and are reasons for delisting as specified at 50 listed under the Act in the 1970s, therefore not an independent CFR 424.11(e), we conclude that wolves in the lower 48 United States population within the combined listed removing the two currently listed had been reduced to about 1,000 entity, the relatively small number of entities of gray wolf (Canis lupus) from individuals and extirpated from all of wolves there do not contribute the List of Endangered and Threatened their range except northeastern meaningfully to the ability of any Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is appropriate. Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan, a population to withstand stochastic Although this entity is not a species as small fraction of the species’ historical events, nor to the entire entity’s ability defined under the Act, we have range in the lower 48 United States. The to withstand catastrophic events. These collectively evaluated the current and primary cause of the decline of wolves portions are also not meaningful in potential threats to the combined listed in the lower 48 United States was terms of representation, because (1) gray entity, including those that result from targeted elimination by humans. wolves are a highly adaptable generalist past loss of historical range. Wolves in However, gray wolves are highly carnivore capable of long-distance the combined listed entity do not meet adaptable; their populations are dispersal, and (2) the gray wolves in this the definition of a threatened species or remarkably resilient as long as prey area are an extension of a large an endangered species as a result of the availability, habitat, and regulation of population of wolves in the northern reduction of threats as described in the human-caused mortality are adequate. Rocky Mountains. They are not an analysis of threats and are neither Established wolf populations can isolated population with unique or currently in danger of extinction, nor rapidly overcome severe disruptions, markedly different genotypic or likely to become so in the foreseeable such as pervasive human-caused phenotypic traits that is evolving future, throughout all or a significant mortality or disease, once those separate from other wolf populations. portion of their range. disruptions are removed or reduced. They are also well-represented in the Although substantial contraction of Provided the protections of the Act, lower 48 United States as a result of gray wolf historical range occurred the number of gray wolves in the lower recovery in the NRM DPS. Therefore, we within the combined listed entity since 48 United States (greater than 6,000 do not find that this portion may be European settlement, the range of the wolves) has increased more than sixfold significant to the combined listed entity gray wolf has expanded significantly since the initial listings and about

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69890 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

fivefold since the 1978 reclassification. drift, demographic shifts, and local While the lower 48 United States The range of the species has expanded environmental fluctuations can be entity contains sufficient resiliency, from northeast Minnesota and Isle countered by occasional influxes of redundancy, and representation to Royale, Michigan, to include central and individuals and their genetic diversity sustain the entity over time, the viability northwestern Minnesota, the entire from other subpopulations in the of the entity is increased even further Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and metapopulation. Furthermore, the high via connectivity of the entity to northern and central Wisconsin in the reproductive potential of gray wolves populations in Canada. Connection of Eastern United States. In addition, (USFWS 2020, p. 8) enables them to the Great Lakes metapopulation and wolves in the Western United States withstand increased levels of mortality western U.S. metapopulation to a were functionally extinct at the time of and their ability to disperse long population of about 12,000–14,000 listing, but now viable populations distances allows them to quickly wolves in eastern Canada and 15,000 occupy large portions of Idaho, expand and recolonize vacant habitats gray wolves in western Canada, Montana, Wyoming, eastern (USFWS 2020, p. 7). Gray wolves are respectively, further increases the Washington, and eastern Oregon in the also able to inhabit and survive in a resiliency, and representation (via gene Western United States. They are also variety of habitats and take advantage of flow), of the Great Lakes and western currently expanding from the NRM available food resources (USFWS 2020, U.S. metapopulations, increasing the region into the West Coast States p. 6). viability of the entity. Further, with (western Washington, western Oregon, Gray wolves in the lower 48 United ongoing State management in the NRM northern California), and Colorado. States entity are highly resilient to States, expansion of the western U. S. Despite the substantial increase in perturbations because of their metapopulation into unoccupied gray wolf numbers and distribution abundance and broad distribution suitable habitat in the West is likely to within the lower 48 United States since across high-quality habitat in the entity. continue, as envisioned in State wolf 1978, the species currently occupies Biological factors also play an important conservation and management plans, only a small portion of its historical part in the resiliency of wolves in the further increasing the resiliency and range within this area. This loss of entity, namely their high reproductive redundancy of the lower 48 United historical range has resulted in a States entity in the future. capacity and genetic diversity. The large reduction of gray wolf individuals, Our conclusion that the lower 48 sizes of the two metapopulations in the populations, and suitable habitat within United States entity is not currently in entity, the high quality of the habitat the lower 48 United States compared to danger of extinction in all of its range historical levels. Changes resulting from they occupy, and those biological is consistent with our historical view of range contraction for the lower 48 factors provide the entity resiliency in the recovery of the species. We have United States have increased the the face of stochastic (random) long considered gray wolf recovery in vulnerability of the lower 48 United variability (annual environmental the lower 48 states to mean recovery in States entity to threats such as reduced fluctuations in, for example, prey three regions: The NRM, Eastern United genetic diversity and restricted gene availability, pockets of disease States, and, as explained above, flow (reduced representation), outbreaks; periodic disturbances, and Southwestern United States. Wolves in catastrophic events (reduced anthropogenic stressors). Further, the the Southwestern United States redundancy), or stochastic disturbances two metapopulations and their broad (Mexican wolves) are listed separately (reduced resiliency), such as annual distribution across several States with ongoing recovery efforts, and that environmental fluctuations (prey provides the entity the redundancy to listing is not affected by this final rule. availability, pockets of disease survive a catastrophic event because Wolves in the remaining two regions, outbreaks) and anthropogenic stressors. such an event is unlikely to the NRM and Eastern United States, Wolves in the lower 48 United States simultaneously affect gray wolf exist in two metapopulations that now exist primarily as two large, populations in all the States across greatly exceed the recovery criteria for genetically diverse, stable to growing which these metapopulations are gray wolves in each region. Gray wolves metapopulations, one currently distributed. Lastly, the gray wolf is a in the NRM and Eastern United States numbering over 4,200 individuals in the highly adaptable species that can (the Great Lakes area) meet the long- Eastern United States (in the Great inhabit a variety of ecosystem types and held recovery criteria set by the NRM Lakes area) and another numbering exploit available food resources in a Recovery Team and Eastern Timber about 1,900 individuals in 2015 in the diversity of areas. Genetic, general size, Wolf Recovery Team (respectively) Western United States (in the NRM and habitat, and dietary differences between because these areas contain sufficient West Coast States) (figure 3). The gray wolves currently found in the wolf numbers and distribution, threats current number of individuals in the Eastern United States (Great Lakes area) have been alleviated, and the States and western U. S. metapopulation is similar and Western United States (NRM and Tribes are committed to continued to that in 2015, and this metapopulation West Coast States) provide the entity management such that the long-term is currently recolonizing western additional adaptive capacity. Thus, the survival of the gray wolf in these two Washington, western Oregon, northern lower 48 United States entity contains regions is ensured. Although there is no California, and Colorado. Gray wolf sufficient capacity to adapt to future requirement that the criteria in a metapopulations—populations that are changes in the environment such that recovery plan be satisfied before a connected to and interact with other their long-term survival is assured. In species may be delisted, the fact that populations of the same species—are sum, wolves in the Eastern and Western wolves in the NRM and Eastern United widely recognized as being more secure United States contain sufficient States regions have met the recovery over the long term than are several resiliency, redundancy, and criteria supports our conclusion that the isolated populations that contain the representation to sustain populations in metapopulations together contain same total number of packs and the lower 48 United States entity over sufficient wolf numbers and distribution individuals (USFWS 1994, appendix 9). time. This alone is sufficient for us to to ensure the long-term survival of the This outcome is because adverse effects determine that the lower 48 United lower 48 United States entity. experienced by one of its States entity is not currently in danger The recovery of the lower 48 United subpopulations resulting from genetic of extinction throughout all of its range. States entity is attributable primarily to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69891

successful interagency cooperation in adjusts harvest based on population Management Zone A (Federal Wolf the management of human-caused estimates and trends, the initial Management Zones 1–4), Wisconsin mortality. That mortality is the most objectives of States may be to reduce Wolf Zone 1, and the Upper Peninsula significant barrier to the long-term wolf populations and then manage for of Michigan in the Eastern United conservation of wolves. We expect that sustainable populations, similar to how States, and large areas of Idaho, wildlife managers will implement, or States manage all other game species. Montana, and Wyoming in the Western continue to use, an adaptive For example, in 2013–2014, during a United States, will maintain their management approach to wolves that period when gray wolves were federally suitability into the foreseeable future. ensures maintenance of a recovered delisted in the Great Lakes area, Therefore, we conclude that, despite the wolf population into the foreseeable Wisconsin reduced the State’s wolf loss of large areas of historical range in future. Legal harvest and lethal control harvest quota by 43 percent in response the lower 48 United States, the States of to reduce depredations on livestock are to a population count that was lower Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin in the primary human-caused mortality than expected compared to the previous the East and Idaho, Montana, and factors that State, Tribal, and Federal year. Wyoming, in the West contain a Based on our analysis, we conclude agencies can manipulate to achieve sufficient amount of high-quality wolf that eastern U.S. States will maintain, management objectives and minimize habitat to support viable and recovered depredation risk once delisting occurs. and NRM States will continue to In the Western United States, the maintain, wolf populations that will wolf populations into the foreseeable NRM States have successfully managed remain above recovery levels for the future. Further, Washington, Oregon, for sustainable wolf populations since foreseeable future because the threat of California, Colorado, and Utah contain the NRM DPS was first delisted in unregulated human-caused mortality suitable wolf habitat, much of which is 2008–2009 (Idaho, Montana, eastern has been sufficiently reduced. The NRM currently unoccupied, that is capable of one-third of Washington and Oregon, States have successfully managed gray supporting additional wolves. north-central Utah) and 2008 and 2012 wolves well above recovery levels for Expansion of the NRM population into (Wyoming). Even with increased levels years and we have no reason to believe unoccupied suitable habitat in the of human-caused mortality, gray wolf this will change. As demonstrated by Western United States is ongoing and is numbers have remained relatively stable current State management, maintenance likely to continue post-delisting, which in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming since of the recovered wolf population in the will increase wolf abundance and the delisting of the NRM DPS and have NRM States is likely to continue, distribution in the United States. increased in the broader Western United providing ample opportunities for Although wolves in these areas would States as NRM wolves have expanded wolves to continue to recolonize vacant add additional redundancy, they are not their range into the Washington and suitable habitat in the West. In the necessary in order to conserve wolves to Oregon part of the NRM DPS, the West Eastern United States, States have wolf- the point that they no longer meet the Coast States (western Washington, management laws, plans, and definitions of endangered or threatened western Oregon, and northern regulations that adequately regulate under the Act. California), and Colorado. human-caused mortality and each has While disease and parasites can The core NRM wolf populations occur committed to manage its wolf temporarily affect individuals, specific in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. population at or above recovery levels. packs, or small, isolated populations These States have demonstrated their We expect this commitment to continue (e.g., Isle Royale), seldom do they pose commitment to managing their wolf into the foreseeable future. Wolf- a significant threat to large wolf populations at or above recovery levels monitoring programs, as described in populations (e.g., core populations in for years, and we do not expect this the State wolf-management plans, are the western United States and Great commitment to change. Further, while likely to identify population parameters Lakes area) as a whole. As long as wolf State wolf-management plans for and trends that warrant corrective populations are managed above Washington, Oregon, and California do action, and we have no information that recovery levels, these factors are not not yet include population management would lead us to question the likely to threaten the viability of the goals, these plans include recovery commitment of wildlife management wolf population in the lower 48 United objectives intended to ensure the agencies to implementing these adaptive States entity at any point in the reestablishment of self-sustaining changes to ensure the recovered status populations in these States. We expect of wolves. Based on our review, we foreseeable future. Similarly, while Washington, Oregon, and California will conclude that regulatory mechanisms changes in genetic diversity or manage wolves through appropriate are adequate to maintain the recovered population structuring may occur post- laws and regulations to ensure that the status of wolves in the two delisting, they are not likely to be of recovery objectives outlined in their metapopulations in the lower 48 United such a magnitude that they pose a respective wolf management plans are States and, consequently, the lower 48 significant threat to the entity; available achieved. United States entity, once the currently evidence indicates that continued Wolves in the Eastern United States listed gray wolf entities are federally dispersal, even at a lower rate, within are well above Federal recovery levels delisted. and among areas of the lower 48 United defined in the revised Eastern Timber Although much of the historical range States will be adequate to maintain Wolf Recovery Plan. As a result, we can of the lower 48 United States is no sufficient genetic diversity for expect to see some reduction in wolf longer occupied, we find that the continued viability. Climate change is populations in the Great Lakes area as amount and distribution of occupied also likely to remain an insignificant States begin to institute management wolf habitat currently provides, and will factor affecting the population dynamics strategies designed to stabilize or continue to provide, large core areas of wolves into the foreseeable future, reverse population growth, while that contain high-quality habitat of due to the adaptability of the species. continuing to maintain wolf populations sufficient size and with sufficient prey Finally, based on our analysis, we well above Federal recovery levels in to support recovered wolf populations. conclude that cumulative effects of their respective States. Using an Our analysis of land management shows threats do not now, nor are likely to adaptive-management approach that these areas, specifically Minnesota Wolf within the foreseeable future, threaten

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69892 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

the viability of the lower 48 United Therefore, after assessing the best metapopulation or, in the case of Isle States entity throughout its range. available information, despite the large Royale, are genetically isolated. Thus, We have carefully assessed the best amount of lost historical range (see these portions do not contribute to the scientific and commercial information Historical Context of Our Analysis), we overall demographic or genetic diversity available regarding the past, present, have determined that the lower 48 of the lower 48 United States entity, and and future threats to the lower 48 United States entity is not in danger of they lack genetic uniqueness relative to United States. We evaluated the status extinction throughout all of its range, other wolves in the entity. Further, gray of the lower 48 United States entity and nor is it likely to become so in the wolves are a highly adaptable species assessed the factors likely to negatively foreseeable future. with high dispersal capability, thus affect it, including threats identified at Because we determined that the lower allowing them to adapt to changing listing, at the time of reclassification, 48 United States entity is not in danger environmental conditions. Therefore, now, and into the foreseeable future. of extinction or likely to become so in we do not find that these portions may While wolves currently occupy only a the foreseeable future throughout all of be ‘‘significant’’ because they are not portion of their historical range in the its range, we will consider whether biologically meaningful to the lower 48 lower 48 United States, the best there are any significant portions of its United States entity in terms of its available information indicates that the range that are in danger of extinction or resiliency, redundancy, or lower 48 United States entity does not likely to become so in the foreseeable representation. meet the definition of an endangered future. Second, portions peripheral to the species or a threatened species because western United Sates metapopulation Lower 48 United States Entity: of any one or a combination of the five within the lower 48 United States entity Determination of Status Throughout a factors set forth in the Act. that may frequently contain lone Significant Portion of Its Range Specifically, we have determined, dispersing wolves or contain relatively based on the best available information, After reviewing the biology of the few wolves (e.g., central Rocky that human-caused mortality (Factor C); lower 48 United States entity and Mountains, western Washington, habitat and prey availability (Factor A); potential threats, we have not identified western Oregon, northern California) disease and parasites (Factor C); genetic any portions of the entity’s range for may be at greater risk from human- diversity and inbreeding (Factor E); which both (1) gray wolves may be in caused mortality or from factors related commercial, recreational, scientific, or danger of extinction or likely to become to small numbers of individuals. educational uses (Factor B); climate so in the foreseeable future (i.e., areas in However, wolves in these portions are change (Factor E); or other threats, which threats may be concentrated) and not meaningful to resiliency or singly or in combination, are not of (2) the portion may be significant. We redundancy because they contain few sufficient imminence, intensity, or reiterate that ‘‘range’’ refers to the wolves, or few or no breeding pairs. magnitude to indicate that the lower 48 general geographical area within which They are not contributing to United States entity is in danger of the species is found at the time of our representation because they dispersed extinction or likely to become so within determination (see Definition and or descend from the core wolf the foreseeable future throughout all of Treatment of Range). ‘‘Portion of its populations in the NRM. Thus, these its range. We have also determined that range’’ refers to the members of the portions do not contribute to the overall ongoing recovery efforts, which resulted species that occur in a particular demographic or genetic diversity of the in a significant expansion of the geographic area of the species’ current lower 48 United States entity and they occupied range of and number of wolves range. This is because, while ‘‘portion of lack genetic uniqueness relative to other in the lower 48 United States over the the range’’ is part of the species’ range wolves in the entity. Further, gray past decades, in conjunction with (i.e., a geographical area), when we wolves are a highly adaptable species regulatory mechanisms developed and evaluate a significant portion of its with high dispersal capability, thus implemented by State, Tribal, and range, we consider the contribution of allowing them to adapt to changing Federal managers, are or will be the individuals that are in that portion environmental conditions. Therefore, adequate to ensure the conservation of at the time we make a determination. we do not find that these portions may wolves in the lower 48 United States. While we identified some portions that be ‘‘significant’’ because they are not These recovery efforts will maintain an may be at increased risk from human- biologically meaningful to the lower 48 adequate prey base, preserve denning caused mortality or factors related to United States entity in terms of its and rendezvous sites, monitor disease, small numbers, we did not find that any resiliency, redundancy, or regulate human take, and maintain wolf of these portions may be significant. We representation. populations well above the recovery provide our analysis below. Third, State wolf-management zones criteria established in the revised First, portions peripheral to the Great in which post-delisting depredation Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan and Lakes metapopulation within the lower control would be, or is, allowed under NRM recovery plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 48 United States that may frequently a broader set of circumstances than in 25–28; USFWS 1987, p. 12). Based on contain lone dispersing wolves (e.g., the core population zones (and, thus, would our analysis of threats we conclude that, Lower Peninsula of Michigan, North likely experience higher levels of as long as wolf populations in the and South Dakota) or contain relatively human-caused mortality when the Eastern United States are maintained at few wolves (e.g., Isle Royale) may be at currently listed C. lupus entities are or above identified recovery levels and greater risk from human-caused delisted), such as Minnesota Wolf core wolf populations in the NRM States mortality or from factors related to small Management Zone B, Wisconsin Wolf continue to be maintained well above numbers of individuals. However, Management Zones 3 and 4, and areas recovery levels, wolf biology (namely wolves in these portions are not of Wyoming in which wolves are the species’ reproductive capacity and meaningful to resiliency or redundancy managed as predators, may be at greater dispersal capability) and the availability because they contain few wolves, or few risk from human-caused mortality or of large, secure blocks of suitable habitat or no breeding pairs. They are not from factors related to small numbers of within the occupied areas will allow contributing to representation because individuals. However, the wolves in wolf populations to withstand all other they dispersed or descend from the core these portions occur on the periphery of foreseeable threats. wolf populations in the Great Lakes large populations, occur in areas of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69893

limited habitat suitability, and do not and (2) the portion may be significant. efforts), and the effects of that contribute appreciably to (and are thus As discussed above, some may be in contraction (for example, reduced not biologically meaningful to) the danger of extinction or likely to become numbers of individuals and resiliency, redundancy, or so in the foreseeable future, but we do populations, and restricted gene flow), representation of the lower 48 United not find that these portions may be in addition to the effects of all other States entity. significant under any reasonable threats, have been ameliorated or Wolves in these higher intensity definition of that term because they are reduced such that the lower 48 United management zones are not meaningful not biologically meaningful to the lower States entity does not meet the Act’s to the resiliency of the lower 48 United 48 United States entity in terms of its definitions of ‘‘threatened species’’ or States entity because, even though they resiliency, redundancy, or ‘‘endangered species.’’ may contain multiple established packs representation. Conversely, other Determination of Species Status: in addition to lone wolves, they portions that are or may be significant Conclusion constitute a small proportion of wolves (i.e., the core areas of the Great Lakes in their respective populations and, and western U.S. metapopulations) are Gray wolves were listed under the Act consequently, the lower 48 United not in danger of extinction or likely to in the 1970s, when the species States entity (Minnesota Zone B become so in the foreseeable future. numbered only about 1,000 individuals contains about 15 percent of the Therefore, because we could not answer and occupied only northeastern Minnesota wolf population, Wisconsin both screening questions in the Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan, a Zones 3 and 4 contain about 6 percent affirmative for these portions, we small fraction of its historical range in of the Wisconsin wolf population, and conclude that these portions of the the lower 48 United States. Since then, the Wyoming predator zone contains range do not warrant further our longstanding approach to gray wolf about 8 percent of the Wyoming wolf consideration as a significant portion of recovery has been to establish healthy population (based on an estimated its range. Therefore, we conclude that populations of gray wolves in three population of 26 wolves in this zone in the lower 48 United States entity is not areas of ecological or genetic diversity: 2019)). Thus, wolves in the higher in danger of extinction or likely to The Western United States (the NRM), intensity management zones do not become so in the foreseeable future the Eastern United States, and the contribute meaningfully to the ability of within a significant portion of its range. Southwestern United States. In two of wolves in the lower 48 United States those areas—the NRM and Eastern entity to withstand stochastic processes. Lower 48 United States Entity: Final United States—wolves are now Likewise, these higher intensity Determination recovered. As a result, gray wolves in management zones are not meaningful After a thorough review of all the lower 48 states (excepting the to the redundancy of the lower 48 available information and an evaluation Mexican wolf) are recovered. The United States entity because wolves in of the five factors specified in section western U.S. metapopulation, with these zones represent a relatively small 4(a)(1) of the Act, as well as stable populations of about 1,900 number and distribution of packs or consideration of the definitions of wolves (in 2015) distributed across individuals in their respective States, ‘‘threatened species’’ and ‘‘endangered several States, has been delisted for and we found no indication that species’’ contained in the Act and the years and remains recovered. The catastrophic events are likely to occur at reasons for delisting as specified at 50 successful recovery of wolves in the a scale that would impact the long-term CFR 424.11(e), we conclude that NRM is highlighted by the recent and survival of wolves throughout these removing gray wolves currently listed in ongoing extension of the population States. Thus, wolves in these higher the lower 48 United States from the List farther westward, into western intensity management zones do not of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Washington, western Oregon, northern contribute meaningfully to the ability of (50 CFR 17.11) is appropriate. Although California, and southward into wolf populations in these States, the this entity is not a species as defined Colorado. The Great Lakes two metapopulations, or, consequently, under the Act, we have collectively metapopulation, with stable or growing the lower 48 United States entity, to evaluated the current and potential populations totaling over 4,200 wolves withstand catastrophic events. Wolves threats to the lower 48 United States in three States, is also recovered for the in these higher intensity management entity, including those that result from reasons explained in this final rule. In zones are not meaningful to the past loss of historical range. Wolves in the third area on which we have focused representation of the lower 48 United the lower 48 United States entity do not our recovery efforts—the Southwestern States entity because they are meet the definition of a threatened United States—the Mexican wolf genetically similar to other wolves in species or an endangered species as a subspecies of gray wolf is now the western U.S. or Great Lakes result of the reduction of threats as separately listed as an endangered metapopulation and because gray described in the analysis of threats and species and has not yet recovered. wolves are a highly adaptable species are neither currently in danger of Recovery and delisting of gray wolves in with high dispersal capability, thus extinction, nor likely to become so in the NRM and Eastern United States is allowing them to adapt to changing the foreseeable future, throughout all or consistent with the requirements of the environmental conditions. Therefore, a significant portion of their range. Act and will further its conservation we do not find that these portions may Although substantial contraction of purposes by allowing us to focus our be significant because they are not gray wolf historical range occurred recovery efforts on imperiled wolves in biologically meaningful to the lower 48 within the lower 48 United States entity the Southwestern United States. United States entity in terms of its since European settlement, the range of resiliency, redundancy, or the gray wolf has expanded significantly Effects of This Rule representation. since its original listing in 1978, and the This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) by We conclude that there are no impacts of lost historical range are no removing the two existing C. lupus portions of the lower 48 United States longer manifesting in a way that listed entities from the Federal List of entity for which both (1) gray wolves threatens the viability of the species. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. may be in danger of extinction or likely The causes of the previous contraction This rule also removes the special to become so in the foreseeable future (for example, targeted extermination regulations found at 50 CFR 17.40(d) for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 69894 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

wolves in Minnesota and the occur in small numbers and are part of all three State Departments of Natural designation of critical habitat found at the recovered and delisted population of Resources have committed to continue 50 CFR 17.95(a) for gray wolves in gray wolves in the NRM DPS. In the their previous wolf-population- Minnesota and on Isle Royale, NRM states, post-delisting monitoring is monitoring methodology, or will make Michigan. either already completed (Idaho and changes to that methodology only if Montana) or currently in place those changes will not reduce the Post-delisting Monitoring (Wyoming). This rule does not affect the comparability of pre- and post-delisting Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in status of wolves in the NRM DPS data. Occupancy modeling has emerged the 1988 reauthorization, requires us to because they are already delisted and as a scientifically valid technique for implement a system, in cooperation we are not revisiting that determination. estimating population size (Rich et al. with the States, to monitor for not less Thus, even though we evaluated a lower 2013, entire; Ausband et al. 2014, entire) than 5 years the status of all species that 48 United States entity, the wolves in and is currently used by numerous have recovered and been removed from the NRM states are not included in our States to track wolf numbers (e.g., Idaho, the Lists of Endangered and Threatened post-delisting monitoring activities for Minnesota, Montana). Wisconsin has Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and this rule. begun to explore using data from 17.12). The purpose of this post- We will monitor wolves in the Great traditional track surveys and radio- delisting monitoring (PDM) is to verify Lakes area in accordance with our collared wolves in an occupancy that a species delisted due to recovery February 2008 Post-Delisting modeling framework to develop model- remains secure from risk of extinction Monitoring Plan for the Western Great driven estimates of wolf population after it no longer has the protections of Lakes Distinct Population Segment of size. However, current count-based the Act. To do this, PDM generally the Gray Wolf, which we developed estimates based on track surveys and focuses on evaluating (1) demographic with the assistance of the Eastern data from radio-collared wolves will characteristics of the species, (2) threats Timber Wolf Recovery Team. continue to be reported in future years, to the species, and (3) implementation The 2008 plan, although written for a ensuring comparability of pre- and post- of legal and/or management distinct population segment that no delisting population size estimates and commitments that have been identified longer exists, is still applicable within allowing validation of estimates derived as important in reducing threats to the the Great Lakes area because it focuses from occupancy models. Wisconsin may species or maintaining threats at on monitoring wolves within the modify data collection methods in the sufficiently low levels. Under section borders of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and future to more fully embrace the 4(g)(2) of the Act, we are required to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and occupancy modeling approach, but only make prompt use of the emergency- we have determined that there is no after validation of occupancy models for listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of new information that would cause us to a minimum of 3 years and in the Act to prevent a significant risk to revise the plan. The plan is available on consultation with Service staff. the well-being of any recovered species. our website at https://www.fws.gov/ In addition to monitoring wolf Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly midwest/wolf/population/index.html. population numbers and trends, post- requires cooperation with the States in Under the plan, we will rely on a delisting monitoring will evaluate post- development and implementation of continuation of State monitoring delisting threats, in particular human- PDM programs. However, we remain activities, similar to those that have caused mortality, disease, and responsible for compliance with section been conducted by the Minnesota, implementation of legal and 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively Wisconsin, and Michigan Departments management commitments. If at any engaged in all phases of PDM. We also of Natural Resources in recent years, time during the monitoring period we will seek active participation of other and Tribal monitoring. These activities detect a substantial downward change State and Federal agencies or Tribal will include both population monitoring in the populations or an increase in governments that are expected to and health monitoring of individual threats to the degree that population assume management authority for the wolves. During the PDM period, the viability may be threatened, we will species’ conservation. In some cases, Service will conduct a review of the work with the States and Tribes to agencies have already devoted monitoring data and program. We will evaluate and change (intensify, extend, significant resources toward wolf consider various relevant factors and/or otherwise improve) the monitoring efforts. (including, but not limited to, mortality monitoring methods, if appropriate, and Our monitoring activities will focus rates, population changes and rates of consider relisting the gray wolf, if on wolves within Minnesota, change, disease occurrence, and range warranted. Wisconsin, and Michigan. Although the expansion or contraction) to determine We will implement post-delisting entities evaluated in this rule include if the population of wolves within the monitoring for 5 years beyond the wolves outside of those states, we have borders of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and effective date of this rule (see DATES, determined that it is appropriate to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan above). We believe that 5 years of post- focus on the Great Lakes area because it warrants expanded monitoring, delisting monitoring is sufficient for the includes the currently-listed Minnesota additional research, consideration for reasons stated in the 2008 plan: (1) The entity and that portion of the 44-State relisting as threatened or endangered, or Great Lakes population is estimated to entity that is most significant in terms emergency listing. be several times greater than the of vulnerability of the species following Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan numerical delisting criteria in the removal of the Act’s protections. Departments of Natural Resources have recovery plan; and (2) we do not Therefore, by evaluating the monitoring monitored wolves for several decades envision any threat or combination of data from the Great Lakes states, we can with significant assistance from threats that is or are likely to lead to a effectively monitor the status of the numerous partners, including the U.S. rapid decline in wolf numbers in those species. As explained above (see Forest Service, National Park Service, states. At the end of the 5-year Determination of Species Status), Wildlife Services, Tribal natural monitoring period, we will conduct a wolves occupying other portions of the resource agencies, and the Service. To final review and we may request lower 48 United States (the West Coast maximize comparability of future PDM reviews by former members of the States and the central Rocky Mountains) data with data obtained before delisting, Eastern Gray Wolf Recovery Team and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 69895

other independent specialists. We will We coordinated the proposed rule www.regulations.gov under Docket No. post the results of the review on our with the affected Tribes and, FWS–HQ–ES–2018–0097 or upon website. Based on the final review, we furthermore, throughout several years of request from the Service’s Headquarters will determine whether to continue development of earlier related rules and Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION monitoring and evaluate whether the the March 15, 2019, proposed rule, we CONTACT). gray wolf meets the definition of a have endeavored to consult with Native Authors threatened species or an endangered American Tribes and Native American species. organizations in order to both (1) The primary authors of this rule are provide them with a complete Service staff members. Required Determinations understanding of the changes, and (2) to List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 National Environmental Policy Act understand their concerns with those changes. Upon publication of the Endangered and threatened species, We determined that we do not need proposed rule, we invited federally Exports, Imports, Reporting and to prepare an environmental assessment recognized Tribes to consult on a recordkeeping requirements, or an environmental impact statement, government-to-government basis on our Transportation. as defined under the authority of the March 15, 2019, proposed rule. We also National Environmental Policy Act of presented an overview of the proposed Regulation Promulgation 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in rule at the 37th Annual-Native Accordingly, we hereby amend part connection with regulations adopted American Fish and Wildlife Society 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We Conference. In preparation of this rule, the Code of Federal Regulations, as set published a notice outlining our reasons we met with the Chippewa Ottawa forth below: for this determination in the Federal Resources Authority Board and the Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 49244). Commission’s Voigt Inter-Tribal Task THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS Force to discuss the proposal. We also Government-to-Government offered to meet individually with and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 Relationship With Tribes discuss the proposal with any Tribe that continues to read as follows: wanted to do so and met with the Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– In accordance with the President’s Keweenaw Bay Indian Community memorandum of April 29, 1994, 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise Natural Resources Program, Fond du noted. Government-to-Government Relations Lac Band of Chippewa Indians, and the with Native American Tribal Nez Perce. Additionally, we have fully § 17.11 [Amended] Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, considered all of the comments on the ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing both and the Department of the Interior’s proposed rule submitted by Tribes and entries for ‘‘Wolf, gray (Canis lupus)’’ manual at 512 DM 2, we readily Tribal organizations and have attempted acknowledge our responsibility to to address concerns, new data, and new under Mammals in the List of communicate meaningfully with information where appropriate. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. recognized Federal Tribes on a If requested, we will conduct § 17.40 [Amended] government-to-government basis. In additional consultations with Native accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 American Tribes and multi-Tribal ■ 3. Amend § 17.40 by removing and of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal organizations subsequent to this final reserving paragraph (d). Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust rule to facilitate the transition to State § 17.95 [Amended] Responsibilities, and the Endangered and Tribal management of wolves Species Act), we readily acknowledge within the lower 48 United States ■ 4. Amend § 17.95(a) by removing the our responsibilities to work directly outside of the NRM DPS, where wolves critical habitat entry for ‘‘Gray Wolf with Tribes in developing programs for are already under State and Tribal (Canis lupus).’’ healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that management. Tribal lands are not subject to the same Aurelia Skipwith, controls as Federal public lands, to References Cited Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. remain sensitive to Indian culture, and A complete list of all references cited [FR Doc. 2020–24171 Filed 11–2–20; 8:45 am] to make information available to Tribes. in this rule is available at http:// BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:38 Nov 02, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03NOR3.SGM 03NOR3 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3