Vol. 76 Thursday, No. 87 May 5, 2011

Part III

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife for the Gray ( lupus) in the Eastern United States, Initiation of Status Reviews for the Gray Wolf and for the Eastern Wolf (Canis ); Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26086 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR initiation of status reviews specific to Public Comments gray in the Pacific Northwest We intend that any final action Fish and Wildlife Service and Mexican wolves in the Southwest resulting from this proposal will be as United States and Mexico. accurate and as effective as possible. 50 CFR Part 17 DATES: Comment submission: We will Therefore, comments, new information, [Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2011–0029; accept comments received or or suggestions from the public, other 92220–1113–000; ABC Code: C6] postmarked on or before July 5, 2011. concerned governmental agencies, the Public hearings: We will hold two scientific community, industry, or any RIN 1018–AX57 public hearings on this proposed rule other interested party concerning this Endangered and Threatened Wildlife scheduled on May 18, 2011 and on June proposed rule are hereby solicited. In and Plants; Proposed Rule To Revise 8, 2011. Informational meetings will be particular, we are seeking targeted the List of Endangered and Threatened held from 6 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., followed information and comments on our Wildlife for the Gray Wolf (Canis by the public hearings from 7:30 p.m. to national wolf strategy and our proposed lupus) in the Eastern United States, 9 p.m. revision of the listing; see Initiation of Status Reviews for the ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You items (1)-(2) below. Also, as part of this Gray Wolf and for the Eastern Wolf may submit comments by one of the proposed rule we are announcing (Canis lycaon) following methods: initiation of a 5-year status review for C. Electronically: Go to the Federal lupus in the conterminous United States AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, eRulemaking Portal: http:// and Mexico; initiation of status reviews Interior. www.regulations.gov. In the Enter specific to, respectively, gray wolves in ACTION: Proposed rule, initiation of Keyword or ID box, enter FWS–R3–ES– the Pacific Northwest and in the status reviews. 2011–0029, which is the docket number Southwest United States and Mexico; for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search and initiation of a status review for C. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and panel at the top of the screen, under the lycaon throughout its range in the Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) are Document Type heading, click on the United States and Canada. For these re-evaluating the listing of the Proposed Rules link to locate this status reviews to be complete and based Minnesota population of gray wolves document. You may submit a comment on the best available scientific and (Canis lupus) and propose to revise it to by clicking on ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ commercial information, we request conform to current statutory and policy By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or information on items (9)–(11) below requirements. We propose to identify hand-delivery to: Public Comments from governmental agencies, Native the Minnesota population as a Western Processing, Attn: FWS–R3–ES–2011– American Tribes, the scientific Great Lakes (WGL) Distinct Population 0029; Division of Policy and Directives community, industry, and any other Segment (DPS) of the gray wolf and to Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife interested parties. remove this DPS from the List of Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS (1) Biological, commercial trade, or Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. other relevant information concerning We propose these actions because the We will post all comments on http:// our analysis of the current gray wolf best available scientific and commercial www.regulations.gov. This generally listing and the adequacy of our national information indicates that the WGL DPS means that we will post any personal wolf strategy, with particular respect to does not meet the definitions of information you provide us (see the our recommended gray wolf listing threatened or endangered under the Act. Public Comments section below for units (i.e., taxonomic or population This proposed rule, if made final, more information). units); would remove the currently designated Public hearings: We have scheduled (2) Information that forms the basis critical habitat for the gray wolf in an informational meeting followed by a for revising the currently listed Minnesota and and the public hearing in Ashland, , Minnesota group of gray wolves under current special regulations for gray on May 18, 2011, at the Northern Great section 4(c) of the wolves in Minnesota. We also propose Lakes Center, 29270 County Highway G. Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 to revise the range of the gray wolf (the We have scheduled an informational U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), with particular species C. lupus) by removing all or meeting followed by a public hearing in respect to the factors in section 4(a) of parts of 29 eastern states that we now Augusta, , on June 8, 2011, at the the Act, which are: recognize were not part of the historical Augusta Civic Center, 16 Cony Street. (a) The present or threatened range of the gray wolf. New information See the Public Hearings section below destruction, modification, or indicates that these areas should not for more details. curtailment of its habitat or range; have been included in the original (b) Overutilization for commercial, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: listing of the gray wolf. recreational, scientific, or educational Laura Ragan, 612–713–5350. Direct all In this proposed rule, we recognize purposes; questions or requests for additional recent taxonomic information indicating (c) Disease or predation; information to: GRAY WOLF that the gray wolf subspecies Canis (d) The inadequacy of existing QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife lupus lycaon should be elevated to the regulatory mechanisms; or Service, Federal Building, 1 Federal full species C. lycaon. Given that a (e) Other natural or manmade factors Drive, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 55111– complete status review of this newly affecting its continued existence. recognized species has never been 4056. Additional information is also (3) Biological, commercial trade, or conducted, we are initiating a available on our Web site at http:// other relevant data concerning any rangewide review of the conservation www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf. Individuals current or likely future threat, or lack status of C. lycaon in the United States who are hearing-impaired or speech- thereof, to wolves in the WGL DPS; and Canada. This rule also constitutes impaired may call the Federal Relay (4) Additional information concerning the initiation of our five-year review of Service at 1–800–877–8337 for TTY the range, distribution, population size, the status of gray wolves under section assistance. population trends, and threats with 4(c)(2) of the Act, as well as the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: respect to wolves in the WGL DPS;

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26087

(5) Current or planned activities in the (b) Genetics and ; Ashland, Wisconsin, on May 18, 2011, WGL DPS and their possible impacts on (c) Historical and current range at the Northern Great Lakes Center, the wolves and their habitat; including distribution patterns; 29270 County Highway G. The (6) Information concerning the (d) Historical and current population informational meeting will be held from adequacy of the recovery criteria levels, and current and projected trends; 6 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., followed by a public described in the 1992 Recovery Plan for (e) Historical, current, and projected hearing from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. the Eastern Timber Wolf; levels of suitable habitat; A second informational meeting (7) The extent and adequacy of (f) Past, ongoing, and emerging threats followed by a public hearing will be Federal, state, and Tribal protection and to extant populations, their habitat, or held in Augusta, Maine, on June 8, management that would be provided to both; 2011, at the Augusta Civic Center, 16 wolves in the WGL DPS as delisted (g) Past and ongoing conservation Cony Street. The informational meeting species; and measures for the species, its habitat, or will be held from 6 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., (8) The proposed geographic both; and followed by a public hearing from 7:30 boundaries of the WGL DPS, and (h) The potential role that any portion p.m. to 9 p.m. scientific and legal supporting of the historical range of the C. lycaon information for alternative boundaries in the United States may play in the Peer Review that might result in a larger or smaller persistence and viability of the species. In accordance with our policy, DPS, including information on the You may submit your comments and ‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative discreteness and significance of the materials by one of the methods listed Policy for Peer Review in Endangered proposed DPS. in ADDRESSES. We will not accept Species Act Activities,’’ which was (9) New information concerning the comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR biology and conservation of the gray address not listed in ADDRESSES. 34270), we will seek the expert opinion wolf in the conterminous United States Comments must be submitted to http: of at least three appropriate and Mexico that may be informative to //www.regulations.gov before midnight independent specialists regarding the 5-year status review of Canis lupus, (Eastern Daylight Time) on the date scientific data and interpretations with particular attention to the listing specified in DATES. Finally, we will not contained in this proposed rule. The units described under (1) above, consider hand-delivered comments that purpose of such review is to ensure that including: we do not receive, or mailed comments our decisions are based on scientifically (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, that are not postmarked, by the date sound data, assumptions, and analysis. breeding, and sheltering; specified in DATES. We will send copies of this proposed (b) Genetics and taxonomy; We will post your entire comment— rule to the peer reviewers immediately (c) Historical and current range including your personal identifying following publication in the Federal including distribution patterns; information—on http:// Register. (d) Historical and current population www.regulations.gov. If you provide levels, and current and projected trends; personal identifying information, such Background (e) Historical, current, and projected as your street address, phone number, or National Overview levels of suitable gray wolf habitat; e-mail address, you may request at the (f) Past, ongoing, and emerging threats top of your document that we withhold Below we provide an overview of our to extant gray wolf populations, their this information from public review. proposed national approach to recovery habitat, or both; and However, we cannot guarantee that we of wolves in the conterminous United (g) Past and ongoing conservation will be able to do so. States and Mexico. This overview measures for the gray wolf, its habitat, Comments and materials we receive, provides the context for our proposed or both. as well as supporting documentation we actions for wolves in the eastern United (10) Information concerning the status used in preparing this proposed rule, States. In this overview, we discuss the of the gray wolf in the Pacific Northwest will be available for public inspection listing history for the gray wolf, evaluate United States and the gray wolf on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket the current gray wolf listing, present the subspecies baileyi () in the No. FWS–R3–ES–2011–0029, or by structured decision-making process we Southwest United States and Mexico, appointment, during normal business have used to date to formulate our including: hours at the following Ecological national wolf strategy, and describe the (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, Services offices: strategy itself. • breeding, and sheltering; Twin Cities, Minnesota Ecological Gray Wolf Listing History (b) Genetics and taxonomy; Services Field Office, 4101 American (c) Historical and current range Blvd. E., Bloomington, MN; 612–725– Here we present a brief overview of including distribution patterns; 3548. previous Federal actions relating to the (d) Historical and current population • Green Bay, Wisconsin Ecological listing of gray wolves and the recovery levels, and current and projected trends; Services Field Office, 2661 Scott Tower plans that have been developed (e) Historical, current, and projected Dr., New Franken, WI; 920–866–1717. pursuant to these listing actions. levels of suitable habitat; • East Lansing, Michigan Ecological Additional Federal actions for western (f) Past, ongoing, and emerging threats Services Field Office, 2651 Coolidge Great Lakes wolves are discussed in to these populations, their habitat, or Road, Suite 101, East Lansing, MI; 517– Previous Federal Actions for WGL both; and 351–2555. Wolves below. (g) Past and ongoing conservation • New England Ecological Services Gray wolves were originally listed as measures for these populations, their Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife subspecies or as regional populations of habitat, or both. Service, 70 Commercial St., Suite 300, subspecies in the conterminous United (11) Information concerning the Concord, NH; 603–223–2541. States and Mexico. In 1967, we listed biology, range, and population trends of the eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus Canis lycaon, including: Public Hearings lycaon) in the (32 FR (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, We have scheduled an informational 4001, March 11, 1967), and in 1973 we breeding, and sheltering; meeting followed by a public hearing in listed C. l. irremotus in the northern

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26088 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Rocky Mountains (38 FR 14678, June 4, 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR did so to a limited extent, primarily at 1973). Both listings were promulgated 15123, April 2, 2009) . Further detail on somewhat higher elevations (Nowak under the Endangered Species previous Federal actions related to the 1995). The southeastern and mid- Conservation Act of 1969; subsequently, WGL DPS is provided in Previous Atlantic States were generally on January 4, 1974, these subspecies Federal Actions for WGL Wolves below. recognized as being within the historical were listed under the Endangered range of the (Canis rufus), and Evaluation of the 1978 Gray Wolf Species Act of 1973 (39 FR 1171). We it is not known how much range overlap Listing listed a third gray wolf subspecies, the historically occurred between the two Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi) as The Service now considers the 1978 Canis species. Morphological work by endangered on April 28, 1976 (41 FR Canis lupus listing rule at 43 FR 9607 Nowak (2000, 2002, 2003) supported 17740), in the southwestern United to be in need of revision. This need has extending the historical range of the red States and Mexico. On June 14, 1976 (41 been identified based on our review of wolf into southern New England or even FR 24064), we listed the Texas gray wolf the best available taxonomic farther northward, indicating either that subspecies (C. l. monstrabilis) as information, which indicates that C. the historical range of the gray wolf in endangered in Texas and Mexico. lupus historically did not occupy large the eastern United States was more In 1978, we published a rule (43 FR portions of the eastern United States limited than previously believed, or that 9607, March 9, 1978) reclassifying the and on our reconsideration of the listing the respective ranges of several wolf gray wolf as an endangered population in light of current statutory and policy species expanded and contracted in the at the species level (C. lupus) requirements under the Act. These eastern and northeastern United States, throughout the conterminous 48 States considerations are discussed in turn intermingling in post-glacial times along and Mexico, except for the Minnesota below. contact zones. gray wolf population, which was Taxonomy and Historical Ranges of The results of recent molecular classified as threatened. At that time, we Wolves in the United States genetic analyses (e.g., Wilson et al. considered the Minnesota group of gray 2000, Wilson et al. 2003, Wheeldon and wolves to be a listable entity under the Our review of the best available White 2009, Wilson et al. 2009, Fain et Act, and we considered the gray wolf taxonomic information indicates that al. 2010, Wheeldon et al. 2010) and group in Mexico and the 48 Canis lupus did not occupy large morphometric studies (e.g., Nowak conterminous States other than portions of the eastern United States: 1995, 2000, 2002, 2003) explain some of Minnesota to be another listable entity i.e., the northeastern United States was the past difficulties in establishing the (43 FR 9607, 9610, respectively, March occupied by the eastern wolf (C. gray wolf’s range in the eastern United 9, 1978). This reclassification was lycaon), now considered a separate States. These studies show that the mid- undertaken because of uncertainty about species of Canis rather than a subspecies Atlantic and southeastern United States the taxonomic validity of some of the of lupus, and the southeastern United historically were occupied by the red previously listed subspecies and States was occupied by the red wolf wolf (C. rufus), and that New England because we recognized that wolf (Canis rufus) rather than the gray wolf. and portions of the upper Midwest populations were historically Our review of North American wolf (eastern and western Great Lakes connected, and that subspecies taxonomy also suggests that changes in regions) historically were occupied by boundaries were thus malleable. listing classification are warranted in C. lycaon; they also indicate that the However, the 1978 rule also stated other portions of the country. gray wolf (C. lupus) did not occur in the that ‘‘biological subspecies would At the time the gray wolf was listed eastern United States. continue to be maintained and dealt in 1978, and until the molecular Based on these recent studies, we with as separate entities’’ (43 FR 9609), genetics studies of the last few years, the view the historical range of the gray and offered ‘‘the firmest assurance that range of the gray wolf prior to European wolf as the central and western United [the Service] will continue to recognize settlement was generally believed to States, including portions of the western valid biological subspecies for purposes include most of North America. The Great Lakes region, the Great Plains, of its research and conservation only areas that were believed to have portions of the Rocky Mountains, the programs’’ (43 FR 9610, March 9, 1978). lacked gray wolf populations were the Intermountain West, the Pacific Accordingly, recovery plans were coastal and interior portions of Northwest, and portions of the developed for the wolf populations in California, the arid deserts and Southwest. All or parts of 29 southern the following regions of the United mountaintops of the western United and eastern States (Maine, States: the northern Rocky Mountains in States, and parts of the eastern and Massachusetts, , New 1980, revised in 1987; the Great Lakes southeastern United States (Young and Hampshire, Rhode Island, , in 1978, revised in 1992; and the Goldman 1944, Hall 1981, Mech 1974, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Southwest in 1982, the revision of and Nowak 1995). We note, however, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North which is now underway. that some authorities have questioned Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, More detail on previous Federal the reported historical absence of gray Florida, Ohio (the part outside WGL actions for the Southwest and northern wolves in parts of California (Carbyn in DPS), West Virginia, Kentucky, Rocky Mountains wolves is provided, litt. 2000, Mech in litt. 2000). Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, respectively, within the 90-day finding Furthermore, we note long-held Louisiana, Texas (east of Interstate for Mexican wolves (75 FR 46894) and differences of opinion regarding the Highway 35), Oklahoma (east of in various notices and rulemakings for precise boundary of the gray wolf’s Interstate Highway 35 and southeast of the management of northern Rocky historical range in the eastern and Interstate Highway 44 north of Mountains wolves (59 FR 60252, southeastern United States. Some Oklahoma City), Arkansas, Missouri November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, researchers regarded Georgia’s (southeast of Interstate Highway 44 and November 22, 1994; 68 FR 15804, April southeastern corner as the southern southeast of Interstate Highway 70 east 1, 2003; 68 FR 15879, April 1, 2003; 70 extent of gray wolf range (Young and of St. Louis), Indiana (the part outside FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 71 FR 6634, Goldman 1944, Mech 1974); others WGL DPS), and Illinois (the part outside February 8, 2006; 71 FR 43410, August believed gray wolves did not extend WGL DPS)) were not within the gray 1, 2006; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; into the Southeast at all (Hall 1981) or wolf’s historical range.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26089

In sum, we now recognize three wolf standards. Nonetheless, subsequent the requirements of the Act; (3) species with ranges in the conterminous recovery plans and all gray wolf minimize the regulatory burden on United States: Canis lupus, Canis rulemakings since 1996 have focused on States, Tribes, and the general public; lycaon, and Canis rufus. The ranges of units reflective of the evident intent of (4) facilitate State and Tribal C. lupus and C. lycaon overlap in the the 1978 rule to manage and recover management of wolves; (5) minimize western Great Lakes region, as discussed gray wolves as ‘‘separate entities’’ (43 FR wolf-human conflicts; and (6) promote in Taxonomy of Wolves in the Western 9609), i.e., subspecies or populations. public acceptance of wolf listing and Great Lakes Region below; however, in This proposed rule and our proposed recovery actions. the eastern United States, the historical National Wolf Strategy, below, Workshop outcomes provided range of C. lupus is considered to fall constitute an effort to bring the 1978 important input to our continuing effort outside the historical ranges of C. lycaon listing in line, insofar as possible, with to formulate a comprehensive vision of and C. rufus. the Act’s requirements and current wolf conservation. Based on further policy standards. Service deliberations, this Conformance With the Act’s Definition comprehensive vision has evolved into of Species Structured Decision-Making for Wolves the proposed national wolf strategy Given the assurances we provided in In 2008, the Service embarked on a discussed below. It is important to note the 1978 C. lupus listing that we would structured decision-making process as a that this strategy is a broad outline, the continue to treat gray wolf subspecies as means of developing a more integrated components of which are in various separate entities for conservation and comprehensive strategy for gray stages of execution. purposes (as noted in Gray Wolf Listing wolf conservation in the lower 48 States History, above), we identified a need to and Mexico. The overall intent of the National Wolf Strategy reconsider the listing in light of current process was to identify appropriate wolf The Service’s national wolf strategy is statutory and policy standards regarding entities (i.e., listing units) for full status intended to: (1) Lay out a cohesive and the Act’s definition of species. The Act review, anticipating that such review coherent approach to addressing wolf provides for listing at various taxonomic would lead to either confirmation or conservation needs, including and subtaxonomic levels through its revision of the existing gray wolf listing. protection and management, in definition of ‘‘species’’ in section 3(16): We aimed to identify a coherent set of accordance with the Act’s statutory The term species includes any listing units based on best available framework; (2) ensure that actions taken subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, scientific and commercial information, for one wolf population do not cause and any distinct population segment of conformance with existing regulatory unintended consequences for other any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife and policy requirements, and populations; and (3) be explicit about which interbreeds when mature (16 fundamental wolf management the role of historical range in the U.S.C. 1532(16) (italics added). As a objectives. conservation of extant wolf populations. matter of procedure, then, the Service We first conducted several iterations The strategy is based on three determines whether it is most of the process in an internal Service precepts. First, in order to qualify for appropriate to list an entity as a full effort to develop a viable framework for any type of listing or delisting action, species, a subspecies, or a DPS of either considering the scientific and policy wolf entities must conform to the Act’s a species or subspecies. The gray wolf questions that drive decision-making for definition of ‘‘species,’’ whether as has a Holarctic range; the current listing wolves. The resulting framework taxonomic species or subspecies or as encompasses the United States-Mexico incorporated decision analysis distinct population segments. Second, segment of the population and consists, principles and techniques for crafting the strategy promotes the continued in turn, of multiple entities. alternative listing units and then representation in this country of all The specific provision for listing assessing the relative performance of substantially unique genetic lineages distinct population segments of each alternative in terms of achieving found historically in the lower 48 vertebrates was enacted through the management objectives. States. Third, wolf conservation under 1978 Amendments to the Act (Pub. L. Management of wolves is shared the Act is concerned with reducing 95–362, November 10, 1978); these among the Service, States, and Tribes. extinction risks to imperiled entities; amendments replaced the ability to list Thus, following our development of a the strategy thus focuses on ‘‘populations’’ with the ability to list satisfactory decision-making framework, conservation of the four extant gray wolf ‘‘distinct population segments’’ and treat representatives from several States entities identified through the them as species under the Act. To involved with gray wolf conservation structured decision-making process and interpret and implement the 1978 DPS joined us to further explore alternative being considered for section 4 actions: amendment, the Service and the units that could qualify for future status (1) The western Great Lakes population, National Marine Fisheries Service review (Tribal representatives declined (2) the northern Rocky Mountains jointly published the Policy Regarding to participate). After acquainting state (NRM) population, (3) gray wolves in the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate participants with the decision-making the Pacific Northwest, and (4) the Population Segments Under the framework, we convened a State-Federal Southwestern population of Mexican Endangered Species Act (DPS policy) workshop in August 2010 to generate wolves. (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), setting and assess alternative taxonomic and Various reviews and listing actions policy standards for designating population units at various scales and in are underway for these gray wolf populations as ‘‘distinct.’’ various configurations, including the populations. The WGL DPS is proposed The March 1978 gray wolf listing 1978 listing as the status quo for delisting in the proposed rule being predated the November 1978 alternative. published in today’s Federal Register. amendments to the Act. Although the Workshop participants also explored With regard to the NRM gray wolf 1978 rule lists two C. lupus entities, i.e., the different values that drive wolf population, Congress is considering the endangered and threatened entities decision-making; these values were legislation that would direct us to described above, these listings were not expressed as the following fundamental reissue our 2009 final rule (74 FR 15123, predicated upon a formal DPS analysis management objectives: (1) Promote and April 2, 2009), that delisted the NRM and do not comport with current policy sustain wolf recovery; (2) comply with DPS in the States of Idaho and Montana,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26090 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

and in portions of Oregon, Washington, Our national wolf strategy also Western Great Lakes Wolves and Utah. This rule retained ESA addresses the two other wolf taxa that Previous Federal Actions for WGL protections of wolves in Wyoming as fall within the range described for Canis Wolves non-essential experimental. If passed, lupus in the 1978 listing, C. lycaon and we would publish a separate notice in C. rufus. With regard to Canis lycaon, The eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus the Federal Register. Negotiations we are announcing a rangewide status lycaon) was listed as endangered in regarding potential future post-delisting review of this species, which occurs in Minnesota and Michigan in the first list of species that were protected under the wolf management in Wyoming are Canada and the western Great Lakes 1973 Act, published in May 1974 (USDI ongoing. region of the United States. The 1974). On March 9, 1978, we published The biological and conservation status historical range of C. lycaon also of wolves in the Pacific Northwest (we a rule (43 FR 9607) reclassifying the extends into the northeastern United are considering this to be the area west gray wolf at the species level (Canis States, which the 1978 listing of the NRM gray wolf population, lupus) as endangered throughout the including portions of Oregon, inaccurately treated as part of the range conterminous 48 States and Mexico, Washington, northern California, and of C. lupus. The role of the Northeast except for the Minnesota population, western Nevada) is being assessed to region in conservation of C. lycaon will which we classified to threatened. The determine their appropriate listing be considered in the rangewide review, separate subspecies listings, including classification. When this review is which will look at the status of extant C. l. lycaon, thus were subsumed into completed, we will evaluate a potential populations in terms of uniqueness, the listings for the gray wolf in Pacific Northwest DPS in accordance demography, and extinction risks. A Minnesota and the gray wolf in the rest with our DPS policy and will reclassify determination as to whether to proceed of the conterminous United States and this population as appropriate through with any C. lycaon listing action—and, Mexico. In that 1978 rule, we also an additional rulemaking process. The if listing is warranted, whether or not to identified National Park, status of the Southwestern population include the northeastern United States Michigan, and Minnesota wolf (i.e., Mexican wolves within their in the listed range—will depend on the management zones 1, 2, and 3, as historical range) is being reviewed results of the status review. Notification critical habitat. We also promulgated pursuant to our 90-day finding on two of our intentions with regard to C. special regulations under section 4(d) of listing petitions (75 FR 46894, August 4, lycaon will be provided in conjunction the Act for operating a wolf 2010). We anticipate that the with publication of the final rule for the management program in Minnesota at Southwestern population will be WGL DPS. Meanwhile, we propose to that time. The depredation control proposed for listing as either the revise the range of the gray wolf (the portion of the special regulation was subspecies C. l. baileyi or as a DPS of species C. lupus) by removing all or later modified (50 FR 50793; December C. lupus; in the meantime, recovery parts of 29 eastern states that we now 12, 1985); these special regulations are found in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(2). planning will continue to proceed for recognize were not part of the historical On April 1, 2003, we published a final these wolves. range of the gray wolf. New information As separate actions move forward for rule revising the listing status of the indicates that these areas should not the NRM, Pacific Northwest, and gray wolf across most of the Southwest, wolves in these regions will have been included in the original conterminous United States (68 FR retain their current classification as listing of the gray wolf. These States are 15804). Within that rule, we identified endangered, except where delisted and specified under Taxonomy and three DPSs for the gray wolf (see Gray where currently listed as non-essential Historical Ranges of Wolves in the Wolf Listing History, above), including experimental populations (see 50 CFR United States, above. an Eastern DPS, which was reclassified 17.84(k)). We plan to move forward with Finally, with regard to Canis rufus, we from endangered to threatened, except a rulemaking to replace the remainder of propose to remove the southeastern where already classified as threatened. the 1978 listing with more targeted states included in the 1978 gray wolf In addition, we established a second regional units, as appropriate, listing from the List due to error, section 4(d) rule that applied provisions concurrently with publication of the because we now recognize were not part similar to those previously in effect in final rule for the WGL DPS. of the historical range of the gray wolf. Minnesota to most of the Eastern DPS. It is likely that revision of the 1978 These states instead constitute the range The special rule was codified in 50 CFR gray wolf listing into finer-scale of Canis rufus; see Taxonomy and 17.40(o). taxonomic or population units will Historical Ranges of Wolves in the U.S. District Court rulings in Oregon result in removal of the Act’s United States, above. Red wolves and Vermont on January 31, 2005, and protections in areas of the historical C. currently are listed as endangered where August 19, 2005, respectively, lupus range, such as the Great Plains found (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967); invalidated the April 1, 2003, final rule. States and areas of the western States, this listing will be retained and recovery Consequently, the status of gray wolves that do not support extant wolf efforts for red wolves will continue as outside of Minnesota reverted back to populations and do not play a role in endangered status, as had been the case warranted (Red Wolf Recovery and the recovery of any of the four gray wolf prior to the 2003 reclassification. The Species Survival Plan; Service 1990). entities. Although some of these areas courts also invalidated the three DPSs are within the species’ historical range, Five-Year Review of Gray Wolves identified in the April 1, 2003, rule, as these areas lack sufficient suitable well as the associated special habitat for wolf pack persistence. Thus, Under section 4(c)(2) of the Act, we regulations. we believe recovery in these areas is have a duty to review listed species’ On March 27, 2006, we published a both unrealistic and unnecessary. We status every 5 years and determine proposal (71 FR 15266–15305) to note, however, that such areas would whether a change in listing status is identify a WGL DPS of the gray wolf, to not necessarily be precluded from wolf appropriate. We announce initiation of remove the WGL DPS from the conservation efforts under other the 5-year review for the gray wolf in protections of the Act, to remove authorities, e.g., Tribes, States, and this rule and seek new information as designated critical habitat for the gray Federal land management agencies. requested in Public Comments above. wolf in Minnesota and Michigan, and to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26091

remove special regulations for the gray action is consistent with the opinion. be delisted. On April 26, 2010, we wolf in Minnesota. The proposal was The complete text of the Solicitor’s received a petition from the Sportsmen’s followed by a 90-day comment period, opinion can be found at http:// Alliance, representing five other during which we held four public www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/. organizations, requesting that gray hearings on the proposal. On December 11, 2008, we published wolves in the Great Lakes area be On February 8, 2007, the Service a notice reinstating protections for the delisted. On June 17, 2010, we received issued a rule that identified and delisted gray wolf in the western Great Lakes a petition from Safari Club the WGL DPS of the gray wolf (Canis (and northern Rocky Mountains) International, Safari Club International lupus) (72 FR 6052). Three parties pursuant to court orders (73 FR 75356). Foundation and the National Rifle challenged this rule (Humane Society of On April 2, 2009, we published a final Association of America requesting that the United States v. Kempthorne, 579 F. rule identifying the western Great Lakes wolves of the western Great Lakes be Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008)), and on populations of gray wolves as a DPS and delisted. In response to those four September 29, 2008, the court ruled in revising the list of Endangered and petitions, on September 14, 2010, we favor of the plaintiffs and vacated the Threatened Wildlife by removing the published a 90-day finding determining rule and remanded it to the Service. On DPS from that list (74 FR 15070). We that the petitions presented substantial remand, the Service was directed to did not seek additional public comment information that delisting may be provide an explanation as to how on the 2009 final rule. On June 15, 2009, warranted and reinitiated a full status simultaneously identifying and delisting five parties filed a complaint against the review. Therefore, this delisting a DPS is consistent with the Act’s text, Department and the Service alleging proposal constitutes our 12-month structure, policy objectives, legislative that we violated the Act, the finding that the action requested by history, and any relevant judicial Administrative Procedure Act (APA), each petition is warranted. interpretations. and the court’s remand order by In response to a separate petition, on The court’s primary question was publishing the 2009 final rule (74 FR June 10, 2010, we made a 90-day finding whether the Service has the authority to 15070). On July 2, 2009, pursuant to a that there was no evidence of any identify a DPS within a larger already- settlement agreement between the breeding population of wolves to listed entity and, in the same decision, parties, the court issued an order support the requested listing of a DPS of determine the DPS does not warrant the remanding and vacating the 2009 final the gray wolf in New England (75 FR Act’s protections even though the other rule. 32869). populations of the species retain the old On March 1, 2000, we received a listing status. Our authority to make petition from Mr. Lawrence Krak of Species Concepts these determinations and to revise the Gilman, Wisconsin, and on June 28, As noted in Conformance with the list accordingly is a reasonable 2000, we received a petition from the Act’s Definition of Species above, the interpretation of the language of the Act, Minnesota Conservation Federation. Mr. Act defines ‘‘species’’ as including any and our ability to do so is an important Krak’s petition requested the delisting of species or subspecies of fish or wildlife component of the Service’s program for gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, or plants, and any distinct vertebrate the conservation of threatened and and Michigan. The Minnesota population segment of fish or wildlife endangered species. Conservation Federation requested the that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. Our authority to revise the existing delisting of gray wolves in a Western 1532(16)). It has not been uncommon in listing of a species (the gray wolf in Great Lakes DPS. Because the data the years since the Act was passed for Minnesota and the gray wolf in the reviews resulting from the processing of significant controversy to arise over the lower 48 States and Mexico, excluding these petitions would be a subset of the propriety of recognizing various groups Minnesota) to identify a Western Great review begun by our July 13, 2000, of organisms as eligible for protection Lakes DPS and determine that it is proposal (65 FR 43450) to revise the under the Act. Our implementing healthy enough that it no longer needs current listing of the wolf across most of regulations (50 CFR 424.11) require us the Act’s protections is found in the the conterminous United States, we did to use standard taxonomic distinctions precise language of the Act. Moreover, not initiate separate reviews in response (such as species and subspecies) when even if that authority were not clear, our to those two petitions. While we they are available, clearly defined, and interpretation of this authority to make addressed these petitions in our generally accepted. In determining that determinations under section 4(a)(1) February 8, 2007, final rule (72 FR a taxonomic entity qualifies as a species and to revise the endangered and 6052), this rule was vacated by the or subspecies we carefully evaluate the threatened species list to reflect those subsequent District Court ruling. While best available taxonomic data to determinations under section 4(c)(1) is we view our actions on these petitions determine whether we have sufficient reasonable and fully consistent with the as final upon publication of the Federal information to conclude that a Act’s text, structure, legislative history, Register determinations, we taxonomic entity qualifies as a species relevant judicial interpretations, and nevertheless restate our 90-day findings under the Act. policy objectives. that the action requested by each of the In identifying species, there is not a We consulted with the Solicitor of the petitions may be warranted, as well as single set of criteria, and, therefore, no Department of the Interior to address the our 12-month finding that the action single species concept that is accepted issue in the court’s opinion. On requested by each petition is warranted. by all taxonomists. In 1942, Ernst Mayr December 12, 2008, a formal opinion On March 15, 2010, we received a identified five different species concepts was issued by the Solicitor, ‘‘U.S. Fish petition from the Minnesota Department (Mayr 1942), and many more have been and Wildlife Service Authority Under of Natural Resources requesting that the recognized since then (Wilkins 2006; Section 4(c)(1) of the Endangered gray wolf in Minnesota be removed from 2003; Mayden 1997, pp. 381–384). Species Act to Revise Lists of the List of Endangered or Threatened Many of these species concepts can be Endangered and Threatened Species to Wildlife under the Act. Likewise, on associated with one of two major classes ‘Reflect Recent Determinations’’’ (U.S. April 26, 2010, we received a petition of concepts or approaches. The first is DOI 2008). The Service fully agrees with from the Wisconsin Department of the biological species concept (BSC). the analysis and conclusions set out in Natural Resources requesting that the This concept is based on reproductive the Solicitor’s opinion. This proposed gray wolf in Minnesota and Wisconsin relationships among populations. The

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26092 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

ability to interbreed and realize gene valid subspecies if 75 percent of the individuals may appear different (that is flow between two populations is the individuals differ from ‘‘all’’ (97 percent) be morphometrically distinct) but in fact indication that they belong to the same of the individuals of a previously be of the same taxon (that is, genetically species. The concept is most commonly recognized subspecies. At the point of similar). In many situations, it is associated with Mayr (1963), but has intersection between the two curves difficult to determine where one species antecedents during the development of where this is true, about 90 percent of ends and another begins. This is evolutionary biology in the 20th population A will be different from especially true in wide-ranging species century. The second major class of about 90 percent of the individuals of and in the zones where multiple forms concepts is the phylogenetic species population B (to supply a symmetrical (for example, where either two species concept (PSC). Under this group of solution)’’. or two subspecies) contact each other or concepts, species are identified by their Patten and Unitt (2002, p. 27) provide meet, which is the situation with wolves genealogical (lineages) or phylogenetic another definition of subspecies as in the WGL region. Ultimately, species (evolutionary) relationships and ‘‘diagnosable clusters of populations of are evolving, dynamic populations, and diagnosability. The many variations of biological species occupying distinct at times are difficult to categorize. these concepts and others are reviewed geographic ranges.’’ They do not require Nevertheless, Congress directs that the by Wiley (1981), Avise (2004), and that diagnosability be absolute, but Service classify populations as species, Coyne and Orr (2004). advocate 90 percent separation as a subspecies, and DPSs, despite the There is, likewise, no scientific more stringent criterion than the 75- difficulty and complexity of various consensus on what constitutes a percent rule. taxonomic concepts. subspecies, and some authorities Avise (2004, p. 362) attempted to incorporate phylogenetic information Taxonomy of Wolves in the Western (Wilson and Brown 1953) have Great Lakes Region questioned the utility of the subspecies within a biological species concept in level of classification. Following is a providing the following guidance on The taxonomic status of the wolves in description of various subspecies recognizing subspecies: ‘‘Within such the western Great Lakes region has long criteria that have been proposed and units [=species], ‘‘subspecies’’ been debated. They have been applied in the taxonomic literature. warranting formal recognition could considered a subspecies of gray wolf, Because some criteria are more stringent then be conceptualized as groups of Canis lupus lycaon (Goldman 1944), than others, a putative, or generally actually or potentially interbreeding Nowak 1995, 2002, 2003); a Canis lupus population that has been influenced by accepted, subspecies may meet the populations (normally mostly allopatric) interbreeding with (Lehman et criteria and be recognized following one that are genealogically highly distinctive al. 1991); members of a full species, concept, but found to be invalid under from, but reproductively compatible Canis lycaon (or eastern wolf) that is a more stringent concept. Nowak (1995, with, other such groups. Importantly, the empirical evidence for genealogical separate from Canis lupus (Wilson et al. p. 394) discussed the standards he used distinction must come, in principle, 2000, Baker et al. 2003); possibly the when he revised the subspecies of Canis from concordant genetic partitions same species as the red wolf, C. rufus lupus: ‘‘My investigation largely across multiple, independent, (Wilson et al. 2000); the result of disregarded such questions [concerning genetically based molecular (or hybridization between C. rufus and C. use of very localized characters] and phenotypic; Wilson and Brown 1953) lupus (Nowak 2002, 2003, 2009); and, concentrated on general trends in traits.’’ most recently, as a mixed population of measurable size and proportion that A common feature of all of the above C. lupus, C. lycaon, and their could be evaluated on a continent-wide definitions is that they recognize that intercrosses (for example, Wheeldon or worldwide basis. Substantive subspecies are groups of populations, and White 2009, Fain et al. 2010, statistical breaks in such trends, as and most recognize that subspecies can Wheeldon et al. 2010). These varying discussed above, were taken as evidence be variable and overlap, to some degree, interpretations of the taxonomic status of taxonomic division.’’ In The in distinguishing characters. of western Great Lakes wolves are of North America, Hall (1981, Taxonomists do not assign an summarized, respectively, below. p. viii) included the following in his individual to one subspecies or another; Wolves in Michigan, Wisconsin, and ‘‘Criteria for Species versus Subspecies.’’ instead individuals are assigned a eastern Minnesota were considered by If crossbreeding occurs in nature at a place specific taxonomic classification based Goldman (1944, p. 437 and Figure 14) or places where the geographic ranges of two on the population in which they exist. to be within the range of the subspecies kinds of mammals meet, the two kinds are to The existence of multiple concepts of Canis lupus lycaon. Goldman based his be treated as subspecies of one species. If no species and subspecies is not the only classification on variation in body size crossbreeding occurs, the two kinds are to be complicating factor in the debate and proportions, and in pelage (coat) regarded as two distinct, full species. surrounding the classification of color. According to Goldman, this was Mayr (1963, glossary) defined organisms; it is further complicated by the subspecies of gray wolf historically subspecies as, ‘‘an aggregate of local the way organisms occur in the natural found across a wide range east of the populations of a species inhabiting a world. Taxonomists are determined to Mississippi River in the United States geographic subdivision of the range of categorize natural organisms into and in southeastern Canada. Wolves the species, and differing taxonomically specific groups and identify and name immediately to the west of the from other populations of the species.’’ those groups, while also striving to Mississippi River were considered to be He further explains ‘‘differing understand the evolutionary processes part of the subspecies Canis lupus taxonomically’’ as differing ‘‘by that give rise to these specific groups nubilus. This taxonomic interpretation diagnostic morphological characters’’ (Hey 2001, pp. 328–329). When viewed was followed by Hall and Kelson (1959, (Mayr 1963, p. 348). Mayr (1969, p. 190) on the ground, a particular organism p. 849) and Hall (1981, p. 932). also describes a quantitative method for may appear to clearly fit into one group Nowak’s (1995, p. 396; 2003, p. 243) determining whether populations differ or another, but when their evolutionary revision of the subspecies taxonomy taxonomically: ‘‘A so-called 75-percent history is viewed, these groups are reduced the range of C. l. lycaon to rule is widely adopted. According to revealed as changeable and without southern and and this, a population is recognized as a clear boundaries. In the reverse, northern portions of New York,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26093

Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Nowak’s Minnesota was found to exhibit a third lycaon. We note, however, that a name classification was primarily based on Great Lakes wolf mtDNA haplotype that in the form of C. lupus × lycaon has no statistical analysis of measurements of is common in the modern population. standing as an available species name skull features. He considered gray However, the Y-chromosome haplotypes under the rules of zoological wolves that historically occupied identified in the historical sample were nomenclature (ICZN 1999). Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota to more similar to those of western gray It is clear from the studies discussed be within the range of C. l. nubilus. wolves, suggesting that interbreeding above that the taxonomic classification Based on analysis of additional between Great Lakes wolves and of wolves in the western Great Lakes specimens, Nowak (2002, p. 119; 2003; western gray wolves had taken place region is one that has been, and will 2009, p. 238) continued to recognize before 1910, the year of collection. continue to be, of great debate in the western Great Lakes wolves as C. l. Koblmu¨ ller et al. (2009) conclude scientific community. Most researchers, nubilus, but noted that historical that, despite what they consider both however, appear to agree that there is a specimens from the Upper Peninsula ancient and recent incidences of unique and genetically identifiable form (UP) of Michigan were somewhat interbreeding with coyotes and western of wolf that occupies the western Great transitional between the two subspecies. gray wolves, Great Lakes wolves remain Lakes region, and that this form has Based on a study of DNA variation in morphologically distinct and represent a hybridized with Canis lupus, whose North American wolves, Wilson et al. ‘‘distinct taxon’’ of gray wolf (Canis origins were from elsewhere in North (2000, p. 2165) proposed that the lupus) that is adapted to the region. America. Researchers differ in whether taxonomic standing of eastern wolves be They do not, however, conclude that this unique form of wolf should be restored to full species as Canis lycaon. this taxon is differentiated enough to be recognized as a species (Wilson et al. They found that eastern wolves were recognized as a species separate from 2000; Fain et al. 2010, p. 15; Wheeldon divergent from Canis lupus in both gray wolves, as proposed by Wilson et et al. 2010), a subspecies (Nowak 1995), mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and al. (2000). or a distinct taxon or ecotype but Several recent studies conclude that autosomal DNA without applying a formal scientific the eastern wolf is a unique species and composition. They considered the name to that form (Koblmu¨ ller et al. should be recognized as C. lycaon geographic range of C. lycaon as 2009). In choosing among these three (Wheeldon and White 2009; Wilson et extending west across the Great Lakes alternatives, we find that the large al. 2009; Fain et al. 2010, p. 15; region to Minnesota and . divergence of both mtDNA and Y- Leonard and Wayne (2008, pp. 2–3) Wheeldon et al. 2010). Wheeldon and chromosome haplotypes between Great have reported on maternally inherited White (2009, pp. 3–4) state that both the Lakes wolves and C. lupus is greater mtDNA sequence haplotypes (DNA present-day and pre-recovery wolf than that found between subspecies of sequences or groups of alleles of populations in the western Great Lakes different genes on a single chromosome region are genetically similar and that Canis lupus and favors recognition of that are inherited together as a single both were derived from hybridization the eastern wolf as a species. Currently, unit) from historical (‘‘prerecovery’’) between C. lupus and the eastern wolf, the best available scientific information wolves from Ontario, Quebec, Michigan, C. lycaon. Fain et al. (2010, p. 10) supports recognition of the eastern wolf, and Wisconsin compared with the recognize C. lycaon as a unique species C. lycaon, as a species (rather than, as recent population of the area. Their of North American wolf, and based on previous believed, as a subspecies of interpretation of these results is that the mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplotypes gray wolf), and establishes that this 6 unique haplotypes) identified in 15 and autosomal microsatellite markers, species has intercrossed with C. lupus historical individuals indicate that the they establish that the population of in the western Great Lakes region to pre-recovery population was ‘‘an wolves in the western Great Lakes constitute a population composed of C. endemic American wolf,’’ which they region comprise C. lupus, C. lycaon, and lupus, C. lycaon, and their hybrids call ‘‘the Great Lakes wolf’’ (p. 1). their hybrids. Contrary to Koblmu¨ ller et (Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 1; Fain However, only the two haplotypes most al. (2009), Fain et al. (2010, p. 14) found et al. 2010, p. 14; Mech et al. 2010; common in the historical sample still no evidence of interbreeding with Wheeldon et al. 2010). occur in the modern wolf population of coyotes. Furthermore, they conclude The existence of two wolf species in the western Great Lakes area. Leonard that the western Great Lakes States were the western Great Lakes region was not and Wayne (2007) conclude that the included in the historical range of C. known or suspected in 1978, when the modern population does not contain the lycaon and that hybridization between Service replaced the listings of four diversity of Great Lakes wolf haplotypes the two species ‘‘predates significant subspecies of gray wolf, including C. found in the prerecovery population human intervention’’ (Fain et al. 2010, lupus lycaon, with the listing of all and that the current population is pp. 13–14). Canis lupus and Canis lupus subspecies primarily a mixture of Canis lupus and Wheeldon et al. (2010, p. 2) used in the conterminous United States and hybrids, with minor influence multiple genetic markers to clarify the Mexico as endangered, except for the from the endemic Great Lakes wolf (p. taxonomic status of Canis species in the Minnesota population, which was listed 3). western Great Lakes region of as threatened (USFWS 1978). Since that Koblmu¨ ller et al. (2009) examined Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and time, increasingly powerful genetic wolves from the western Great Lakes western Ontario. They conclude that the techniques for the characterization of region using three types of genetic current western Great Lakes wolf populations have been developed and markers: mtDNA; Y-chromosome population is ‘‘composed of gray-eastern applied to wild populations, including haplotypes based on microsatellite DNA wolf hybrids that probably resulted from wolves. These advances have shown loci on the Y-chromosome, which is a historic hybridization between the that hybridization between species is paternally-inherited marker; and parental species’’ (Wheeldon et al. 2010, much more prevalent than was autosomal microsatellite DNA, which p. 10), and that the appropriate appreciated in 1978 (Schwenk et al. provides information on recent and taxonomic designation for the western 2011); thus the detection of ongoing interactions among populations Great Lakes wolves is C. lupus × hybridization in western Great Lakes rather than evolutionary lineage lycaon, replacing Nowak’s (2009) wolf wolves is not unique among mammalian information. The historical sample from subspecies designation of C. lupus species.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26094 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Nowak’s (1995, 2002, 2003) exclusion markers in male wolves are more status of the gray wolf (C. lupus) under of the western Great Lakes region from common than expected by random the Act—such changes must be made C. l. lycaon was likely influenced by his mating (Wheeldon et al. 2010). This through rulemaking. This proposed rule inclusion of both C. lupus and C. lycaon suggests that there is some constraint on recognizes the taxonomic changes and in his western Great Lakes sample. In complete hybridization between the two the improved status of the WGL gray any event, the various genetic species and that complete blending of wolf populations and proposes those investigations of western Great Lakes the two components of the population is appropriate and necessary wolves clearly show a distribution of not inevitable. The limited number of administrative changes for the gray wolf eastern wolf (C. lycaon) genetic markers historical specimens from the western in the WGL and portions of the eastern throughout the region. Great Lakes region that have been United States. We do not accept the proposal of genetically characterized all have Based on our current understanding Wilson et al. (2000) that C. lycaon and mtDNA indicative of C. lycaon (Leonard of wolf systematics, we recognize that C. rufus (red wolf) are the same species. and Wayne 2008, pp. 2–3; Wheeldon not all individual wolves in the WGL Their conclusion was based on red wolf and White 2009, p. 1), but four of these region are in fact, gray wolves, Canis and C. lycaon occurring on the same from the early 20th century also had C. lupus. Within this rule we are proposing branch of a phylogenetic network lupus Y-chromosome haplotypes, which changes to the listing for C. lupus and representing mtDNA differences indicates that hybridization had are initiating a status review for C. (Wilson et al. 2000, Figure 5A). This occurred by that time. The opportunity lycaon. These two actions combined relationship has not been found in for hybridization between C. lycaon, will address all wolves in the WGL subsequent studies (Wilson et al. 2003; which belongs to a North American region. Leonard and Wayne 2008, p. 2; Fain et lineage, and C. lupus, which evolved in The procedural aspects of this al. 2010, p. 9), which placed the red Eurasia, has existed since C. lupus proposed rule (e.g., the revision of the wolf and C. lycaon on different branches entered North America about 500,000 1978 listing of the group of gray wolves separated by intervening coyote years ago (Kurte´n and Anderson 1980), in Minnesota as a ‘‘species’’ to a DPS and lineages. This suggests that the red wolf yet a predominantly C. lycaon the delisting of that DPS) refer to the and C. lycaon may have evolved population of wolves still persists in the gray wolf (C. lupus), because that is the independently from common ancestors western Great Lakes region. named entity currently on the List of with modern coyotes, but does not Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. support uniting them as a single species. Wolf-Coyote Relationships Our proposed action here is to establish For a discussion on interpretations of the existence of a WGL distinct Genetic Composition of Wolves in the wolf-coyote relationships in the western population segment of C. lupus and to Western Great Lakes Region Great Lakes, see the discussion under determine that the DPS is neither Estimates of the genetic composition Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade endangered nor threatened, despite its of the wolves of the western Great Lakes Factors Affecting Its Continued proximity to a closely related species, C. region with respect to the two species Existence in this proposed rule. lycaon—a species whose status we will (C. lupus and C. lycaon) are based on evaluate for possible protection under Procedural Aspects of Proposal the frequencies of different paternal (Y- the Act in the near future. chromosome) and maternal (mtDNA) Applying to the Gray Wolf (C. lupus) markers specific to the each species in When the Service revised the Biology and Ecology of Wolves in the samples of wolves from the region. For endangered species list in 1978 to Western Great Lakes mtDNA, 66 percent of sampled wolves include the species Canis lupus in the Gray wolves are the largest wild had C. lycaon haplotypes (Fain et al. lower 48 States and Mexico, regulatory members of the , or dog family, 2010, p. 13; Wheeldon et al. 2010). For protections were applied to all gray with adults ranging from 18 to 80 Y-chromosome haplotypes, 54 percent wolves in the lower 48 States, including kilograms (kg) (40 to 175 pounds (lb)) (Wheeldon et al. 2010) or 50 percent all subspecies of gray wolves, which depending upon sex and subspecies (Fain et al. 2010, p. 7) of sampled were subsumed at that time into C. (Mech 1974). The average weight of wolves had haplotypes of C. lycaon. lupus. That rule classified the male wolves in Wisconsin is 35 kg (77 Male wolves carry both paternal and Minnesota gray wolf population as a lb) and ranges from 26 to 46 kg (57 to maternal markers. Of male wolves threatened ‘‘species’’ and gray wolves 102 lb), while females average 28 kg (62 sampled by Fain et al. (2010, p. 12), 41 elsewhere in the lower 48 States and lb) and range from 21 to 34 kg (46 to 75 percent had both maternal and paternal Mexico as another ‘‘species’’ with lb) (Wisconsin Department of Natural haplotypes of C. lycaon, and 13 percent endangered status. The best scientific Resources (WI DNR) 1999). Wolves’ fur had both maternal and paternal information available supports the color is frequently a grizzled gray, but haplotypes of C. lupus. Based on a larger existence of distinct taxa and it can vary from pure white to coal sample that also included some wolves populations within the C. lupus listing black. Wolves may appear similar to from western Ontario, Wheeldon et al. and changes our understanding of North coyotes (Canis latrans) and some (2010) reported 42 percent of the American wolf taxonomy. With regard domestic dog breeds (such as the sampled male wolves had both maternal to the WGL wolf population, current German shepherd or Siberian husky) (C. and paternal haplotypes of C. lycaon scientific data indicate that Canis lupus familiaris). Wolves’ longer legs, and 21 percent had both maternal and lycaon, which was understood in 1978 larger feet, wider head and snout, and paternal haplotypes of C. lupus. to be a subspecies of C. lupus, should straight tail distinguish them from both Maternal and paternal haplotypes were be recognized as a full species, and that coyotes and dogs. mixed with respect to the two species C. lycaon and C. lupus both occur, and Wolves primarily are predators of for the remaining wolves in both to some extent, interbreed in the medium and large mammals. Wild prey studies. western Great Lakes area (see Taxonomy species in North America include white- Although it is clear that C. lycaon and of Wolves in the Western Great Lakes tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and C. lupus have hybridized in the western Region). deer (O. hemionus), (Alces Great Lakes region, same-species The existence of this new information alces), (Cervus elaphus), woodland combinations of paternal and maternal does not by itself change the regulatory caribou (Rangifer caribou) and barren

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26095

ground caribou (R. arcticus), bison 2001). Normally a pack has a single the survival of the wolf in Minnesota (Bison bison), muskox (Ovibos litter annually, but the production of 2 must be assured. We, and the Eastern moschatus), bighorn sheep (Ovis or 3 litters in one year has been Timber Wolf Recovery Team (Peterson canadensis) and Dall sheep (O. dalli), routinely documented in Yellowstone in litt. 1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b), have mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), National Park (USFWS et al. 2002; concluded that this recovery criterion beaver (Castor canadensis), snowshoe Smith et al. 2005). remains valid. It addresses a need for hare (Lepus americanus), and muskrat Yearling wolves frequently disperse reasonable assurances that future state, (Ondatra zibethicus), with small from their natal packs, although some Tribal, and Federal wolf management mammals, birds, and large invertebrates remain with their natal pack. Adult and protection will maintain a viable sometimes being taken (Chavez and wolves and pups older than 5 months recovered population of wolves within Gese 2005, Mech 1974, Stebler 1944, WI also may disperse but at much lower the borders of Minnesota for the DNR 1999, Huntzinger et al. 2005). In frequencies (Fuller 1989). Dispersers foreseeable future. the WGL DPS, during the last 25 years, may range over large areas as lone The Recovery Plan for the Eastern wolves have also killed domestic after leaving their natal pack or Timber Wolf was based on the best animals including horses ( they may locate suitable unoccupied available information on wolf taxonomy caballus), cattle (Bos taurus), sheep habitat and a member of the opposite at the time of its original publication (Ovis aries), goats (Capra hircus), llamas sex and begin their own pack. These and subsequent revision. As discussed (Lama glama), (Sus scrofa), geese dispersal movements allow a wolf above in Taxonomy of Wolves in the (Anser sp.), ducks (Anas sp.), turkeys population to quickly expand and Western Great Lakes Region, since the (Meleagris gallopavo), chickens (Gallus colonize areas of suitable habitat that publication of those plans, several sp.), guinea fowl (Numida meleagris), are nearby or even those that are studies have produced conflicting pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), dogs, isolated by a broad area of unsuitable results regarding the taxonomic identity cats (Felis catus), and captive white- habitat. Additional details on of the wolf that historically occupied tailed deer (Paul 2004, 2005; Wydeven extraterritorial movements are found in the eastern States. Currently, the Service 1998; Wydeven et al. 2001; Wydeven Delineating the Boundaries of the subscribes to the view that what was and Wiedenhoeft 1999, 2000, 2001, Proposed WGL Gray Wolf DPS, below. formerly recognized as the subspecies C. 2005). lupus lycaon should be recognized as a Wolves are social animals, normally Recovery of Western Great Lakes unique species, C. lycaon. Regardless of living in packs of 2 to 12 wolves. Winter Wolves its taxonomic identity, however, this pack size in Michigan’s Upper Recovery Criteria recovery program has always focused on Peninsula (UP) averaged from 2.7 to 4.6 recovering the wolf population that wolves during the 1995 through 2005 Recovery plans are not regulatory survived in, and has expanded outward period and ranged from 2 to 14 wolves documents and are instead intended to from, northeastern Minnesota. Thus, the per pack (Huntzinger et al. 2005). Pack provide guidance to the Service, States, Plans guide our analysis of recovery of size in Wisconsin is similar, averaging and other partners on methods of the wolves in the western Great Lakes 3.8 to 4.1 wolves per pack, and ranging minimizing threats to listed species and area. from 2 to 11 wolves in winter 2004–05 achieving recovery. These documents Although the recovery criteria (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005). In include, among other elements required identified in the Recovery Plan predate Minnesota the average pack size found under section 4(f) of the Act, criteria for the scientific field of conservation in the 1988–89, 1997–98, and 2003–04 determining when a species can be biology, the conservation principles of winter surveys was higher—5.55, 5.4, delisted. There are many paths to representation (conserving the genetic and 5.3 wolves per pack, respectively accomplishing recovery of a species; in diversity of a taxon), resilience (the (Erb and Benson 2004). fact, recovery of a species is a dynamic ability to withstand demographic and Packs are primarily family groups process requiring adaptive management environmental variation), and consisting of a breeding pair, their pups that may, or may not, strictly adhere to redundancy (sufficient populations to from the current year, offspring from the guidance provided in a recovery provide a margin of safety) were one or two previous years, and plan. incorporated into these criteria. occasionally an unrelated wolf. Packs We use recovery criteria in concert Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf typically occupy, and defend from other with evidence that threats have been population is vital in terms of packs and individual wolves, a territory minimized sufficiently and populations representation and resilience, because of 20 to 214 square (sq) miles (mi) (50 have achieved long-term viability to the remaining genetic diversity of to 550 sq kilometers (km)). Midwest judge when a species can be reclassified wolves in the eastern United States wolf packs tend to occupy territories on from endangered to threatened or (other than red wolves) was carried by the lower end of this size range. delisted. Recovery plans, including the several hundred wolves that Michigan Upper Peninsula territories recovery criteria, are subject to change survived in Minnesota into the early averaged 103 sq mi (267 sq km in 2000– based upon new information and are 1970s. The Recovery Team insisted that 01 (Drummer et al. 2002), Wisconsin revised accordingly and when the remnant Minnesota wolf population territories 37 sq mi (96 sq km) in 2004– practicable. In a similar sense, be maintained and protected to achieve 05 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005), implementation of planned actions is wolf recovery in the eastern United and Minnesota territory size averaged 39 subject to changing information and States. The successful growth of the sq mi (102 sq km) in 2003–04 (Erb and availability of resources. We have taken remnant Minnesota population has Benson 2004). Normally, only the top- these considerations into account in the maintained and maximized the ranking (‘‘alpha’’) male and female in following discussion. representation of that genetic diversity each pack breed and produce pups. The 1978 Recovery Plan (hereafter among wolves in the WGL. Although Litters are born from early April into Recovery Plan) and the 1992 Revised the Revised Recovery Plan did not May; they range from 1 to 11 pups, but Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber establish a specific numerical criterion generally include 4 to 6 pups (Michigan Wolf (hereafter Revised Recovery Plan) for the Minnesota wolf population, it Department of Natural Resources (MI contain the same two recovery criteria. did identify, for planning purposes DNR) 1997; USFWS 1992; USFWS et al. The first recovery criterion states that only, a population goal of 1,251–1,400

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26096 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

animals for that Minnesota population The original Recovery Plan did not in 1974 include 450 to 700 wolves in (USFWS 1992, p. 28). A population of specify where in the eastern United 1950–53 (Fuller et al. 1992, p. 43, based this size would increase the likelihood States the second population should be on data in Stenlund 1955, p. 19), 350 to of maintaining its genetic diversity over re-established. Therefore, the second 700 wolves in 1963 (Cahalane 1964, p. the long term. This large Minnesota wolf population could have been established 10), 750 wolves in 1970 (Leirfallom population also provides resiliency to anywhere within the triangular 1970, p. 11), 736 to 950 wolves in 1971– reduce the adverse impacts of Minnesota–Maine–Florida area covered 72 (Fuller et al. 1992, p. 44), and 500 to unpredictable demographic and by the Recovery Plan and the Revised 1,000 wolves in 1973 (Mech and Rausch environmental events. Furthermore, the Recovery Plan, except on Isle Royale 1975, p. 85). Although these estimates Revised Recovery Plan specifies a wolf (Michigan) or within Minnesota. The were based on different methodologies population that is spread across about Revised Recovery Plan identified and are not directly comparable, each 40 percent of Minnesota (Zones 1 potential gray wolf reestablishment puts the pre-listing abundance of wolves through 4) (USFWS 1992, p. 28), adding areas in northern Wisconsin, the UP of in Minnesota at 1,000 or less. This was a geographic component to the Michigan, the Adirondack Forest the only significant wolf population in resiliency of the Minnesota wolf Preserve of New York, a small area in the United States outside Alaska during population. eastern Maine, and a larger area of those time periods. The second recovery criterion in the northwestern Maine and adjacent Recovery Plan states that at least one northern (USFWS After the gray wolf was listed as viable wolf population should be 1992, pp. 56–58). Neither the 1978 nor endangered under the Act in 1974, the reestablished within the historical range the 1992 recovery criteria suggest that Minnesota population estimates of the eastern timber wolf outside of the restoration of the gray wolf increased (see table 1 below). Mech Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan throughout all or most of what was estimated the population to be 1,000 to (USFWS 1992, pp. 24–26). The thought to be its historical range in the 1,200 wolves in 1976 (USFWS 1978, pp. reestablished population enhances both eastern United States, or to all of these 4, 50–52), and Berg and Kuehn (1982, p. the resiliency and redundancy of the potential re-establishment areas, is 11) estimated that there were 1,235 WGL metapopulation. necessary to achieve recovery under the wolves in 138 packs in the winter of The Recovery Plan provides two Act. 1978–79. In 1988–89, the Minnesota options for reestablishing this second In 1998, the Eastern Timber Wolf Department of Natural Resources (MN population. If it is an isolated Recovery Team clarified the application DNR) repeated the 1978–79 survey and population, that is, located more than of the recovery criterion for the second also used a second method to estimate 100 mi (160 km) from the Minnesota population to the wolf population that wolf numbers in Minnesota. The wolf population, the second population had developed in northern Wisconsin resulting independent estimates were should consist of at least 200 wolves for and the adjacent UP of Michigan. This 1,500 and 1,750 wolves in at least 233 at least 5 years, based upon late-winter second population is less than 100 mi packs; the lower number was derived by population estimates, to be considered (160 km) from the Minnesota wolf a method comparable to the 1978–79 viable. Late-winter estimates are made population. The Recovery Team survey (Fuller et al. 1992, pp. 50–51). at a time when most winter mortality recommended that the numerical has already occurred and before the During the winter of 1997–98, the MN recovery criterion for the Wisconsin– birth of pups, thus, the count is made DNR repeated a statewide wolf Michigan population be considered met at the annual low point of the population and distribution survey, when consecutive late-winter wolf population. Alternatively, if the second using methods similar to those of the surveys document that the population population is located within 100 mi two previous surveys. Field staff of equals or exceeds 100 wolves (excluding (160 km) of a self-sustaining wolf Federal, State, Tribal, and county land Isle Royale wolves) for the 5 consecutive population (for example, the Minnesota management agencies and wood years between the first and last surveys wolf population), it should be products companies were queried to (Peterson in litt. 1998). maintained at a minimum of 100 wolves identify occupied wolf range in for at least 5 years, based on late-winter Recovery Trends for Wolves in the Minnesota. Data from 5 concurrent radio population estimates, to be considered Western Great Lakes Region telemetry studies tracking 36 packs, viable. A nearby second population representative of the entire Minnesota would be considered viable at a smaller Minnesota Recovery wolf range, were used to determine size because it would be geographically During the pre-1965 period of wolf average pack size and territory area. close enough to exchange wolves with bounties and legal public trapping, Those figures were then used to the Minnesota population (that is, they wolves persisted in the remote calculate a statewide estimate of wolf would function as a metapopulation), northeastern portion of Minnesota but and pack numbers in the occupied thereby bolstering the smaller second were eliminated from the rest of the range, with single (non-pack) wolves population both genetically and State. Estimated numbers of Minnesota factored into the estimate (Berg and numerically. wolves before their listing under the Act Benson 1999, pp. 1–2).

TABLE 1—MINIMUM WINTER WOLF POPULATIONS IN MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, AND MICHIGAN (EXCLUDING ISLE ROYALE) FROM 1976 THROUGH 2010. (NOTE THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL YEARS BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE ESTIMATES. MIN- NESOTA DOES NOT CONDUCT ANNUAL SURVEYS.)

Number of wolves Year Wisconsin and Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan Michigan total

1976 ...... 1,000–1,200 ...... 1978–79 ...... 1,235 ...... 1988–89 ...... 1,500–1,750 31 3 34

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26097

TABLE 1—MINIMUM WINTER WOLF POPULATIONS IN MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, AND MICHIGAN (EXCLUDING ISLE ROYALE) FROM 1976 THROUGH 2010. (NOTE THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL YEARS BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE ESTIMATES. MIN- NESOTA DOES NOT CONDUCT ANNUAL SURVEYS.)—Continued

Number of wolves Year Wisconsin and Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan Michigan total

1989–90 ...... 34 10 44 1990–91 ...... 40 17 57 1991–92 ...... 45 21 66 1992–93 ...... 40 30 70 1993–94 ...... 57 57 114 1994–95 ...... 83 80 163 1995–96 ...... 99 116 215 1996–97 ...... 148 113 261 1997–98 ...... 2,445 180 139 319 1998–99 ...... 205 169 374 1999–2000 ...... 248 216 464 2000–01 ...... 257 249 506 2001–02 ...... 327 278 604 2002–03 ...... 335 321 656 2003–04 ...... 3,020 373 360 733 2004–05 ...... 435 405 840 2005–06 ...... 467 434 899 2006–07 ...... 546 509 1,055 2007–08 ...... 2,921 549 520 1,069 2008–09 ...... 637 577 1,214 2009–10 ...... 690 557 1,247

The 1997–98 survey concluded that the past three surveys suggest that the Benson 1999, p. 5). By that time the approximately 2,445 wolves existed in wolf population has been numerically Minnesota wolf population was using about 385 packs in Minnesota during stable over the past 10 or more years most of the available primary and that winter period (90 percent (Erb 2008, p. 6). peripheral range identified by Mech et confidence interval from 1,995 to 2,905 As wolves increased in abundance in al. (1988, p. 86). The wolf population in wolves) (Berg and Benson 1999, p. 4). Minnesota, they also expanded their Minnesota had increased in abundance This figure indicated the continued distribution. During 1948–53, the and distribution to the point that its growth of the Minnesota wolf primary wolf range was estimated at contiguous range covered approximately 11,954 sq mi (31,080 sq km) (Stenlund population at an average rate of about 40 percent of the State during 1997–98. 3.7 percent annually from 1970 through 1955, p. 19). A 1970 questionnaire In contrast, the 2003–04 survey failed to 1997–98. Between 1979 and 1989 the survey in Minnesota resulted in an show a continuing expansion of wolf annual growth rate was approximately 3 estimated wolf range of 14,769 sq mi percent, and it increased to between 4 (38,400 sq km) (calculated by Fuller et range in Minnesota, and any actual and 5 percent in the next decade (Berg al. 1992, p. 43, from Leirfallom 1970). increase in wolf numbers since 1997–98 and Benson 1999, p. 5; Fuller et al. Fuller et al. (1992, p. 44), using data was attributed to increased wolf density 1992, p. 51). As of the 1998 survey, the from Berg and Kuehn (1982), estimated within a stabilized range (Erb and number of Minnesota wolves had that Minnesota primary wolf range Benson 2004, p. 7). The results of the reached approximately twice the encompassed 14,038 sq mi (36,500 sq 2007–08 survey also indicated that wolf number specified in the recovery km) during the winter of 1978–79. By range in Minnesota remained planning goal for Minnesota (USFWS 1982–83, pairs or breeding packs of ‘‘essentially unchanged’’ since 2004 (Erb 1992, p. 28). wolves were estimated to occupy an 2008, not paginated). Minnesota DNR conducted another area of 22,000 sq mi (57,050 sq km) in Although the Minnesota DNR does survey of the State’s wolf population northern Minnesota (Mech et al. 1988, not conduct a formal wolf population and range during the winter of 2003–04, p. 86). That study also identified an survey annually, it includes the species again using methodology similar to the additional 15,577 sq mi (40,500 sq km) in its annual carnivore track survey. previous surveys. That survey of peripheral range, where habitat concluded that an estimated 3,020 appeared suitable but no wolves or only This survey, standardized and wolves in 485 packs occurred in lone wolves existed. The 1988–89 study operational since 1994, provides an Minnesota (90 percent confidence produced an estimate of 23,165 sq mi annual index of abundance for several interval for this estimate is 2,301 to (60,200 sq km) as the contiguous wolf species of large carnivores by counting 3,708 wolves) (Erb and Benson 2004, range at that time in Minnesota (Fuller their tracks along 20-mile (32-km) long pp. 7, 9). The MN DNR conducted its et al. 1992, pp. 48–49; Berg and Benson standardized survey routes in northern most recent survey of wolf population 1999, p. 3, 5), an increase of 65 percent Minnesota. In 2009, wolves were and range during the winter of 2007–08. over the primary range calculated for detected on 71 percent of the 58 routes That survey concluded that an 1978–79. surveyed, and the resulting indices of estimated 2,921 wolves in 503 packs The 1997–98 study concluded that the abundance and distribution were not occurred in Minnesota (90 percent contiguous wolf range had expanded to appreciably different from recent years confidence interval for this estimate is 33,971 sq mi (88,325 sq km), a 47 (Erb 2009, not paginated). 2,192 to 3,525 wolves). The results of percent increase in 9 years (Berg and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26098 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Summary for Minnesota individuals who exhibit localized In the winter of 1994–95, wolves were The Minnesota wolf population has patterns. From December through first documented in Jackson County, increased from an estimated 1,000 March, the pilots make special efforts to Wisconsin, well to the south of the area individuals in 1976 to nearly 3,000 visually locate and count the individual occupied by other Wisconsin wolf packs today and the estimated wolf range in wolves in each radio-tracked pack. in the northern part of the State (Thiel Snow tracking is used to supplement the State has expanded by et al. 2009, pp. 109–110). The number the information gained from aerial approximately 225 percent (from of wolves in this central Wisconsin area sightings and to provide pack size approximately 15,000 sq mi (24,100 sq has dramatically increased since that estimates for packs lacking a radio- time. During the winter of 2009–10, km) to approximately 34,000 sq mi collared wolf. Tracking is done by there were 100–106 wolves in 25 packs (54,700 sq km)) since 1970. Over the assigning survey blocks to trained in the central forest wolf range (Zone 2 past 10–12 years, the population size trackers, who then drive snow-covered in the Wisconsin Wolf Management and range have remained stable, as most roads in their blocks and follow all wolf Plan; Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 5) and an of the primary and peripheral habitat tracks they encounter. Snowmobiles are additional 46 to 48 wolves in 12 or 13 has been occupied. Based on the current used to locate wolf tracks in more packs in the marginal habitat in Zone 3, abundance and distribution of the remote areas with few roads. The results located between Zone 1 (northern forest Minnesota wolf population, we believe of the aerial and ground surveys are wolf range) and Zones 2 and 4 its continued survival is ensured, and it carefully compared to properly separate (Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 5). achieves the first recovery criterion of packs and to avoid over-counting During the winter of 2004–05, 11 to the Revised Recovery Plan. (Wydeven et al. 2006a, pp. 4–5). The 13 wolves were believed to be primarily Wisconsin Recovery estimated number of wolves in each occupying Native American reservation pack is based on the aerial and ground lands in Wisconsin (Wydeven in litt. Wolves were considered to have been observations made of the individual 2005); this increased to 16 to 17 in extirpated from Wisconsin by 1960. No wolves in each pack over the winter. 2005–06, 17 to 19 in 2007–08 (Wydeven formal attempts were made to monitor Because the monitoring methods and Wiedenhoeft 2008, Summary), the State’s wolf population from 1960 focus on wolf packs, lone wolves are approximately 27 in 2008–2009 through 1978. Although individual likely undercounted in Wisconsin. As a (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2008, p. 1), wolves and an occasional wolf pair were result, the annual population estimates and approximately 35 in 2009–10 reported from 1960 through 1975, (Thiel are probably slight underestimates of (Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 1). The 2009– 1978, Thiel 1993), there was no the actual wolf population within the 10 survey consisted of 3 packs totaling documentation of wolf reproduction State during the late-winter period. 10–11 wolves on the Bad River occurring in Wisconsin, and the wolves Fuller (1989, p. 19) noted that lone Chippewa Reservation and a pack of 2 that were reported may have been wolves are estimated to compose from 2 wolves on the Lac Courtes Oreilles dispersing animals from Minnesota. to 29 percent of the total population in Chippewa Reservation, both in Wolves are believed to have the area. Wisconsin DNR surveys have northwestern Wisconsin. There also reestablished breeding packs in estimated 2–15 percent of the winter were two packs of five wolves each on Wisconsin in the winter of 1975–76. population as loners (Wydeven et al. the Lac du Flambeau Reservation in The Wisconsin Department of Natural 2009c, p. 96). These surveys, however, north-central Wisconsin. A pack of four Resources (WI DNR) began wolf are focused on heavily forested portions wolves and three pairs occurred on the population monitoring in 1979–80, of northern and central Wisconsin; Menominee Reservation and a three- estimating a statewide population of 25 therefore, dispersing wolves traveling wolf pack occurred on the Stockbridge wolves at that time (Wydeven and other portions of the State are less likely Reservation, both in northeastern Wiedenhoeft 2000, pp. 151, 159; to be detected, and often such wolves Wisconsin (Wydeven et al. 2010, Table Wydeven et al. 2009c, pp. 93–97). This are only documented after vehicle 6). A pack of four to five wolves spent population remained relatively stable collisions or accidental shootings. time on portions of the Red Cliff for several years, and then declined to Broader use of trail cameras by members Chippewa Reservation along the Lake approximately 15 to 19 wolves in the of the public is improving the WI DNR’s Superior shoreline. Wolf packs also mid-1980s. In the late 1980s, the ability to detect lone wolves across the used scattered lands of the St. Croix Wisconsin wolf population began an State. Chippewa in northwest Wisconsin, the increase that has continued into 2010, As previously stated, population Ho Chunk Nation in central Wisconsin, when 690 wolves were counted estimates are made at the low point of and Potawatomi in northeast Wisconsin. (Wydeven et al. 2010, Figure 3). the annual wolf population cycle. Thus, The Tribal land of the Ho-Chunk, St. Since 1979, WI DNR has intensively Wisconsin wolf population estimates Croix Chippewa, and Potawatomi are surveyed its wolf population on an are conservative in two respects. They composed mostly of scattered parcels of annual basis using a combination of undercount lone wolves, and the count land, and are not likely to provide aerial, ground, and satellite radio is made at the annual low point of the significant amounts of wolf habitat. telemetry complemented by snow population. This methodology is About 90 percent of packs in northern tracking and wolf sign surveys consistent with the recovery criteria Wisconsin Zone 1, and northern (Wydeven et al. 2006a, pp. 4–5; established in the Revised Recovery portions of Zone 3 are located in ceded Wydeven et al. 2009c, pp. 90–91). Plan, which established numerical territory where Chippewa Bands have Wolves are trapped from May through criteria to be measured with data retained hunting and gathering rights. September and fitted with radio collars, obtained by late-winter surveys. Based In 2002, wolf numbers in Wisconsin with a goal of having at least one radio on these considerations, an estimated alone surpassed the 1992 Revised collared wolf in approximately half of 690 to 733 wolves in 181 packs, Recovery Plan criterion for a second the wolf packs in Wisconsin. Aerial including 35 wolves on Native population within 100 miles of the locations are obtained from each American reservations, were in Minnesota population (100 wolves for a functioning radio collar about once per Wisconsin in early 2010, representing minimum of 5 consecutive years week, and pack territories are estimated an 8 percent increase from 2009 (USFWS 1992, p. 4)). Furthermore, in and mapped from the movements of the (Wydeven et al. 2010, pp. 12–13). 2004, Wisconsin wolf numbers

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26099

exceeded the 1992 recovery criterion of 2008). Pack locations are derived from prioritized area search and a targeted 200 animals for 6 successive late-winter previous surveys, citizen reports, and area search based on citizen reports of surveys for an isolated wolf population extensive ground and aerial tracking of wolves or wolf sign. USDA–Wildlife (USFWS 1992, p. 4). Wisconsin radio-collared wolves. During the winter Services, Little Traverse Bay Band of population estimates for 1985 to 2010 of 2009–10, 557 wolves in 109 packs Odawa Indians, and Central Michigan increased from 15 to 690 wolves (see were resident in the UP (MI DNR in litt. University worked cooperatively on the table 1 above) and from 4 to 181 packs 2010, Table 1). Surveys along the border surveys. Nine units ranging in size from (Wydeven et al. 2010, figure 3). This of adjacent survey units are coordinated 200–400 sq mi (322–644 sq km) were represents an annual population to avoid double counting of wolves and surveyed; however, no wolf sign was increase of 21 percent through 2000, packs occupying those border areas. In found (Roell et al. 2010, p. 4). Beginning and an average annual increase of 6 areas with a high density of wolves, in 2008, a targeted search approach was percent for the most recent 6 years. The ground surveys by four to six surveyors used. The MI DNR issued a press release slower rates of increase since 2000 are with concurrent aerial tracking are used asking citizens to report any wolves or an indication that the State’s wolf to accurately delineate territories of wolf sign; again, no wolves were population growth and geographic adjacent packs and count their members detected in winters of 2008–10 (Roell et expansion are beginning to level off. (Beyer et al. 2004, pp. 2–3; Huntzinger al. 2009, p. 5; Roell 2010, pers. comm.). et al. 2005, pp. 3–6; Potvin et al. 2005, In the summer of 2009, video images Michigan Recovery p. 1661). As with Wisconsin, the of single wolves were recorded in two Except for Isle Royale, wolves were Michigan surveys likely miss lone of the three northern LP counties extirpated from Michigan as a wolves, thus underestimating the actual nearest to the UP (Roell et al. 2010, p. reproducing species long before they population. 4). The videos, taken in Emmet County were listed as endangered under the Act Based on annual surveys in late in May 19, 2009, and Presque Isle in 1974. Prior to 1989, the last known winter, estimates of wolves in the UP County in July 27, 2009, may have been breeding population of wild Michigan increased from 57 wolves in 1994 to 557 of the same (Roell 2009, pers. wolves outside Isle Royale occurred in in late winter 2009–10 (see table 1 comm.). In 2010, USDA Wildlife the mid-1950s. However, as wolves above). Over the last 10 years, the Services and MI DNR staff confirmed a began to reoccupy northern Wisconsin, annualized rate of increase has been single breeding pair with three pups in the Michigan Department of Natural about 12 percent (MI DNR in litt. 2010, Cheboygan County in the northern LP Resources (MI DNR) began noting single table 1). This rate has varied from year (MI DNR 2010). This is the first time a wolves at various locations in the UP of to year, but there appear to be two wolf pack has been verified in the LP Michigan. Wolf recovery in Michigan distinct phases of population growth, since the early 1900s. In 2008, the DNR began with the documentation of three with relatively rapid growth (25.8 recognized the likelihood that small wolves traveling together and making percent average) from 1995 through numbers of wolves would eventually territorial marks in the central UP 2000 and slower growth (10.1 percent move into the northern LP and form during the fall of 1988; and the average) from 2001 through 2010. In persistent packs (Potvin 2003, pp. 29– subsequent birth of pups in this territory 2005, the number of wolves in the 30; Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1242; during spring 1989 (Beyer et al. 2009, Michigan population alone surpassed Beyer et al. 2006, p. 35), and revised its p. 73). Since that time, wolf packs have the recovery criterion for an isolated Wolf Management Plan in part to spread throughout the UP, with wolf population of 200 animals for 6 incorporate provisions for wolf immigration occurring from Wisconsin successive late-winter surveys, as management in the northern LP (MI on the west and possibly from Ontario specified in the Revised Recovery Plan DNR 2008a, p. 46). on the east. Wolves now are found in (USFWS 1992, pp. 24–26). The wolf population of Isle Royale every county of the UP, with the To date, no wolf packs are known to National Park, Michigan, is not possible exception of Keweenaw County be primarily using Tribal-owned lands considered to be an important factor in (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6; Roell 2009, in Michigan (Roell 2011, pers. comm.). the recovery of wolves in the WGL. The pers. comm.). Native American Tribes in the UP of Park population is small and isolated The MI DNR annually monitors the Michigan own small, scattered parcels and lacks genetic uniqueness (Wayne et wolf population in the UP by of land relative to the size of wolf pack al. 1991, pp. 47–49). In addition, this conducting a winter survey. Roads and territories. Thus, no one Tribal property island population probably has not had trails are searched intensively and would likely support a wolf pack. any contact with mainland wolf extensively for wolf tracks and other However, as wolves occur in all populations since its founding pair wolf sign using trucks and snowmobiles counties in the UP and are wide- crossed the Lake Superior ice in the late (Potvin et al. 2005). Complete surveys ranging, Tribal land is likely used 1940s (Peterson et al. 1998, p. 828). For conducted from 1999 to 2006 provided periodically by wolves. genetic reasons and constraints on an opportunity to evaluate multiple In October 2004, a coyote trapper expansion due to the island’s small size, sampling approaches (MI DNR 2008). mistakenly captured and killed a wolf in this wolf population does not contribute Based on these evaluations, it was Presque Isle County in the northern significantly towards meeting numerical determined that a geographically Lower Peninsula (LP) of Michigan. This recovery criteria; however, long-term stratified sampling protocol produced was the first verification of a wolf in the research on this wolf population has unbiased, precise estimates of wolf northern LP in at least 65 years (Roell added a great deal to our knowledge of abundance (Potvin et al. 2005; et al. 2010, p. 4). This wolf had been the species. The wolf population on Isle Drummer, unpublished data). The trapped and radio-collared by the MI Royale has ranged from 12 to 50 wolves sampling protocol implemented in 2007 DNR the previous year (2003) while it since 1959, and was 19 wolves in the allows trackers to spend more time in was a member of an eastern UP pack. winter of 2009–2010 (Vucetich and smaller areas (MI DNR 2008). Since 2004, Michigan has surveyed the Peterson 2010, p. 5). The UP is divided into 21 survey northern LP to determine whether units from which a stratified random wolves had successfully colonized the Summary for Wisconsin and Michigan sample is drawn, covering roughly 50 area. From 2005 through 2007, the The two-State wolf population, percent of the UP every year (MI DNR survey had two components: A excluding Isle Royale wolves, has

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26100 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

exceeded 100 wolves since late-winter Although it is possible for these population levels. The wolf’s numeric 1993–94 and has exceeded 200 wolves dispersers to encounter and mate with and distributional recovery criteria in since late-winter 1995–96. Therefore, a mature wolf outside the primary the WGL have been met. the combined wolf population for range, the lack of large expanses of Have the Wolves of the Western Great unfragmented habitat make it unlikely Wisconsin and Michigan has exceeded Lakes Region Been Restored? the second recovery criterion of the that wolf packs will persist in these 1992 Revised Recovery Plan for a peripheral areas; lack of contiguous Leonard and Wayne (2008, p. 3) have nonisolated wolf population, since habitat is expected to seriously impede stated that Great Lakes wolves have not 1999. Furthermore, the two-State further expansion. The only exception is been restored based on absence of population has exceeded the recovery the northern LP of Michigan, where certain historical mtDNA haplotypes criterion for an isolated second several studies indicate that a persistent from the current population, an population since 2001. wolf population may develop (Gehring estimated historical population size far and Potter 2005, p. 1242; Potvin 2003, greater than the current population size, Other Areas In and Near the Proposed pp. 29–30), albeit dependent on and the admixture of coyote and Western Great Lakes DPS occasional to frequent immigration of western wolf haplotypes in the current No surveys have been conducted to UP wolves. Despite the constraints on population. document the number of wolves present further expansion described here, The spatial representativeness of both in North Dakota or South Dakota, but an however, current wolf populations in the historical and recent samples increasing number of wolves has Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP of reported by Leonard and Wayne (2008) apparently been detected in the eastern Michigan have already greatly exceeded has been questioned by Mech (2009). portions of these States. The eastern the recovery levels defined in the 1992 For example, 16 recent but no historical samples from Minnesota were included boundaries of North Dakota and South Revised Recovery Plan, and in the study. Leonard and Wayne (2009) Dakota are approximately 19 and 81 mi maintenance of these numbers is not responded that they did not believe that (30 and 130 km), respectively, from contingent on recruitment of wolves genetic differences were likely to be occupied habitat in Minnesota. from areas outside the primary range pronounced at the geographic scale Biologists who are familiar with wolves that has been established for the WGL. discussed by Mech and Paul (2008) and in these States, however, generally agree Summary of Wolf Recovery in the Mech (2009). that the wolves found there are Western Great Lakes Region The current population of wolves in primarily lone dispersers, although Wolves in the proposed WGL DPS Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan is there were reports of pups being seen in greatly exceed the recovery criteria derived from expansion of the remnant the Turtle Mountains of North Dakota, (USFWS 1992, pp. 24–26) for (1) a population in northeastern Minnesota in 1994 (Collins in litt. 1998). secure wolf population in Minnesota, (Fain et al. 2010, p. 12), which was Other records include an adult male and (2) a second population outside likely to have included both C. lupus shot near Devil’s Lake, North Dakota in Minnesota and Isle Royale consisting of and C. lycaon (Mech and Frenzel 1971; 2002, another adult male shot in 100 wolves for 5 successive years. Based Mech 2010, p. 135), and in the case of Richland County in extreme on the criteria set by the Eastern Wolf UP Michigan, with possible southeastern North Dakota in 2003 (Fain Recovery Team in 1992 and reaffirmed contributions from C. lycaon from in litt. 2006), and a vehicle-killed adult in 1997 and 1998 (Peterson in litt. 1997, southern Ontario (Fain et al. 2010, p. male found near Sturgis, South Dakota, in litt. 1998), the proposed DPS contains 12). in 2006 (Larson in litt. 2006). In contrast sufficient wolf numbers and distribution Subsequent studies with larger to the other South Dakota wolves of the to ensure their long-term survival samples of the current wolf population last 25 years, the animal found near within the DPS. find, despite acknowledged influence of Sturgis was genetically identified as The maintenance and expansion of western wolves, the current population having come from the Greater the Minnesota wolf population has is generally representative of the Yellowstone area (Fain in litt. 2006). maximized the preservation of the historical population (Fain et al. 2010, Most recently, a wolf was shot in genetic diversity that remained in the p. 14; Wheeldon et al. 2010). Roberts County, South Dakota in proposed WGL DPS when its wolves Koblmu¨ ller et al. (2009, pp. 10–11) January 2009 (reportedly running with were first protected in 1974. found ‘‘comparatively slight’’ two or three other wolves) (Prieksat in Furthermore, the Wisconsin–Michigan differentiation at autosomal litt. 2009), and another wolf was found wolf population has exceeded the microsatellite DNA loci between dead in a foothold trap that was set as numerical recovery criterion even for a historical and current Great Lakes part of an ongoing USDA Wildlife completely isolated second population. wolves. Wheeldon and White (2009, p. Service’s coyote control operation in Therefore, even in the unlikely event 4) present microsatellite DNA evidence southeastern Eddy County, North that this two-State population was to that the hybridization processes noted Dakota (Bicknell in litt. 2009). See become totally isolated and wolf by Leonard and Wayne (2008) were Delineating the Boundaries of the immigration from Minnesota and taking place over a century ago, so that Proposed WGL Gray Wolf DPS in this Ontario completely ceased, it would the current population is comparable to proposed rule for a detailed discussion still remain a viable wolf population for the historical population with respect to of movement of wolves. the foreseeable future, as defined by the admixture. Hybridization between Wolf dispersal is expected to continue Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, eastern wolves and western wolves in as wolves travel away from the more pp. 25–26). Finally, each of the wolf the western Great Lakes region occurred saturated habitats in the primary range populations in Wisconsin and Michigan prior to significant human effects on into peripheral areas where wolves are has exceeded 200 animals for 11 and 10 population size or habitat (Fain et al. extremely sparse or absent. Unless they years, respectively, so if either were 2010, p. 14). According to Fain et al. return to the primary range and join or somehow to become isolated, they (2010, p. 14), the current population of start a pack there, they are unlikely to would remain viable, and each State has wolves in the western Great Lakes contribute to long-term maintenance of committed to manage its wolf ‘‘represents an ancient component of the WGL wolf populations. population at or above viable northeast ecosystem and have been

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26101

established throughout the region for identified as a DPS. Then a third factor, Service’s past practice and does not thousands of years.’’ the DPS’s conservation status, is represent a change in agency position. The loss of mtDNA haplotypes found evaluated in relation to the Act’s Proposed Western Great Lakes Distinct in historical but not the current western standards for listing, delisting, or Population Segment Great Lakes wolf population reported by reclassification, meaning that we Leonard and Wayne (2008, pp. 2–3) and undertake an analysis to determine In 1978, based on what was at that the loss of allelic diversity (Fain et al. whether the DPS is endangered or time the ‘‘best available biological data,’’ 2010, p. 11), indicate that a genetic threatened or does not meet the criteria the Service stated that there were two bottleneck occurred when wolves were for listing. All three steps are necessary ‘‘species’’ of gray wolves in the nearly extirpated from the western Great components of a complete DPS analysis. conterminous United States: ‘‘For Lakes region and the period of slow purposes of this rulemaking, the gray recovery that immediately followed. Past Practice and History of Using DPSs wolf (Canis lupus) group in Mexico and Despite these ‘‘founder effects’’ on the As of February 1, 2011, of the 392 the 48 conterminous States of the genetic composition of the western native vertebrate listings, 85 are listed as United States, other than Minnesota, is Great Lakes population, various less than an entire taxonomic species or being considered as one ‘‘species,’’ and measures of genetic diversity remain subspecies (henceforth referred to in the gray wolf group in Minnesota is comparable to other wolf populations this discussion as populations) under being considered as another ‘‘species.’’ (Koblmu¨ ller et al. 2009; Fain et al. 2010, one of several authorities, including the (43 FR 9607, 9610, March 9, 1978). The p. 12; Wheeldon et al. 2010), at least ‘‘distinct population segment’’ language Service then assigned a different status partially owing to contributions from in the Act’s definition of species under the Act to each of those two ‘‘ ’’ western wolves (C. lupus). (section 3(16)). Thirty-three of these 85 species, finding the Minnesota gray ‘‘ ’’ Wolves in the WGL region display a populations, which span 52 different wolf species to be threatened, while ‘‘ ’’ healthy level of heterozygosity (Fain et taxa, predate the 1996 DPS Policy; as the other gray wolf species (the 48 al. 2010, p. 12), and show no evidence such, the final listing determinations for conterminous States, except Minnesota, and in Mexico) to be endangered. The of genetic bottlenecks (Koblmuller et al. these populations did not include 1978 rule referred to the Minnesota 2009, p. 1). Schwartz and Vucetich formal policy-based analyses or ‘‘ listing as the listing of a ‘‘species’’ when, (2009, p. 2) have stated that By all expressly designate the listed entity as accounts, the return of wolves to the clearly, based on the information a DPS. In several instances, however, Great Lakes region has been successful available at that time, the Minnesota the Service and National Marine * * * they are doing superbly—both in wolves did not taxonomically constitute Fisheries Service (NMFS) have terms of population viability and a separate species of wolf. Therefore, the established a DPS and revised the List ecological function.’’ Cronin and Mech 1978 listing either effectively of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (2009, p. 2) state, ‘‘We suggest that established a Minnesota DPS or listed in a single action, as shown in the wolves in the [W]GL region can simply an entity in a portion of its broader following examples. be called a wolf population with mixed range. ancestry.’’ They further state that, ‘‘It is In February 1985, the Service delisted The DPS Policy (61 FR 4725, February generally acknowledged that the Great the brown pelican (Pelecanus 7, 1996) expressly provides for Lakes wolf population is fit, with occidentalis) in the southeastern United reexamining pre-policy DPS listings: abundant genetic variation’’ (Cronin and States and continued to identify it as ‘‘Any DPS of a vertebrate taxon that was Mech 2009, p. 2). endangered throughout the remainder of listed prior to implementation of this its range (50 FR 4938). In June 1994, policy will be reevaluated on a case-by- Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment NMFS revised the entry for the gray case basis as recommendations are made Policy Overview whale (Eschrichtius robustus) to remove to change the listing status for that Pursuant to the Act, we consider the eastern North Pacific population distinct population segment. The whether information is sufficient to from the List while retaining the appropriate application of the policy indicate that listing, reclassifying, or western North Pacific population as will also be considered in the 5-year delisting any species, subspecies, or, for endangered (59 FR 31094). In July 2003, reviews of the status of listed species vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa may the Service established two DPSs of the required by section 4(c)(2) of the Act.’’ be warranted. To interpret and Columbian white-tailed deer Based on this provision, we are, within implement the DPS provision of the Act (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus)—the this proposed rule, (1) recognizing that and congressional guidance, the Service Douglas County DPS and the Columbia a Minnesota DPS was established in and the National Marine Fisheries River DPS—and delisted only the 1978, (2) reevaluating that DPS listing, Service (NMFS) published a policy Douglas County DPS, while listing the and (3) proposing to revise that DPS to regarding the identification of distinct Columbia River DPS (68 FR 43647). In meet the criteria in the DPS policy and vertebrate population segments under March 2007, the Service established a to reflect the ‘‘best available biological the Act (Policy Regarding the DPS of the grizzly bear ( arctos data.’’ Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate horribilis) for the Greater Yellowstone A gray wolf DPS that includes only Population Segments Under the Area and surrounding area within the Minnesota does not meet the criteria in Endangered Species Act, 61 FR 4722, existing grizzly bear listing in the lower the DPS policy because it is not discrete February 7, 1996) (hereafter DPS 48 States, and delisted this DPS (72 FR ‘‘* * * in relation to the remainder of Policy). Under the DPS policy, two 14865). Also in March 2007, the Service the species to which it belongs’’ (61 FR factors are considered in a decision identified the American crocodile 4725, February 7, 1996). The Minnesota regarding the potential identification of (Crocodylus acutus) in Florida as a DPS wolf population has expanded beyond a DPS: (1) Discreteness of the within the existing endangered listing of State boundaries and is connected to the population segment in relation to the the American crocodile in the United wolf population in Wisconsin and remainder of the taxon, and (2) the States and reclassified the Florida DPS Michigan, as evidenced by frequent significance of the population segment from endangered to threatened (71 FR movements of wolves among the States to the taxon to which it belongs. If a 13027). Revising and delisting the WGL (Van Deelen 2009, p. 140; Treves at al. population meets both tests, it can be DPS of wolves is consistent with the 2009, pp. 192–195) and genetic analyses

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26102 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

that demonstrate the Wisconsin and Geographical Area of the Proposed Highway 83 from Lake Sakakawea to the Michigan wolves are mostly from the Western Great Lakes DPS Canadian border; the portion of South same genetic mix as Minnesota wolves Dakota north and east of the Missouri (Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 4; Fain The geographical area of the proposed River; the portions of Iowa, Illinois, and et al. 2010). Therefore, we are proposing WGL DPS is shown in figure 1, below, Indiana north of the centerline of to revise the boundaries of the and is described as all of Minnesota, Interstate Highway 80; and the portion Minnesota DPS to meet the criteria in Wisconsin, and Michigan; the portion of of Ohio north of the centerline of the DPS policy as discussed under the North Dakota north and east of the Interstate Highway 80 and west of the Distinct Population Segment Analysis, Missouri River upstream to Lake Maumee River at Toledo. below. Sakakawea and east of the centerline of BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C same taxon as a consequence of mechanisms exist that are significant in Distinct Population Segment Analysis physical, physiological, ecological, or light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. behavioral factors (quantitative Markedly Separated from Other Analysis for Discreteness measures of genetic or morphological Populations of the Same Taxon—The discontinuity may provide evidence of western boundaries of the proposed Under the 1996 DPS Policy (61 FR WGL DPS are approximately 400 mi 4722), a population segment of a this separation); or (2) it is delimited by international governmental boundaries (644 km) from the nearest known gray vertebrate taxon may be considered wolf packs in Wyoming and Montana. discrete if it satisfies either of the within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, The distance between those western following conditions: (1) it is markedly packs and the nearest packs within the conservation status, or regulatory separated from other populations of the proposed WGL DPS is nearly 600 mi

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP05MY11.124 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26103

(966 km). The area between Minnesota In general, Canadian gray wolf Analysis for Significance packs and northern Rocky Mountain populations are sufficiently large and If we determine that a population (NRM) packs largely consists of healthy so that population regulation, segment is discrete, we next consider unsuitable habitat, with only scattered rather than protection and close available scientific evidence of its islands of possibly suitable habitat, such monitoring, is the management focus. significance to the taxon to which it as the Black Hills of eastern Wyoming There are an estimated 4,000 wolves in belongs. Our DPS policy states that this and western South Dakota. There are no Manitoba (Manitoba Conservation consideration may include, but is not known populations of gray wolves to undated). Hunting is allowed nearly limited to, the following: (1) Persistence the south or east of the proposed WGL province-wide, including in those of the discrete population segment in an DPS within the United States. provincial hunting zones adjoining ecological setting unusual or unique for As discussed in the previous section, northwestern Minnesota, with last the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the wolves are known to disperse over vast year’s season running from August 31, discrete population segment would distances, but straight line documented 2009, through March 31, 2010 result in a significant gap in the range dispersals of 400 mi (644 km) or more (Manitoba Conservation 2009a). of the taxon; (3) evidence that the are very rare. Although we cannot rule Trapping wolves is allowed province- discrete population segment represents out the possibility of a WGL wolf wide, except in and immediately around the only surviving natural occurrence of traveling 600 mi (966 km) or more and Riding Mountain National Park a taxon that may be more abundant joining or establishing a pack in the (southwestern Manitoba), with last elsewhere as an introduced population northern Rockies, such a movement has year’s season running from October 14, outside its historic range; and/or (4) not been documented and is expected to 2008, through February 28 or March 31, evidence that the discrete population happen very infrequently, if at all. 2009 (varies with trapping zone) segment differs markedly from other Similar movements from the NRM wolf (Manitoba Conservation 2009b). populations of the species in its genetic population into the proposed WGL DPS characteristics. Factor 2 applies to the are unknown and are expected to The Ontario Ministry of Natural proposed WGL DPS and is included in happen infrequently. The 2006 Sturgis Resources estimates there are 8,850 our analysis for significance. Factors 1, (South Dakota) wolf is the closest that wolves in the province, based on prey 3, and 4 do not apply to the proposed an NRM wolf has come to entering the composition and abundance, WGL DPS and thus are not included in proposed WGL DPS (Fain in litt. 2006); topography, and climate and wolf our analysis for significance. however, the Sturgis wolf would still numbers in most parts of the province Significant Gap in the Range of the have had to travel over 300 mi (500 km) are believed to be stable or increasing Taxon—Wolves once lived throughout before encountering the nearest wolf since about 1993 (Ontario MNR 2005a, most of North America. Wolves have pack in the proposed WGL DPS. As the pp. 7–9). In 2005, Ontario limited been extirpated from most of the discreteness criterion requires that the hunting and trapping of wolves by southern portions of their historical DPS be ‘‘markedly separated’’ from other closing the season from April 1 through North American range. The successful populations of the taxon rather than September 14 in central and northern restoration of a viable wolf requiring complete isolation, this high Ontario (Ontario MNR 2005b). In metapopulation to large parts of degree of physical separation between southern Ontario, the portion of the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan the WGL DPS and the northern Rocky province that is adjacent to the has filled a significant gap in the Mountains satisfies the discreteness proposed WGL DPS, wolf hunting and holarctic range of gray wolves in the criterion. trapping is permitted year round United States, and it provides an Delimited by International Boundaries (Ontario MNR 2005c). If delisted, important extension of the range of gray with Significant Management Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan wolves in North America. The loss of Differences—The DPS policy allows us would carefully monitor and manage the WGL wolf population would, to use international borders to delineate wolves to retain populations at or above therefore, represent a significant gap in the boundaries of a DPS if there are the recovery goal (see Factor D). the species’ holarctic range in that the differences in control of exploitation, Therefore, even though biologically the WGL wolf population is the only wolf conservation status, or regulatory WGL wolf population is simply a well- population in the conterminous States mechanisms between the countries. The connected southern extension of wolves east of the Rocky Mountains, except for border between the United States and in Canada, we will continue to use the the red wolves (a different species) Canada has been used as the northern United States-Canada border to mark the being restored along the Atlantic Coast, boundary of the listed entity since gray northern boundary of the DPS due to the and currently holds about 40 percent of wolves were reclassified in the lower 48 difference in control of exploitation, North American gray wolves known to States and Mexico in 1978. There conservation status, and regulatory occur south of Canada. remain significant cross-border mechanisms between the two countries. Finding—We find, based on our differences in exploitation, analysis of the best available scientific management, conservation status, and Conclusion—We find, based on our information, that the proposed WGL regulatory mechanisms. About 52,000 to analysis of the best available scientific DPS is significant to the taxon to which 60,000 wolves occur in Canada, where information, that the proposed WGL it belongs because its loss would result suitable habitat is abundant (Boitani DPS is markedly separated from other in a significant gap in the range of the 2003, p. 322). Because of this United States populations of gray taxon. Therefore, the proposed WGL abundance, wolves in Canada are not wolves and difference in control of DPS meets the criterion for significance protected by Federal laws and are only exploitation, conservation status, and under the DPS policy. minimally protected in most Canadian regulatory mechanisms justifies provinces (Pletscher et al. 1991, p. 546). discreteness between United States and Discrete Vertebrate Population Segment In the United States, unlike Canada, Canadian wolf populations. Therefore, Conclusion Federal protection and intensive the proposed WGL DPS meets the We propose, based on our review of management has been necessary to criterion for discreteness under the DPS the best available scientific data, that recover the wolf (Carbyn 1983). policy. the WGL DPS is discrete from other gray

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26104 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

wolf populations as a result of physical persistent packs are not expected to be rates from numerous North American separation from other gray wolf established because suitable habitat is studies (summarized in Fuller et al. populations in the United States and the rare and exists only as small patches. 2003, p. 179, Table. 6.6; Boyd and international border with Canada. The The area surrounding the core wolf Pletscher 1999, p. 1102, Table 6) show DPS is significant to the taxon to which populations includes the locations of dispersal rates of 13 to 48 percent of the it belongs because it contains a wolf most known dispersers from the core individuals in a pack. Sometimes the metapopulation that fills a large gap in populations, especially the shorter and movements are temporary, and the wolf the historical range of the taxon in the medium-distance movements from returns to a location in or near its natal conterminous States. Therefore, we have which wolves are most likely to return territory. In some cases, a wolf may determined that this population to the core areas and contribute to the continue its movement for scores or segment of wolves satisfies the wolf population. Therefore, the DPS even hundreds of miles until it locates discreteness and significance criteria encompasses the current range of the suitable habitat, where it may establish required for a DPS. The evaluation of population, which is considered to be a territory or join an existing pack. In the appropriate conservation status for viable, including the primary range and other cases, a wolf is found dead at a the proposed WGL DPS is found below. the peripheral range. distance from its original territory, The WGL areas that are regularly leaving unanswered the questions of Delineating the Boundaries of the occupied by wolf packs are well how far it would have gone and whether Proposed WGL Gray Wolf DPS documented in Minnesota (Erb and it eventually would have returned to its In contrast to a species or a Benson 2004, p. 12, fig. 3; Erb and Don natal area or population. subspecies, a DPS is a biological Carlos 2009, pp. 57–60), Wisconsin Minnesota—The current record for a population that is delineated by a (Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 33, fig. 1; documented movement by a wolf in boundary that is based on something Wydeven et al. 2009c, pp. 93–98), and North America is held by a Minnesota other than established taxonomic the UP of Michigan (Huntzinger et al. wolf that moved a minimum (that is, the distinctions. Therefore, the starting 2005, pp. 25–27, figs. 4–6; Beyer et al. straight-line distance from known point for delineating a DPS is the 2009, pp. 73–75). Wolves have starting point to most distant point) of biological population or successfully colonized most, perhaps at least 550 mi (886 km) northwest into metapopulation, and a geographical all, suitable habitat in Minnesota. Saskatchewan (Fritts 1983, pp. 166– delineation of the DPS must reasonably Minnesota data from the winter of 167). Nineteen other primarily represent the population or 2007–08 indicate that wolf numbers and Minnesota movements summarized by metapopulation and its biological density have stabilized since 1997–98, Mech (in litt. 2005) averaged 154 mi characteristics and recovery needs. and there was no expansion of occupied (248 km). Their minimum distance of To delineate the boundary of the range in the State (Erb 2008, pp. 5–7). travel ranged from 32 to 532 mi (53–886 proposed WGL DPS, we considered the Wisconsin wolves now occupy most km) with the minimum dispersal current distribution of wolves in the habitat areas believed to have a high distance shown by known returning Midwest and the characteristic probability of wolf occurrence except wolves ranging from 54 mi (90 km) to movements of those wolves and of for some areas of northeastern 307 mi (494 km). wolves elsewhere. We examined the Wisconsin, and the State’s wolf Wisconsin—In 2004, a wolf tagged in best available scientific data on long- population continues to annually Michigan was killed by a vehicle in distance movements, including long- increase in numbers and, to a lesser Rusk County in northwestern distance movements followed by return degree, in area (Wydeven and Wisconsin, 295 mi (475 km) west of his movements to the vicinity of the natal Wiedenhoeft 2009, p. 2). The UP of original capture location in the eastern pack. We concluded that wolf behavior Michigan has wolf packs throughout the UP (Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 4). A and the nature of wolf populations peninsula. In the last 22 years, the wolf north-central Wisconsin yearling female require that we include within the area population in the UP has grown every wolf traveled a similar distance (298 mi, of the DPS some subset of known long- year except 1997 and 2010 (Roell 2010, 480 km) to the Rainy Lake region of distance movement locations. However, pers. comm.). Over the past 5 years, the Ontario during 1988–89 (Wydeven et al. as explained below, wolf biology and average annual growth has been about 7 1995, p. 149). common sense argue against including percent. While the population trend Michigan—Drummer et al. (2002, pp. all known or potential long-distance continues to increase, the rate of 14–15) reported 10 long-distance movements within the DPS’s increase has slowed, consistent with dispersal events involving UP wolves. boundaries. any population expanding into and then One of these wolves moved to north- The analysis detailed below resulted filling available habitat. The population central Missouri and another to in the proposed boundaries of the WGL may continue to grow or remain steady; southeastern Wisconsin, both beyond DPS that are shown in figure 1. This however, a small or even negative the core wolf areas in the WGL. The DPS has been delineated to include the growth rate may occur any year and average straight-line distance traveled core recovered wolf population plus a should be considered a natural by those two wolves was 377 mi (608 wolf movement zone around the core fluctuation seen in any wildlife km), while the average straight-line wolf populations. This geographic population. distance for all 10 of these wolves was delineation is not intended to include When delineating the proposed WGL 232 mi (373 km). Their straight-line all areas to which wolves have moved DPS, we had to consider the high degree distances ranged from 41 to 468 mi (66 from the Great Lakes population. Rather, of mobility shown by wolves. The to 753 km). it includes the area currently occupied dispersal of wolves from their natal Illinois and Indiana—In December by wolf packs in Minnesota, Wisconsin, packs and territories is a normal and 2002, a Marshall County (Illinois) wolf and Michigan; the nearby areas in these important behavioral attribute of the likely dispersed from the Wisconsin States in which wolf packs may become species that facilitates the formation of wolf population, nearly 200 mi (322 km) established in the foreseeable future; new packs, the occupancy of vacant to the north (Great Lakes Directory and a surrounding area into which territories, and the expansion of 2003). The Randolph County (Indiana) Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan occupied range by the ‘‘colonization’’ of wolf had traveled a minimum distance wolves occasionally move but where vacant habitat. Data on wolf dispersal of at least 428 mi (689 km) to get around

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26105

Lake Michigan from its central provide insight into their actual travel occupied by wolf packs. Although some Wisconsin birthplace; it likely traveled routes and total travel distances for each WGL wolves will move beyond this much farther than that unless it went trek, rather than only documenting distance, available data indicate that through the city or suburbs of Chicago straight-line distance from beginning to longer distance dispersers are unlikely (Wydeven et al. 2004, pp. 10–11; Treves end-point. Merrill and Mech (2000, pp. to return to their natal population. et al. 2009, p. 194). The Pike County 429–431) reported on four such Therefore, they have lost their (Illinois) wolf that was shot in late 2005 Minnesota wolves with documented functional connection with, and was about 300 mi (180 km) from the travel distances ranging from 305 to potential conservation value to, the nearest wolf packs in central Wisconsin. 2,640 mi (490 to 4,251 km) and an WGL wolf population. North Dakota, South Dakota, and average travel route length of 988 mi Wolves moving substantial distances Nebraska—Licht and Fritts (1994, p. 77) (1590 km). Wydeven (1994, pp. 20–22) outward from the core areas of tabulated seven wolves found dead in described a Wisconsin wolf that moved Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan North Dakota and South Dakota from from northwestern Wisconsin to the will encounter landscape features that 1981 through 1992 that are believed to northern suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota, are at least partial barriers to further have originated from Minnesota, based for 2 weeks (apparently not seen or wolf movement and that may, if crossed, on skull morphometrics. Although none reported to authorities by the local impede attempts of wolves to return of these wolves were marked or radio- residents), then moved back to north- toward the WGL core areas. If such tracked, making it impossible to central Wisconsin. The total travel partial barriers are in a location that has determine the point of initiation of their distance was 278 mi (447km) from her separate utility in delineating the journey, a minimum travel distance for natal pack into Minnesota and on to the biological extent of a wolf population, the seven can be determined from the north-central Wisconsin location where they can and should be used to nearest wolf breeding range in she settled down. delineate the DPS boundary. Such Minnesota. For the seven, the average While investigating the origins of landscape features are the Missouri distance to the nearest wolf breeding Scandinavian wolf populations, Linnell River in North Dakota and downstream range was 160 mi (257 km) and ranged et al. (2005, p. 387) compiled wolf to Omaha, Nebraska, and Interstate from 29 to 329 mi (46 to 530 km). One dispersal data from 21 published Highway 80 from Omaha eastward of these seven wolves moved west of the studies, including many cited separately through Illinois, Indiana, and into Ohio, Missouri River before it died. here. Twenty-two of 298 compiled ending where this highway crosses the Genetic analysis of a wolf killed in dispersals (7.4 percent) were over 300 Maumee River in Toledo, Ohio. We do Harding County, in extreme km (186 mi). Eleven dispersals (3.7 not believe these are absolute barriers to northwestern South Dakota, in 2001 percent) were over 500 km (311 mi). wolf movement. There is evidence that indicated that it originated from the Because of the likelihood that many several Minnesota-origin wolves have Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf long-distance dispersers are never crossed the Missouri River (Licht and populations (Fain in litt. 2006). The reported, they conclude that the Fritts 1994, pp. 75 & 77, Fig. 1 and Table straight-line travel distance to the proportion of long-distance dispersers is 1; Anschutz in litt. 2003, 2006) and nearest Minnesota wolf pack is nearly probably severely underestimated. some Midwest wolves have crossed 400 mi (644 km). From these extra-territorial movement interstate highways (Merrill and Mech The wolf from the Greater records, we conclude that wolf 2000, p. 430). There is also evidence Yellowstone area that was killed by a movements of over 200 mi (320 km) that some wolves are hesitant to cross vehicle on Interstate 90 near Sturgis, straight-line distance have been highways (Whittington et al. 2004, pp. South Dakota, in March of 2006 traveled documented on numerous occasions, 7, 9; Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 5; but see a minimum straight-line distance of while shorter distance movements are Blanco et al. 2005, pp. 315–316, 319– about 270 mi (435 km) from the nearest more frequent. Movements of 300 mi 320 and Kohn et al. 2000, p. 22). known Greater Yellowstone pack before (480 km) straight-line distance or more Interstate highways and smaller roads it died (USFWS et al. 2006, in USFWS are less common, but include one are a known mortality factor for wolves Program Report, Figure 1). Minnesota wolf that journeyed a and, therefore, pose a partial barrier to A large canid was shot by a Boyd straight-line distance of 300 mi (480 km) wolf movements (Blanco et al. 2005, p. County (Nebraska) rancher in late 1994 and a known minimum-travel distance 320). The death of a NRM wolf near or early 1995, likely after crossing the of 2,640 mi (4,251 km) before it reversed Sturgis in western South Dakota (Fain in frozen Missouri River from South direction, as determined by its satellite- litt. 2006) suggests that the area of the Dakota (Anschutz in litt. 2006, Jobman tracked collar. This wolf ultimately Dakotas west of the Missouri River may in litt. 1995). It was determined to be a returned to a spot only 24 mi (40 km) be traversed by a small number of wolf that originated from the Great from its natal territory (Merrill and wolves coming from both the NRM and Lakes wolf populations (Fain in litt. Mech 2000, p. 430). Although much WGL wolf populations, as well as 2006), whose nearest pack would have longer movements have been wolves from Canada (Licht and Fritts been about 300 mi (480 km) away. A documented, including some by 1994, pp. 75–77). Wolves in this area wolf illegally killed near Spalding, midwestern wolves, return movements cannot be assumed to belong to the Nebraska, in December of 2002 also to the vicinity of natal territories have WGL wolf population, supporting our originated from the Minnesota- not been documented for extra- belief that the boundary should not be Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population, as territorial movements beyond 300 mi designed to include the locations of all determined by genetic analysis (480 km). known dispersers. (Anschutz in litt. 2003, Fain in litt. Based on these extra-territorial 2006). The nearest Minnesota wolf pack movement data, we conclude that Summary of Factors Affecting the is nearly 350 mi (563 km) from this affiliation with the midwestern wolf Species location. population is diminished and Section 4 of the Act and its Other notable extra-territorial essentially lost when dispersal takes a implementing regulations (50 CFR part movements—The extra-territorial Midwest wolf a distance of 250 to 300 424) set forth the procedures for listing movements of several wolves were mi (400 to 480 km) beyond the outer species, reclassifying species, or radio-tracked in sufficient detail to edge of the areas that are continuously removing species from listed status.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26106 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as When evaluating the available Suitable Habitat Within the Proposed including any species or subspecies of information, with respect to foreseeable Western Great Lakes DPS fish or wildlife or plants, and any future, we take into account reduced Various researchers have investigated distinct vertebrate population segment confidence as we forecast further into habitat suitability for wolves in the of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when the future. As explained previously, our central and eastern portions of the mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the analysis of the factors affecting the WGL United States. In recent years, most of ‘‘species’’ is identified, we then evaluate DPS refer to the gray wolf (C. lupus), these efforts have focused on using a whether that species may be endangered because that is the named entity combination of human density, density or threatened because of one or more of currently on the List of Endangered and of agricultural lands, deer density or the five factors described in section Threatened Wildlife (see Procedural deer biomass, and road density, or have 4(a)(1) of the Act. We must consider Aspects of Proposal Applying to the used road density alone to identify areas these same five factors in delisting a Gray Wolf above). where wolf populations are likely to species. We may delist a species persist or become established according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best A. The Present or Threatened (Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. 284–285; available scientific and commercial data Destruction, Modification, or 1997, pp. 23–27; 1998, pp. 1–8, 1999; indicate that the species is neither Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range pp. 39–43; Harrison and Chapin 1997, p. endangered nor threatened because (1) A common misconception is that 3; 1998, p. 769–770; Wydeven et al. the species is extinct, (2) the species has wolves inhabit only remote pristine 2001a, pp. 110–113; Erb and Benson recovered and is no longer endangered forests or mountainous areas, where 2004, p. 2; Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 1661– or threatened, or (3) the original human developments and other 1668; Mladenoff et al. 2009, pp. 132– scientific data used at the time the activities have produced negligible 135). species was classified were in error. change to the natural landscape. Their To a large extent, road density has A recovered species is one that no extirpation south of Canada and Alaska, longer meets the Act’s definition of been adopted as the best predictor of except for the heavily forested portions habitat suitability in the Midwest due to threatened or endangered. The analysis of northeastern Minnesota, reinforced for a delisting due to recovery must be the connection between roads and this popular belief. However, the human-related wolf mortality. Several based on the five factors outlined in primary reason wolves survived in those section 4(a)(1) of the Act. This analysis studies demonstrated that wolves areas was not because of habitat generally did not maintain breeding must include an evaluation of threats conditions, but, rather, because remote that existed at the time of listing, those packs in areas with a road density areas were sufficiently free of the greater than about 0.9 to 1.1 linear miles that currently exist, and those that could human persecution that elsewhere potentially affect the species once the per sq mi (0.6 to 0.7 km per sq km) killed wolves faster than the species (Thiel 1985, pp. 404–406; Jensen et al. protections of the Act are removed. could reproduce (Mech 1995a, p. 271). In the context of the Act, the term 1986, pp. 364–366; Mech et al. 1988, pp. ‘‘threatened species’’ means any species In the western Great Lakes region, 85–87; Fuller et al. 1992, pp. 48–51). or subspecies or, for vertebrates, Distinct wolves in the densely forested Work by Mladenoff and associates Population Segment (DPS) that is likely northeastern corner of Minnesota have indicated that colonizing wolves in to become an endangered species within expanded into the more agricultural Wisconsin preferred areas where road the foreseeable future throughout all or portions of central and northwestern densities were less than 0.7 mi per sq mi a significant portion of its range. The Minnesota, northern and central (0.45 km per sq km) (Mladenoff et al. term ‘‘endangered species’’ means any Wisconsin, and the entire UP of 1995, p. 289). However, recent work in species that is in danger of extinction Michigan. Habitats currently being used the UP of Michigan indicates that, in throughout all or a significant portion of by wolves span the broad range from the some areas with low road densities, low its range. The Act does not define the mixed hardwood-coniferous forest deer density appears to limit wolf term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ For the wilderness area of northern Minnesota, occupancy (Potvin et al. 2005, pp. purpose of this proposal, we define the through sparsely settled, but similar 1667–1668) and may prevent ‘‘foreseeable future’’ to be the extent to habitats in Michigan’s UP and northern recolonization of portions of the UP. In which, given the amount and substance Wisconsin, and into more intensively Minnesota, a combination of road of available data, we can anticipate cultivated and livestock-producing density and human density is used by events or effects, or reliably extrapolate portions of central and northwestern MN DNR to model suitable habitat. threat trends that relate to the status of Minnesota and central Wisconsin. Areas with a human density up to 8 the WGL DPS. For the proposed WGL Wolf research and the expansion of people per sq km are suitable if they DPS, the foreseeable future differs for wolf range over the last three decades also have a road density less than 0.5 each factor potentially affecting the have shown that wolves can km per sq km. Areas with a human DPS. successfully occupy a wide range of density of less than 4 people per sq km It took a considerable length of time habitats, and they are not dependent on are suitable if they have road densities for public attitudes and regulations to wilderness areas for their survival. In up to 0.7 km per sq km (Erb and Benson result in a social climate that promoted the past, for instance, wolf populations 2004, Table 1). and allowed for wolf recovery in the occupied nearly every type of habitat Road density is a useful parameter proposed WGL DPS. The length of time north of mid-Mexico that contained because it is easily measured and over which this shift occurred, and the large prey species, including mapped, and because it correlates ensuing stability in those attitudes, bison, elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, directly and indirectly with various gives us confidence that this social moose, and woodland caribou; thus, forms of other human-related wolf climate will persist. Also, the States wolves historically occupied the entire mortality factors. A rural area with more have had a solid history of cooperating Midwest. Inadequate prey density or roads generally has a greater human and assisting in wolf recovery and have high levels of human-caused mortality density, more vehicular traffic, greater made a commitment, through legislative appear to be the only factors that limit access by hunters and trappers, more actions, to continue these activities. We wolf distribution (Mech 1995a, p 271; farms and residences, and more believe this commitment will continue. 1995b, p. 544). domestic animals. As a result, there is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26107

a greater likelihood that wolves in such habitat; however, lack of agricultural In the first instance a radio-collared an area will encounter humans, land is also a strong predictor of habitat female wolf from the eastern UP was domestic animals, and various human wolves occupy. trapped and killed by a coyote trapper activities. These encounters may result It appears that essentially all suitable in Presque Isle County in late October in wolves being hit by motor vehicles, habitat in Minnesota is now occupied, 2004. In late November 2004, tracks being controlled by government agents range expansion has slowed or possibly from two wolves were verified in the after becoming involved in depredations ceased, and the wolf population within same northern LP county. Follow-up on domestic animals, being shot the State has stabilized (Erb and Benson winter surveys by the DNR in early 2005 intentionally by unauthorized 2004, p. 7; Erb and Don Carlos 2009, pp. failed to find additional wolf tracks in individuals, being trapped or shot 57, 60). This suitable habitat closely the northern LP (Huntzinger et al. 2005, accidentally, or contracting diseases matches the areas designated as Wolf p. 7); additional surveys conducted in from domestic dogs (Mech et al. 1988, Management Zones 1 through 4 in the 2006–10 also failed to find evidence of pp. 86–87; Mech and Goyal 1993, p. Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, p. continued northern LP wolf presence 332; Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. 282, 72), which are identical in area to (Roell et al. 2009, p. 5; Roell 2010, pers. 291). Based on mortality data from Minnesota Wolf Management Zone A comm.). A video of a single wolf was radio-collared Wisconsin wolves from (see Figure 2, below; MN DNR 2001, taken near Mackinac City in Cheboygan 1979 to 1999, natural causes of death Appendix III). County in May 2009, and another trail- predominate (57 percent of mortalities) Recent surveys for Wisconsin wolves camera video-recorded a wolf in in areas with road densities below 1.35 and wolf packs show that wolves have Presque Isle County in July 2009. These mi per sq mi (0.84 km per sq km), but now recolonized the areas predicted by two sightings may have been the same human-related factors produced 71 habitat models to have high and animal (Roell 2009, pers. comm.). In percent of the wolf deaths in areas with moderate probability of occupancy 2010, USDA Wildlife Services and MI higher road densities (Wydeven et al. (primary and secondary wolf habitat). DNR staff confirmed a single breeding 2001a, pp. 112–113). The late-winter 2008–09 Wisconsin wolf pair with pups in Cheboygan County in Some researchers have used a road survey identified packs occurring the northern LP (MI DNR 2010). density of 1 mi per sq mi (0.6 km per throughout the central Wisconsin forest These northern LP patches of sq km) of land area as an upper area (Wolf Management Zone 2, Figure potentially suitable habitat contain a threshold for suitable wolf habitat. 3) and across the northern forest zone great deal of private land, are small in However, the common practice in more (Zone 1, Figure 3), with highest pack comparison to the occupied habitat on recent studies is to use road density to densities in the northwest and north- the UP and in Minnesota and predict probabilities of persistent wolf central forest; pack densities are lower, Wisconsin, and are intermixed with pack presence in an area. Areas with but increasing, in the northeastern agricultural and higher road density road densities less than 0.7 mi per sq mi corner of the State (Wydeven and areas (Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1240). (0.45 km per sq km) are estimated to Wiedenhoeft 2009, Figure 1). Therefore, continuing wolf immigration have a greater than 50 percent Michigan wolf surveys in winter from the UP may be necessary to probability of wolf pack colonization 2009–10 continue to show wolf pairs or maintain a future northern LP and persistent presence, and areas packs (defined by Michigan DNR as two population. The Gehring and Potter where road density exceeded 1 mi per or more wolves traveling together) in study (2005, p. 1239) predicted 850 sq sq mi (0.6 km per sq km) have less than every UP county except Keweenaw mi (2,198 sq km) of suitable habitat a 10 percent probability of occupancy County (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6; (areas with greater than a 50 percent (Mladenoff et al. 1995. pp. 288–289; Roell 2011, pers. comm.), which probability of wolf occupancy) in the Mladenoff and Sickley 1998, p. 5; probably lacks a suitable ungulate prey northern LP. Potvin (2003, p. 21), using Mladenoff et al. 1999, pp. 40–41). base during winter months (Potvin et al. deer density in addition to road density, Wisconsin researchers view areas with 2005, p. 1665). believes there are about 3,090 sq mi greater than 50 percent probability as Habitat suitability studies in the (8,000 sq km) of suitable habitat in the ‘‘primary wolf habitat,’’ areas with 10 to Upper Midwest indicate that the only northern LP. Gehring and Potter (2005, 50 percent probability as ’’’secondary large areas of suitable or potentially p. 1239) exclude from their calculations wolf habitat,’’ and areas with less than suitable habitat areas that are currently those northern LP low-road-density 10 percent probability as unsuitable unoccupied by wolves are located in the patches that are less than 19 sq mi (50 habitat (WI DNR 1997, pp. 47–48). northern LP of Michigan (Mladenoff et sq km), while Potvin (2003, pp. 10–15) The territories of packs that do occur al. 1997, p. 23; Mladenoff et al. 1999, p. does not limit habitat patch size in his in areas of high road density, and hence 39; Potvin 2003, pp. 44–45; Gehring and calculations. Both of these area with low expected probabilities of Potter 2005, p. 1239). One published estimates are well below the minimum occupancy, are generally near broad Michigan study (Gehring and Potter area described in the Revised Recovery areas of more suitable habitat that are 2005, p. 1239) estimates that these areas Plan, which states that 10,000 sq mi likely serving as a source of wolves, could host 46 to 89 wolves; a graduate (25,600 sq km) of contiguous suitable thereby assisting in maintaining wolf thesis estimates that 110–480 wolves habitat is needed for a viable isolated presence in the higher road density and, could exist in the northern LP (Potvin gray wolf population, and half that area therefore, less-suitable areas (Mech 2003, p. 39). The northern LP is (5,000 sq mi or 12,800 sq km) is needed 1989, pp. 387–388; Wydeven et al. separated from the UP by the Straits of to maintain a viable wolf population 2001a, p. 112). The predictive ability of Mackinac, whose 4-mile (6.4-km) width that is subject to wolf immigration from this model was questioned (Mech freezes during mid- and late-winter in a nearby population (USFWS 1992, pp. 2006a, 2006b) and responded to some years. In recent years there have 25–26). (Mladenoff et al. 2006), and an updated been several documented occurrences of Based on the above-described studies analysis of Wisconsin pack locations wolves in the northern LP, but until and the guidance of the 1992 Revised and habitat has been completed 2010, there had been no indication of Recovery Plan, the Service has (Mladenoff et al. 2009). This new model persistence beyond several months. concluded that suitable habitat for maintains that road density is still an Prior to those occurrences, the last wolves in the proposed WGL DPS can important indicator of suitable wolf recorded wolf in the LP was in 1910. be determined by considering four

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26108 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

factors: Road density, human density, eastern UP (Delphey 2009, pers. comm.; of six wolves each and at least one loner prey base, and size. An adequate prey Eklund 2009, pers. comm.; Roell 2011, were detected on Necedah NWR base is an absolute requirement, but in pers. comm., Wydeven 2011, pers. (Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 41). Over the much of the proposed WGL DPS the comm.). past 10 years, Sherburne and Crane white-tailed deer density is well above , along Meadows NWR Complex in central adequate levels, causing the other Minnesota’s northern border, has a land Minnesota have had intermittent, but factors to become the determinants of base of nearly 340 sq mi (882 sq km). reliable, observations and signs of suitable habitat. Prey base is primarily As of the last survey in 2008, there were individual wolves each year. To date, no of concern in the UP where severe 31 to 46 wolves within 7 to 9 packs that established packs have been winter conditions cause deer to move exclusively or partially reside within documented on either of those Refuges. away from some lakeshore areas, the park, and at least 5 packs are located The closest established packs are within making otherwise suitable areas locally wholly inside the Park boundaries 15 mi (24 km) of Crane Meadows NWR and seasonally unsuitable. Road density (Ethier et al. 2008, p. 5). The 2008 at Camp Ripley Military Installation and and human density frequently are estimates fall within the range of wolf 30 mi (48 km) north of Sherburne NWR highly correlated; therefore, road estimates for the Park from the 1990s at Mille Lacs State Wildlife Management density is the best single predictor of (Gogan et al. 2004) and early 2000s ( Area (Berkley 2009, pers. comm.). habitat suitability. However, areas with et al. 2001, pp. 6–7). Suitable Habitat Ownership and higher road density may still be suitable Within the boundaries of the Protection if the human density is very low, so a proposed WGL DPS, we currently consideration of both factors is manage seven units within the National In Minnesota, public lands, including sometimes useful (Erb and Benson 2004, Wildlife Refuge System with significant national forests, a national park, p. 2). wolf activity. Primary among these are national wildlife refuges, tax-forfeit Finally, although the territory of Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge lands (managed mostly by counties), individual wolf packs can be relatively (NWR), Tamarac NWR, and Rice Lake State forests, State wildlife management small, packs are not likely to persist as NWR in Minnesota; Seney NWR in the areas, and State parks, encompass a viable population if they occupy a UP of Michigan; and Necedah NWR in approximately 42 percent of current small isolated island of otherwise central Wisconsin. Agassiz NWR has wolf range. American Indians and unsuitable habitat. The 1992 Revised had as many as 20 wolves in 2 to 3 Tribes own 3 percent, an additional Recovery Plan indicates that a wolf packs in recent years. Although in 1999 1,535 sq mi (2,470 sq km), in population needs to occupy at least mange and illegal shootings reduced Minnesota’s wolf range (see Erb and 10,000 contiguous sq mi (25,600 sq km) them to a single pack of five wolves and Benson 2004, Table 1). In its 2001 to be considered viable if it is isolated a separate lone wolf, since 2001, two Minnesota Wolf Management Plan, MN from other wolf populations, and must packs with a total of 10 to 12 wolves DNR states that it ‘‘will continue to occupy at least half that area if it is not have been using the Refuge. About 60 identify and manage currently occupied isolated from another self-sustaining percent of the packs’ territories are and potential wolf habitat areas to population (USFWS 1992, pp. 25–26). located on the Refuge or on an adjacent benefit wolves and their prey on public Based on the information discussed State-owned wildlife management area and private land, in cooperation with above, we conclude that Minnesota (Huschle in litt. 2005). landowners and other management Wolf Management Zone A (Federal Wolf Data collected by Agassiz NWR staff agencies’’ (MN DNR 2001, p. 25). MN Management Zones 1–4, Figure 2), during winter wolf sign surveys DNR will monitor deer and moose Wisconsin Wolf Zones 1 and 2 (Figure conducted in cooperation with the MN habitat and, when necessary and 3), and the UP of Michigan contain a DNR during both the winters of 2007– appropriate, improve habitat for these sufficient amount of suitable wolf 08 and 2008–09 support the above wolf species. MN DNR maintains that several habitat. The other areas within the DPS totals. Winter track data from 2007–08 large public land units of State parks are unsuitable habitat, or are potentially suggest that one pack on Agassiz had a and State forests along the Wisconsin habitat that is too small or too minimum size of five and one had a border will likely ensure that the fragmented to be suitable for minimum size of six. The following connection between the two States’ wolf maintaining a viable wolf population. winter’s survey information suggested a populations will remain open to wolf minimum pack size of five for both movements. Nevertheless, MN DNR Wolf Populations on Federal Lands packs (Knutson 2009, pers. comm.). stated that it would cooperate with National forests, and the prey species Two packs of wolves that currently Wisconsin DNR to incorporate the found in their various habitats, have include about eight and five members, effects of future development ‘‘into long- been important to wolf conservation and respectively, use Tamarac NWR and the term viability analyses of wolf recovery in the core areas of the territory of a third occurs partly on the populations and dispersal in the proposed WGL DPS. There are five Refuge (Brininger 2009, pers. comm.). interstate area’’ (MN DNR 2001, p. 27). national forests in Minnesota, The size of the one pack using Rice Lake The MN DNR Divisions of Forestry Wisconsin, and Michigan (Superior, NWR, in Minnesota, has been reported and Wildlife directly administer Chippewa, Chequamegon-Nicolet, at six to nine in previous years; in 2009 approximately 5,330 sq mi (13,805 sq Ottawa, and Hiawatha National Forests) a maximum of three wolves were km) of land in Minnesota’s wolf range. with wolf packs that exclusively or confirmed on the Refuge (McDowell The DNR has set goals of enlarging and partially reside on them. Their wolf 2009, pers. comm.), although total pack protecting its forested land base by, in populations range from approximately size may be greater. part, ‘‘minimizing the loss and 484 on the Superior National Forest in Other single or paired wolves pass fragmentation of private forest lands’’ northeastern Minnesota, to an estimated through the Refuge frequently (Stefanski (MN DNR 2000, p. 20) and by 182 on the UP’s Ottawa National Forest, 2004, pers. comm.; McDowell in litt. connecting forest habitats with natural 164 on the Chequamegon–Nicolet 2005). Seney NWR has three packs, corridors (MN DNR 2000, p. 21). It plans National Forest in northeastern representing 8–10 wolves, which to achieve these goals and objectives via Wisconsin, and another estimated 49 on partially reside on the Refuge (Roell several strategies, including the the in the 2010, pers. comm.). In 2010, two packs development of (Ecological) Subsection

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26109

Forest Resource Management Plans habitat, per se, on private lands in 29 percent is in other forms of private (SFRMP) and to expand its focus on Minnesota. Land management activities ownership and is vulnerable to loss corridor management and planning. such as timber harvest and prescribed from the primary habitat category to an In 2005, the Forest Stewardship burning carried out by public agencies unknown extent (Sickley in litt. 2006, Council (FSC) certified that 4.84 million and by private land owners in unpublished data updating Table C2 of acres (1.96 million hectares) of State- Minnesota’s wolf range incidentally and WI DNR 1999, p. 48). administered forest land are ‘‘well significantly improves habitat for deer, Areas judged to be secondary wolf managed’’ (FSC 2005); the Sustainable the primary prey for wolves in the State. habitat by WI DNR (10 to 50 percent Forestry Initiative (SFI) also certified The impact of these measures is probability of occupancy by wolf packs; that MN DNR was managing these lands apparent from the continuing high deer Wydeven et al. 1999, pp. 47–48) were to meet its standards. For the FSC densities in Minnesota’s wolf range. The somewhat more developed or certification, independent certifiers State’s second largest deer harvest fragmented habitats and were less well assessed forest management against occurred in 2006, and approximately protected overall, because only 43 FSC’s Lakes States Regional Standard, one-half of the Minnesota deer harvest percent were in public ownership and 5 which includes a requirement to is in the Forest Zone, which percent were in Native American maximize habitat connectivity to the encompasses most of the occupied wolf reservations. Public land that extent possible at the landscape level range in the State (MN DNR 2009, Table maintained secure habitat included (FSC 2005, p. 22). 1). county (17 percent) and national (18 Efforts to maximize habitat Given the extensive public ownership percent) forests ownership protecting connectivity in the range of wolves and management of land within the largest segments, and State land would complement measures the MN Minnesota’s wolf range, as well as the protected 7 percent. Private industrial DNR described in its State wolf plan beneficial habitat management expected forest ownership provided protection to (MN DNR 2001, pp. 26–27). If the from Tribal lands, we believe suitable 5 percent, and the remaining 47 percent Service ultimately delists the DPS as habitat, and especially an adequate wild was in other forms of private ownership proposed, the Service will review prey base, will remain available to the (Sickley in litt. 2006). certification evaluation reports issued State’s wolf population for the County forest lands represent the by FSC to assess MN DNR’s ongoing foreseeable future. Management of single largest category of primary wolf efforts in this area as part of its post- private lands for timber production will habitat in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Statute delisting monitoring. provide additional habitat suitable for 28.11 guides the administration of Counties manage approximately 3,860 wolves and white-tailed deer. county forests, and directs management sq mi (9,997 sq km) of tax forfeit land Similarly, current lands in northern for production of forest products in Minnesota’s wolf range (MN DNR and central Wisconsin that are judged to together with recreational opportunities, unpublished data). We are aware of no be primary and secondary wolf habitat wildlife, watershed protection, and specific measures that any county in are well protected from significant stabilization of stream flow. This Statute Minnesota takes to conserve wolves. If adverse development and habitat also provides a significant disincentive most of the tax-forfeit lands are degradation due to public ownership or to conversion for other uses. Any maintained for use as timber lands or protective management that preserves proposed withdrawal of county forest natural areas, however, and if regional the habitat and wolf prey base. Primary lands for other uses must meet a prey levels are maintained, management habitat (that is, areas with greater than standard of a higher and better use for specifically for wolves on these lands 50 percent probability of wolf pack the citizens of Wisconsin, and be will not be necessary. MN DNR manages occupancy; Wydeven et al. 1999, pp. approved by two-thirds of the County ungulate populations ‘‘on a regional 47–48) totals 5,812 sq mi (15,053 sq Board. As a result of this requirement, basis to ensure sustainable harvests for km). The 1999 Wisconsin wolf plan withdrawals are infrequent, and the hunters, sufficient numbers for aesthetic listed land ownership of primary and county forest land base is actually and nonconsumptive use, and to secondary wolf habitat (Wydeven et al. increasing. minimize damage to natural 1999, p. 48). In 2006, Sickley (2006, This analysis shows that nearly three- communities and conflicts with humans pers. comm.) provided an update of the quarters of the primary habitat in such as depredation of agricultural data with more accurate land ownership Wisconsin receives substantial crops’’ (MN DNR 2001, p. 17). Moreover, data. That data show that about 55 protection due to ownership or although counties may sell tax-forfeit percent of primary habitat was in public management for sustainable timber lands subject to Minnesota State law, land including, Federal, State, or county production. Over half of the secondary they generally manage these lands to ownership, and 7 percent was on Tribal habitat is similarly protected. Portions ensure that they will retain their land. County lands, mostly county of the primary habitat in northeastern productivity as forests into the future. forests, comprised 29 percent of the Wisconsin remained sparsely populated For example, Crow Wing County’s primary habitat, and Federal lands with wolf packs until recently, but are mission for its forest lands includes the mostly the Chequamegon–Nicolet filling in lately (Wydeven et al. 2010, commitment to ‘‘sustain a healthy, National Forest, included another 17 Fig. 2, p. 66), although still allowing for diverse, and productive forest for future percent. some continuing wolf population generations to come.’’ In addition, at Most Tribal land (7 percent of primary expansion. In general, we believe this least four counties in Minnesota’s wolf habitat), while not public land, will degree of habitat protection is more than range—Beltrami, Carlton, Koochiching, likely remain as suitable deer and wolf adequate to support a viable wolf and St. Louis—are certified by SFI, and habitat for the foreseeable future. State population in Wisconsin for the four others (Aitkin, Cass, Itasca, and forest ownership protects 10 percent. foreseeable future. Lake) have been certified by FSC. About Private industrial forest lands In the UP of Michigan, State and ten private companies with industrial comprised another 10 percent of the Federal ownership comprises 2.0 and forest lands in Minnesota’s wolf range primary habitat, although some of these 2.1 million acres respectively, have also been certified by FSC. lands have been subdivided for second representing 19.3 percent and 20.1 There are no legal or regulatory or vacation home sites, reducing this percent of the land surface of the UP. requirements for the protection of wolf acreage in recent years. The remaining The Federal ownership is composed of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26110 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

87 percent national forest, 8 percent 170), and they modeled various likely adjust hunter harvest levels when national park, and 5 percent national scenarios of habitat conditions in the UP necessary. For example, after severe wildlife refuge. The management of of Michigan and northern Wisconsin winters in the 1990’s, MN DNR these three categories of Federal land is through the year 2020 to determine modified hunter harvest levels to allow discussed elsewhere, but clearly will whether future conditions would for the recovery of the local deer benefit wolves and their prey. support a wolf population of that size. population (MN DNR 2001, p. 25). In State lands on the UP are 94 percent Most scenarios of future habitat addition to regulation of human harvest State forest land, 6 percent State park, conditions resulted in viable wolf of deer and moose, MN DNR also plans and less than 1 percent in fishing and populations in each State through 2020. to continue to monitor and improve boating access areas and State game When the model analyzed the future habitat for these species. areas. Part 525, Sustainable Forestry on conditions in the two States combined, Land management carried out by State Forestlands, of the Michigan all scenarios produced a viable wolf other public agencies and by private Natural Resources and Environmental population through 2020. Their land owners in Minnesota’s wolf range, Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as scenarios included increases in human including timber harvest and prescribed amended, directs State forestland population density, changes in land fire, incidentally and significantly management in Michigan. It requires the ownership that may result in decreased improves habitat for deer, the primary MI DNR to manage the State forests in habitat suitability, and increased road prey for wolves in the State. The success a manner consistent with sustainable density (pp. 101–151). of these measures is apparent from the forestry, to prepare and implement a The large areas of unsuitable habitat continuing high deer densities in the management plan, and to seek and in the eastern Dakotas; the northern Forest Zone of Minnesota, and the fact maintain a third party certification that portions of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and that the State’s five largest deer harvests the lands are managed in a sustainable Ohio; and the southern areas of have occurred in the last 6 years, with fashion (MI DNR 2005c, p. 1). Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; as a deer harvest averaging 241,000 deer Much of the private land on the UP well as the relatively small areas of over the last 5 years. Approximately is managed or protected in a manner unoccupied potentially suitable habitat, one-half of the Minnesota deer harvest that will maintain forest cover and will not contribute to the viability of is in the Forest Zone, which provide suitable habitat for wolves and wolves in the proposed WGL DPS. encompasses most of the occupied wolf white-tailed deer. Nearly 1.9 million Therefore, we have determined that the range in the State (Cornicelli 2008, pp. acres (0.8 million hectares) of large-tract existing and likely future threats to 208–209). There is no indication that industrial forest lands and another 1.9 wolves outside the currently occupied harvest of deer and moose or million acres (0.8 million hectares) of areas, and especially to wolves outside management of their habitat will smaller private forest land are enrolled of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP, significantly depress abundance of these in the Commercial Forest Act (CFA). do not rise to the level that they threaten species in Minnesota’s core wolf range. These 3.7 million acres (1.5 million the long-term viability of wolf Therefore, lack of prey availability is not hectares) are managed for long-term populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, likely to pose a threat to wolves in the sustainable timber production under and the UP of Michigan. foreseeable future in the State. forest management plans written by In summary, wolves currently occupy The deer populations in Wisconsin certified foresters; in return, the the vast majority of the suitable habitat and the UP of Michigan declined landowners benefit from a reduction in in the proposed WGL DPS, and that somewhat from historically high levels property taxes. In addition, nearly habitat is adequately protected for the in recent years. Wisconsin’s preseason 37,000 acres on the UP are owned by foreseeable future. Unoccupied areas deer population has exceeded 1 million The Nature Conservancy, and continue that have the characteristics of suitable animals since 1984 (WI DNR undated a; to be managed to restore and preserve habitat exist in small and fragmented Rolley 2007, p. 6; Rolley 2008, p. 6), and native plant and animal communities. parcels and are not likely to develop hunter harvest has exceeded 400,000 Therefore, these private land viable wolf populations. Threats to deer in 10 of the last 12 years (WI DNR management practices currently are those habitat areas will not adversely 2010, p.57). Across northern Wisconsin preserving an additional 36 percent of impact the recovered wolf wolf range (Zone 1), winter deer density the UP as suitable habitat for wolves metapopulation in the DPS. in northern deer management units and their prey species. averaged from 22–30 deer per sq mi Prey In total, 39 percent of the UP is (8.5–11.6 deer per sq km) between Federally and State-owned land whose Wolf density is heavily dependent on 2001–07, but declined to 17–18 deer per management will benefit wolf prey availability (for example, expressed sq mi (6.6–6.9 deer per sq km) in 2009 conservation for the foreseeable future, as ungulate biomass, Fuller et al. 2003, and 2010. In Central Forest wolf range and another 36 percent is private forest pp. 170–171), but prey availability is not (Zone 2), winter deer density in deer land that is being managed, largely likely to threaten wolves in the management units averaged 29–50 deer under the incentives of the CFA, in a proposed WGL DPS. Conservation of per sq mi (11.2–19.3 deer per sq km) way that provides suitable habitat and primary wolf prey in the proposed WGL from 2001 to 2007, and was 35 deer per prey for wolf populations. Therefore, a DPS, white-tailed deer and moose, is sq mi (13.5 deer per sq km) in 2009, and minimum of nearly three-quarters of the clearly a high priority for State 26 deer per sq mi (10.0 deer per sq km) UP should continue to be suitable for conservation agencies. As Minnesota in 2010 (WI DNR data). wolf conservation, and we do not DNR points out in its wolf management Michigan’s 2009 October forecast for envision UP habitat loss or degradation plan (MN DNR 2001, p. 25), it manages the deer population was approximately as a problem for wolf population to ensure a harvestable 1.8 million deer, with about 312,800 viability in the foreseeable future. surplus for hunters, nonconsumptive residing in the UP; the 2010 estimates Hearne et al. (2003), determined that users, and to minimize conflicts with projected a slightly higher UP deer a viable wolf population (one having humans. To ensure a harvestable population (Doepker 2010, pers. comm.; less than 10 percent chance of surplus for hunters, MN DNR must Rudolph 2010, pers. comm.). Because of extinction over 100 years), should account for all sources of natural severe winter conditions (persistent, consist of at least 175 to 225 wolves (p. mortality, including loss to wolves, and deep snow) in the UP, deer populations

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26111

can change dramatically from year to are not likely to increase substantially 2001, p. 19). Similarly, Wisconsin and year. Recently (2010) the MI DNR following delisting of the proposed Michigan DNRs plan to continue to trap finalized a new deer management plan, WGL DPS, and any increased use for wolves for radio-collaring, examination, to address ecological, social, and these purposes will be regulated and and health monitoring for the regulatory shifts. An objective of this monitored by the States and Tribes in foreseeable future (WI DNR 1999, pp. plan is to manage deer at the the core recovery areas. Since their 19–21; MI DNR 2008a, pp. 31–32; WI appropriate scale, considering impacts listing under the Act, no wolves have DNR 2006a, p. 14). The continued of deer on the landscape and on other been legally killed or removed from the handling of wild wolves for research, species, in addition to population size wild in any of the nine States included including the administration of drugs, (MI DNR 2010, p. 20). Additionally, the in the proposed WGL DPS for either may result in some accidental deaths of Michigan wolf management plan commercial or recreational purposes. wolves. We believe that capture and addresses maintaining a sustainable Some wolves may have been illegally radio-telemetry-related injuries or population of wolf prey (MI DNR 2008, killed for commercial use of the pelts mortalities will not increase p. 36). Short of a major, and unlikely, and other parts, but illegal commercial significantly above the level observed to shift in deer management and harvest trafficking in wolf pelts or parts and date in proportion to wolf abundance; strategies, there will be no shortage of illegal capture of wolves for commercial adverse effects to wolves associated prey for Wisconsin and Michigan breeding purposes happens rarely. State with such activities have been minimal wolves for the foreseeable future. wolf management plans for Minnesota, and would not constitute a threat to Wisconsin, and Michigan help ensure Summary of Factor A wolves in the proposed WGL DPS. that wolves will not be killed for No wolves have been legally removed The wolf population in the proposed commercial or recreational purposes for from the wild for educational purposes WGL DPS currently occupies all the many years following the proposed in recent years. Wolves that have been suitable habitat area identified for Federal delisting, so these forms of used for such purposes are the captive- recovery in the Midwest in the 1978 mortality will not likely emerge as new reared offspring of wolves that were Recovery Plan and 1992 Revised threats upon delisting. See Factor D for already in captivity for other reasons, Recovery Plan and most of the a detailed discussion of State wolf and this is not likely to change as a potentially suitable habitat in the WGL management plans, and for applicable result of Federal delisting. We do not DPS. Viable wolf populations are regulations in States without wolf expect taking for educational purposes unlikely to develop and persist in management plans. to constitute any threat to Midwest wolf unsuitable habitat and the small We do not expect the use of wolves populations in the proposed DPS for the fragmented areas of suitable habitat for scientific purposes to increase in foreseeable future. away from these core areas. Although proportion to total wolf numbers in the they may have been historical habitat, proposed WGL DPS after delisting. See Factor E for a discussion of many of these areas are no longer While listed, the intentional or Taking of Wolves by Native Americans suitable for wolves and they have not incidental killing, or capture and for Certain Purposes. See the been considered necessary for the permanent confinement, of endangered Depredation Control Programs sections recovery of the proposed DPS. or threatened wolves for scientific under Factor D for discussion of other The wolf population in the proposed purposes has only legally occurred past, current, and potential future forms WGL DPS exceeds its numerical, under permits or subpermits issued by of intentional and accidental take by temporal, and distributional goals for the Service (under section 10(a)(1)(A)) humans, including depredation control, recovery. The amount of habitat likely or by a State agency operating under a public safety, and under public harvest. to support a delisted wolf population is cooperative agreement with the Service While public harvest may include considered to be adequate for pursuant to section 6 of the Act (50 CFR recreational harvest, it is likely that maintaining the WGL population at or 17.21(c)(5) and 17.31(b)). Although public harvest will also serve as a above recovery levels for the foreseeable exact figures are not available, management tool, so it is discussed in future. Because much important wolf throughout the conterminous 48 States, Factor D. habitat in the DPS is in public such permanent removals of wolves Summary of Factor B ownership, the States will likely from the wild have been very limited continue to manage for high ungulate and probably comprise an average of not Taking wolves for scientific or populations, and the States, Tribes, and more than two animals per year since educational purposes in the other States Federal land management agencies will the species was first listed as in the proposed WGL DPS may not be adequately regulate human-caused endangered. In the proposed WGL DPS, regulated or closely monitored in the mortality of wolves and wolf prey. This these animals were either taken from the future, but the threat to wolves in those will allow these States to easily support Minnesota wolf population during long- States will not be significant to the long- a recovered and viable wolf term research activities (about 15 term viability of the wolf population in metapopulation into the foreseeable wolves) or were accidental takings as a the proposed WGL DPS. The potential future. We conclude that wolves within result of research activities in Wisconsin limited commercial and recreational this proposed DPS are not in danger of (5 to 6 mortalities and 1 long-term harvest that may occur in the DPS will extinction now, or likely to be in danger confinement) and in Michigan (4 be regulated by State and/or Tribal of extinction in the foreseeable future, mortalities) (Berg in litt. 1998; Mech in conservation agencies and is discussed as a result of destruction, modification, litt. 1998; Roell in litt. 2004; Roell in under Factor D. Therefore, we conclude or curtailment of the species’ habitat or litt. 2005a; Roell 2011, pers. comm.; that overutilization for commercial, range. Wydeven 2009, pers. comm.). recreational, scientific, or educational The Minnesota DNR plans to purposes will not be a threat sufficient B. Overutilization for Commercial, encourage the study of wolves with to cause wolves in the proposed WGL Recreational, Scientific, or Educational radio-telemetry after delisting, with an DPS to be in danger of extinction in the Purposes emphasis on areas where they expect foreseeable future in all or a significant Threats to wolves resulting from uses wolf–human conflicts and where wolves portion of the range within the proposed for scientific or educational purposes are expanding their range (MN DNR WGL DPS.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26112 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

C. Disease or Predation. increase and that a wolf population will ranging from 60 to 100 percent among decline when 76 percent of the adult wild wolves handled from 2001 through Disease wolves consistently test positive for mid-2006. Part of the reason for high Many diseases and parasites have CPV exposure. Their data indicate that exposure percentages is likely an been reported for the wolf, and several CPV prevalence in adult wolves in their increased emphasis in sampling pups of them have had significant impacts study area increased by an annual and Central Forest wolves starting in during the recovery of the species in the average of 4 percent during 1979–93 and 2001, so comparisons of post- and pre- 48 conterminous States (Brand et al. was at least 80 percent during the last 2001 data are of limited value. 1995, p. 419; WI DNR 1999, p. 61). If not 5 years of their study (Mech and Goyal CPV appears not to be a significant monitored and controlled by States, 1995, pp. 566, 568). cause of mortality, as only a single wolf these diseases and parasites, and Additional data gathered since 1995 (male pup) is known to have died from perhaps others, may threaten wolf suggests that CPV reduced pup survival CPV during this period (Wydeven and populations in the future. Thus, to avoid both in the Superior National Forest and Wiedenhoeft 2002, p. 8 Table 4; 2003a, a future decline caused by diseases or statewide, between 1984 and 2004; pp. 11–12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 parasites, States and their partners will however, statewide there is some Table 5; 2005, pp. 19–20 Table 4; 2006, have to diligently monitor the evidence of a slight increase in pup pp. 23–25 Table 4; 2009, Table 2; prevalence of these pathogens in order survival since about 1995. These Wydeven et al. 2007, pp. 12–14; 2008, to effectively respond to significant conclusions are based on an inverse pp. 19–21). While the difficulty of outbreaks. relationship between pup numbers in discovering CPV-killed pups must be Canine parvovirus (CPV) is a summer captures and seroprevalence of considered, and it is possible that CPV- relatively new disease that infects CPV antibodies in summer-captured caused pup mortality is being wolves, domestic dogs, , coyotes, adult wolves (Mech et al. 2008, pp. 827– underestimated, the continuing increase skunks, and raccoons. Recognized in the 830). of the Wisconsin wolf population United States in 1977 in domestic dogs, In a more recent study, Mech and indicates that CPV mortality is no longer it appeared in Minnesota wolves (based Goyal (2010) looked more specifically at impeding wolf population growth in the upon retrospective serologic evidence) CPV influence on the Superior National State. It may be that many Wisconsin live-trapped as early as 1977 (Mech et Forest population by evaluating five 7- wolves have developed some degree of al. 1986, p. 105). Minnesota wolves, year periods to determine when CPV resistance to CPV, and this disease is no however, may have been exposed to the had its greatest effects. They found the longer a significant threat in the State. virus as early as 1973 (Mech and Goyal strongest effect on wolf pup survival Similar to Wisconsin wolves, 1995, p. 568). Serologic evidence of wolf was from 1981 to 1993, and that after serological testing of Michigan wolves exposure to CPV peaked at 95 percent that time, little effect was seen despite captured from 1992 through 2001 (most for a group of Minnesota wolves live- the continued seroprevalence of CPV recent available data) shows that the trapped in 1989 (Mech and Goyal 1993, antibodies (Mech and Goyal 2010, pp. majority of UP wolves have been p. 331). In a captive colony of 6–7). They conclude that after CPV exposed to CPV. Fifty-six percent of 16 Minnesota wolves, pup and yearling became endemic in the population, the wolves captured from 1992 to 1999 and mortality from CPV was 92 percent of population developed immunity and 83 percent of 23 wolves captured in the animals that showed indications of was able to withstand severe effects 2001 showed antibody titers at levels active CPV infections in 1983 (Mech from the disease (Mech and Goyal 2010, established as indicative of previous and Fritts 1987, p. 6), demonstrating the p. 7). The observed population effects in CPV exposure that may provide substantial impacts this disease can the Superior National Forest population protection from future infection from have on young wolves. It is believed are consistent with results for studies in CPV (Beheler in litt. undated, in litt. that the population impacts of CPV smaller, isolated populations in 2004). There are no data showing any occur via diarrhea-induced dehydration Wisconsin and on Isle Royale, Michigan CPV-caused wolf mortality or leading to abnormally high pup (Wydeven et al. 1995; Peterson et al. population impacts to the wolf mortality (WI DNR 1999, p. 61). CPV has 1998), but indicate that CPV also had population on the UP, but few wolf been detected in nearly every wolf only a temporary population effect in a pups are handled in the UP (Hammill in population in North America including larger population. litt. 2002, Beyer in litt. 2006a), so low Alaska (Bailey et al. 1995, p. 443) and The WI DNR and the WI DNR Wildlife levels of CPV-caused pup mortality may exposure in wolves is now believed to Health, in conjunction with the U.S. go undetected there. Mortality data are be almost universal. Geological Survey National Wildlife primarily collected from collared There is no evidence that CPV has Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin, wolves, which until 2004 received CPV caused a population decline or has had (formerly the National Wildlife Health inoculations. Therefore, mortality data a significant impact on the recovery of Laboratory) have an extensive dataset on for the UP should be interpreted the Minnesota wolf population. Mech the incidence of wolf diseases, cautiously. and Goyal (1995, p. 566, Table 1, p. 568, beginning in 1981. Canine parvovirus Sarcoptic mange is caused by a mite Fig. 3), however, found that high CPV exposure was evident in 5 of 6 wolves (Sarcoptes scabiei) infection of the skin. prevalence in the wolves of the Superior tested in 1981, and probably stalled The irritation caused by the feeding and National Forest in Minnesota occurred wolf population growth in Wisconsin burrowing mites results in scratching during the same years in which wolf during the early and mid-1980s when and then severe fur loss, which in turn pup numbers were low. Because the numbers there declined or were static; can lead to mortality from exposure wolf population did not decline during at that time 75 percent of 32 wolves during severe winter weather. The mites the study period, they concluded that tested positive for CPV. During the are spread from wolf to wolf by direct CPV-caused pup mortality was following years of population increase body contact or by common use of compensatory, that is, it replaced deaths (1988–96), only 35 percent of the 63 ‘‘rubs’’ by infested and uninfested that would have occurred from other wolves tested positive for CPV (WI DNR animals. Thus, mange is frequently causes, especially starvation of pups. 1999, p. 62). More recent exposure rates passed from infested females to their They theorized that CPV prevalence for CPV continue to be high in young pups, and from older pack affects the amount of population Wisconsin wolves, with annual rates members to their pack mates. In a long-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26113

term Alberta, Canada, wolf study, higher The survival of pups during their first that time, Ivermectin has been wolf densities were correlated with winter is believed to be strongly affected administered only to captured wolves increased incidence of mange, and pup by mange. The highest to date wolf with severe cases of mange. In the survival decreased as the incidence of mortality (30 percent of radio-collared future, Ivermectin and vaccines will be mange increased (Brand et al. 1995, p. wolves; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft used sparingly on Wisconsin wolves, 428). 2004a, p. 12) from mange in Wisconsin but will be used to counter significant From 1991 to 1996, 27 percent of live- in 2003 may have had more severe disease outbreaks (Wydeven in litt. trapped Wisconsin wolves exhibited effects on pup survival than in previous 1998). symptoms of mange. During the winter years. The prevalence of the disease Among Minnesota wolves, mange of 1992–93, 58 percent showed may have contributed to the relatively may always have been present at low symptoms, and a concurrent decline in small population increase in 2003 (2.4 levels and may currently infect less than the Wisconsin wolf population was percent in 2003 as compared to the 10 percent of the State’s wolves. Of the attributed to mange-induced mortality average 18 percent to that point since 407 wolves trapped by Wildlife Services (WI DNR 1999, p. 61). Seven Wisconsin 1985). However, mange has not caused during 2006–08 in response to wolves died from mange from 1993 a decline in the State’s wolf population, depredation complaints, 52 (13 percent) through October 15, 1998, and severe and even though the rate of population exhibited signs of mange (Hart 2009, fur loss affected five other wolves that increase has slowed in recent years, the pers. comm.); the proportion of wolves died from other causes. During that wolf population continues to increase with signs of mange decreased from 17 period, mange was the third largest despite the continued prevalence of percent in 2006 to 10 percent in 2008. cause of death in Wisconsin wolves, mange in Wisconsin wolves. Although During the previous 3-year period behind trauma (usually vehicle mange mortality may not be the primary (2003–05), the proportion of trapped collisions) and shooting (Thomas in litt. limiting factor for wolf population wolves with signs of mange was also 1998). Largely as a result of mange, pup growth in the State, the impacts of about 13 percent, suggesting that mange survival was only 16 percent in 1993, mange in Wisconsin need to be closely has not increased in prevalence among compared to a normal 30 percent monitored, as identified and addressed wolves in Minnesota since 2003. The survival rate from birth to one year of in the Wisconsin wolf management plan incidence of mange among wolves age (WI DNR 1999, p. 61). (WI DNR 1999, p. 21; 2006a, p. 14). targeted by Wildlife Services is likely Mange continues to occur on wolves Disease monitoring in Wisconsin has not representative of the prevalence of in Wisconsin. From 2003 through 2007, identified a second form of mange in the the disease in the statewide wolf 25 percent of live-trapped wolves wild wolf population—demodectic population; wolves targeted for showed signs of mange, but that mange (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft depredation control appear to be more declined to 11 percent of wolves 2008, p. 8). Demodectic mange mites are likely to carry the disease (Hart 2009, handled in 2009 and 2010. Mortality relatively common in domestic dogs, pers. comm.). data from closely monitored radio- where symptoms are often minor. The In a separate study, mortality data collared wolves provides a relatively WI DNR is closely monitoring wolf pups from 12 years (1994–05) of monitoring unbiased estimate of mortality factors, and examining all dead wolves to radio-collared wolves in 7 to 9 packs in especially those linked to disease or determine if this becomes a significant north-central Minnesota show that 11 illegal actions, because nearly all new cause of wolf mortality. percent died from mange (DelGiudice in carcasses are located within a few days Seven Michigan wolves died from litt. 2005). However, the sample size (17 of deaths. Diseased wolves suffering mange during 1993–97, making it total mortalities, 2 from mange in 1998 from hypothermia or nearing death responsible for 21 percent of all and 2004) is far too small to deduce generally crawl into dense cover and mortalities, and all disease-caused trends in mange mortality over time. may go undiscovered if they are not deaths, during that period (MI DNR Furthermore, these data are from mange radio-tracked (Wydeven et al. 2001b, p. 1997, p. 39). During bioyears (mid-April mortalities, while the Wildlife Services’ 14). Data from those closely monitored to mid-April) 1999–2009, mange- data are based on mange symptoms, not radio-collared wolves show that mange induced hypothermia killed 18 radio- mortalities. mortality ranged from 22 percent of collared Michigan wolves, representing It is hypothesized that the current deaths in 2006 and 12 percent in 2007 15 percent of the total mortality during incidence of mange is more widespread to 21 percent of deaths in 2008 those years. Since 2004, 11 radio- than it would have otherwise been, (Wydeven in litt. 2009), 15 percent in collared wolves are known to have died because the WGL wolf range has 2009 (Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 13), and from mange in the State (Roell 2010, experienced a series of mild winters 6 percent in 2010 (Wydeven et al. 2011, pers. comm.). Before 2004, MI DNR beginning with the winter of 1997–98 p. 2). treated all captured wolves with (Van Deelen 2005, Fig. 2). Mange- Mange mortality does appear to be Ivermectin if they showed signs of induced mortality is chiefly a result of stabilizing or perhaps declining in mange. In addition, MI DNR vaccinated winter hypothermia, thus the less severe Wisconsin. Not all mangy wolves all captured wolves against CPV and winters resulted in higher survival of succumb; other observations showed canine distemper virus (CDV). These mangy wolves, and increased spread of that some mangy wolves are able to inoculations were discontinued in 2004 mange to additional wolves during the survive the winter (Wydeven et al. to provide more natural biotic following spring and summer. The high 2001b, p. 14). Mange has been detected conditions and to provide biologists wolf population, and especially higher in Wisconsin wolves every year since with an unbiased estimate of disease- wolf density on the landscape, may also 1991 when 45 to 52 wolves occurred in caused mortality rates in the population be contributing to the increasing the State, and may have slowed the (Roell in litt. 2005b). occurrence of mange in the WGL wolf growth of the wolf population in the Wisconsin wolves similarly had been population. early 1990s (Wydeven et al. 2009c), but treated with Ivermectin and vaccinated Lyme disease, caused by the despite its constant presence as an for CPV and CDV when captured, but spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi, is occasional mortality factor, the wolf the practice was stopped in 1995 to another relatively recently recognized population grew to its present (2010) allow the wolf population to experience disease, first documented in New level of 690 or more wolves. more natural biotic conditions. Since England in 1975, although it may have

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26114 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

occurred in Wisconsin as early as 1969. (1982, pp. 113–116) concluded that CDV Wisconsin from October 1979 through It is spread by ticks that pass the was a contributor to a 50 percent December 2009 (Wydeven et al. 2010, p. infection to their hosts when feeding. decline of the wolf population in Riding 45). In recent years (2006–10), disease Host species include humans, horses, Mountain National Park (Manitoba, has been the cause of death for 14 dogs, white-tailed deer, white-footed Canada) in the mid-1970s. Serological percent (10 of 70 dead wolves) of the mice, eastern chipmunks, coyotes, and evidence indicates that exposure to CDV diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared wolves. The prevalence of Lyme disease is high among some Midwest wolves— wolves in Wisconsin and 3 to 7 percent exposure in Wisconsin wolves averaged 29 percent in northern Wisconsin of all wolves (radio-collared and not 70 percent of live-trapped animals in wolves and 79 percent in central collared) found dead in the State (72 to 1988–91, dropped to 37 percent during Wisconsin wolves in 2002–04 (Wydeven 94 wolves). During that time period, 1992–97 and was back up to 56 percent and Wiedenhoeft 2004b, pp. 23–24 disease was the cause of death of 12 (32 of 57 tested) in 2002–04 (Wydeven Table 7; 2005, pp. 23–24 Table 7). percent (5 of 43) of the diagnosed and Wiedenhoeft 2004b, pp. 23–24 However, the continued strong mortalities of radio-collared wolves in Table 7; 2005, pp. 23–24 Table 7). recruitment in Wisconsin and elsewhere Michigan, and of 3 percent (6 of 199) of Clinical symptoms have not been in North American wolf populations the total known wolf mortalities in reported in wolves, but infected dogs indicates that distemper is not likely a Minnesota. can experience debilitating conditions, significant cause of mortality (Brand et Many of the diseases and parasites are and abortion and fetal mortality have al. 1995, p. 421). known to be spread by wolf-to-wolf been reported in infected humans and Other diseases and parasites, contact. Therefore, the incidence of horses. It is possible that individual including rabies, canine heartworm, mange, CPV, CDV, and canine wolves may be debilitated by Lyme blastomycosis, bacterial myocarditis, heartworm may increase as wolf disease, perhaps contributing to their granulomatous pneumonia, brucellosis, densities increase in the more recently mortality; however, Lyme disease is not leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, colonized areas (Thomas in litt. 2006). believed to be a significant factor hookworm, coccidiosis, and canine Because wolf densities generally are affecting wolf populations (Kreeger hepatitis have been documented in wild relatively stable following the first few 2003, p. 212). wolves, but their impacts on future wild years of colonization, wolf-to-wolf The dog louse (Trichodectes canis) wolf populations are not likely to be contacts will not likely lead to a has been detected in wolves in Ontario, significant (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 419– continuing increase in disease Saskatchewan, Alaska, Minnesota, and 429; Hassett in litt. 2003; Johnson 1995, prevalence in areas that have been Wisconsin (Mech et al 1985, pp. 404– pp. 431, 436–438; Mech and Kurtz 1999, occupied for several years or more and 405; Kreeger 2003, p. 208; Paul in litt. pp. 305–306; Thomas in litt. 1998, are largely saturated with wolf packs 2005). Dogs are probably the source of Thomas in litt. 2006, WI DNR 1999, p. (Mech in litt. 1998). the initial infections, and subsequently 61; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202–214). Disease and parasite impacts may wild canids transfer lice by direct Continuing wolf range expansion, increase because several wolf diseases contact with other wolves, particularly however, likely will provide new and parasites are carried and spread by between females and pups. Severe avenues for exposure to several of these domestic dogs. This transfer of infestations result in irritated and raw diseases, especially canine heartworm, pathogens from domestic dogs to wild skin, substantial hair loss, particularly raccoon rabies, and bovine tuberculosis wolves may increase as wolves continue in the groin. However, in contrast to (Thomas in litt. 2000, in litt. 2006), to colonize non-wilderness areas (Mech mange, lice infestations generally result further emphasizing the need for disease in litt. 1998). Heartworm, CPV, and in loss of guard hairs but not the monitoring programs. rabies are the main concerns (Thomas in insulating under fur, thus, hypothermia In addition, the possibility of new litt. 1998) but dogs may become is less likely to occur and much less diseases developing and existing significant vectors for other diseases likely to be fatal (Brand et al. 1995, p. diseases, such as chronic wasting with potentially serious impacts on 426). Even though observed in nearly 4 disease (CWD), West Nile Virus (WNV) wolves in the future (Crawford et al. percent in a sample of 391 Minnesota and canine influenza (Crawford et al. 2005, pp. 482–485). However, to date wolves in 2003–05 (Paul in litt. 2005), 2005, 482–485), moving across species wolf populations in Wisconsin and dog lice infestations have not been barriers or spreading from domestic Michigan have continued their confirmed as a cause of wolf mortality, dogs to wolves must all be taken into expansion into areas with increased and are not expected to have a account, and monitoring programs will contacts with dogs and have shown no significant impact even at a local scale. need to address such threats. Currently adverse pathogen impacts since the Canine distemper virus (CDV) is an there is no evidence that CWD can mid-1980s impacts from CPV. acute disease of carnivores that has been directly affect canids (Thomas in litt. Disease and parasite impacts are a known in Europe since the sixteenth 2006). Wisconsin wolves have been recognized concern of the Minnesota, century and is now infecting dogs tested for WNV at necropsy since the Michigan, and Wisconsin DNRs. The worldwide (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). CDV first spread of the virus across the State: Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and generally infects dog pups when they To date, all results have been negative. Management Plan states that necropsies are only a few months old, so mortality Although experimental infection of dogs will be conducted on all dead wolves, in wild wolf populations might be produced no ill effects, WNV is reported and that all live wolves that are handled difficult to detect (Brand et al 1995, pp. to have killed two captive wolf pups, so will be examined, with blood, skin, and 420–421). CDV mortality among wild young wolves may be at some risk fecal samples taken to provide disease wolves has been documented only in (Thomas in litt. 2006). information. The Michigan Plan states two littermate pups in Manitoba In aggregate, diseases and parasites that the Michigan DNR will continue to (Carbyn 1982, pp. 111–112), in two were the cause of 21 percent of the monitor the prevalence and impact of Alaskan yearling wolves (Peterson et al. diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared disease on wolf health following Federal 1984, p. 31), and in two Wisconsin wolves in Michigan from 1999 through delisting (MI DNR 2008, pp. 32, 40–42). wolves (an adult in 1985 and a pup in 2004 (Beyer 2005, unpublished data) Similarly, the Wisconsin Wolf 2002 (Thomas in litt. 2006; Wydeven and 27 percent of the diagnosed Management Plan states that as long as and Wiedenhoeft 2003b, p. 20). Carbyn mortalities of radio-collared wolves in the wolf is State-listed as a threatened

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26115

or endangered species, the WI DNR will incidence of diseases or parasites in disease monitoring components that we conduct necropsies of dead wolves and transient wolves. However, the expect will identify future disease and test a sample of live-captured wolves for boundary of the proposed WGL DPS is parasite problems in time to allow diseases and parasites, with a goal of laid out in a manner such that the vast corrective action to avoid a significant screening 10 percent of the State wolf majority of, and perhaps all, wolves that decline in overall population viability. population for diseases annually. will occur in the DPS in the foreseeable We conclude that diseases and parasites However, the plan anticipates that since future will have originated from the will not prevent continued population State delisting (which occurred on Minnesota–Wisconsin–Michigan wolf growth or the maintenance of viable March 24, 2004), disease monitoring metapopulation. Therefore, they will be wolf populations in the DPS. Delisting will be scaled back because the carrying the ‘‘normal’’ complement of of wolves in the proposed WGL DPS percentage of the wolf population that is Midwest wolf parasites, diseases, and will not significantly change the live-trapped each year will decline. disease resistance with them. For this incidence or impacts of disease and Disease monitoring of captured wolves reason, any new pairs, packs, or parasites on these wolves. Furthermore, currently is focusing on diseases known populations that develop within the we conclude that diseases and parasites to be causing noteworthy mortality, DPS are likely to experience the same will not be threats sufficient to cause such as mange, and other diseases for low to moderate adverse impacts from wolves in the proposed WGL DPS to be which data are judged to be sparse, such pathogens that have been occurring in likely to become endangered in the as Lyme disease and ehrlichiosis the core recovery areas. foreseeable future in all or a significant (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2006, p. 8). The most likely exceptions to this portion of the range within the proposed The State will continue to test for generalization would arise from WGL DPS. disease and parasite loads through exposure to sources of novel diseases or Natural Predation periodic necropsy and scat analyses. more virulent forms that are being The 2006 update to the 1999 plan also spread by other canid species that might No wild animals habitually prey on recommends that all wolves live- be encountered by wolves dispersing wolves. Large prey such as deer, elk, or trapped for other studies should have into currently unoccupied areas of the moose (Mech and Nelson 1989, pp. 207– their health monitored and reported to DPS. To increase the likelihood of 208; Smith et al. 2001, p. 3), or other the WI DNR wildlife health specialists detecting such novel or more virulent predators, such as mountain lions (Felis (WI DNR 1999, p. 21; 2006c, p. 14). diseases and thereby reduce the risk that concolor) or grizzly bears (Ursus arctos Furthermore, the 2006 update identifies they might pose to the core meta- horribilis) where they are extant a need for ‘‘continued health monitoring population after delisting, we will (USFWS 2005, p. 3), occasionally kill to document significant disease events encourage these States and Tribes to wolves, but this has only been rarely that may impact the wolf population provide wolf carcasses or suitable documented. This very small and to identify new diseases in the tissue, as appropriate, to the USGS component of wolf mortality will not population * * *.’’ (WI DNR 2006a, p. Madison Wildlife Health Center or the increase with delisting. 24). Service’s National Wildlife Forensics Wolves frequently are killed by other The Minnesota Wolf Management Laboratory for necropsy. This practice wolves, most commonly when packs Plan states that MN DNR ‘‘will should provide an early indication of encounter and attack a dispersing wolf collaborate with other investigators and new or increasing pathogen threats as an intruder or when two packs continue monitoring disease incidence, before they reach the core encounter each other along a territorial where necessary, by examination of metapopulation or impact future boundary (Mech 1994, p. 201). This wolf carcasses obtained through transient wolves to those areas. form of mortality is likely to increase as depredation control programs, and also more of the available wolf habitat Disease Summary through blood or tissue physiology work becomes saturated with wolf pack conducted by the MN DNR and the U.S. We believe that several diseases have territories, as is the case in northeastern Geological Survey. The DNR will also had noticeable impacts on wolf Minnesota, but such a trend is not yet keep records of documented and population growth in the Great Lakes evident from Wisconsin or Michigan suspected incidence of sarcoptic mange region in the past. These impacts have data. From October 1979 through June (MN DNR 2001, p. 32).’’ In addition, it been both direct, resulting in mortality 1998, 7 (12 percent) of the mortalities of will initiate ‘‘(R)egular collection of of individual wolves, and indirect, by radio-collared Wisconsin wolves pertinent tissues of live captured or reducing longevity and fecundity of resulted from wolves killing wolves, dead wolves’’ and periodically assess individuals or entire packs or and 8 of 73 (11 percent) mortalities were wolf health ‘‘when circumstances populations. Canine parvovirus stalled from this cause during 2000–05 indicate that diseases or parasites may wolf population growth in Wisconsin in (Wydeven 1998, p. 16 Table 4; Wydeven be adversely affecting portions of the the early and mid-1980s and has been and Wiedenhoeft 2001, p. 8 Table 5; wolf population (MN DNR 2001, p. 19).’’ implicated in the decline in the mid- 2002, pp. 8–9 Table 4; 2003a, pp. 11– Unlike Michigan and Wisconsin, 1980s of the isolated Isle Royale wolf 12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 Table 5, Minnesota has not established population in Michigan, and in 2005, p. 21 Table 5). minimum goals for the proportion of its attenuating wolf population growth in Among radio-collared wolves dying wolves that will be assessed for disease Minnesota (Mech in litt. 2006). from known causes between October nor does it plan to treat any wolves, Sarcoptic mange has affected wolf 1979 and December 2009, overall rate of although it does not rule out these recovery in Michigan’s UP and in intraspecific strife was similar at 17 of measures. Minnesota’s less intensive Wisconsin over the last 12 years, and it 151 mortalities or 11 percent (Wydeven approach to disease monitoring and is recognized as a continuing issue. et al. 2010, p. 45). Gogan et al. (2004, management seems warranted in light of Despite these and other diseases and p. 7) studied 31 radio-collared wolves in its much greater abundance of wolves parasites, the overall trend for wolf northern Minnesota from 1987 to 1991 than in the other two States. populations in the proposed WGL DPS and found that 4 (13 percent) were In areas within the proposed WGL continues to be upward. Wolf killed by other wolves, representing 29 DPS, but outside Minnesota, Wisconsin, management plans for Minnesota, percent of the total mortality of radio- and Michigan, we lack data on the Michigan, and Wisconsin include collared wolves. Intra-specific strife

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26116 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

caused 50 percent of mortality within accidental killings are reported to State, through June 1992 period, only 1 of 27 Voyageurs National Park and 20 percent Tribal, and Federal authorities. It is (4 percent) known mortalities was from of the mortality of wolves adjacent to likely that most illegal killings, that cause; but from July 1992 through the Park (Gogan et al. 2004, p. 22). The however, are intentional and are never June 1998, 5 of the 26 (19 percent) DelGiudice data (in litt. 2005) show a 17 reported to government authorities. known mortalities resulted from vehicle percent mortality rate from other wolves Because they generally occur in remote collisions (Wydeven 1998, p. 6). From in another study area in north-central locations and the evidence is easily 2002 through 2004, 7 of 45 (16 percent) Minnesota from 1994 to 2005. This concealed, we lack reliable estimates of known mortalities were from that cause behavior is normal in healthy wolf annual rates of intentional illegal (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003a, pp. populations and is an expected outcome killings. 11–12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 Table of dispersal conflicts and territorial In Wisconsin, all forms of human- 5; 2005, pp. 19–20 Table 4); and from defense, as well as occasional intra-pack caused mortality accounted for 56 2005 through 2009, 126 of 459 (27 strife. This form of mortality is percent of the diagnosed deaths of percent) known mortalities were from something with which the species has radio-collared wolves from October that cause (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft evolved and it should not pose a threat 1979 through December 2009 (Wydeven 2005, p. 20; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft to wolf populations in the proposed et al. 2010, p. 45). Thirty-four percent of 2006, p. 20; Wydeven et al. 2007a, p. 7; WGL DPS if this DPS is delisted. the diagnosed mortalities, and 62 Wydeven et al. 2007b, p. 10; Wydeven percent of the human-caused Human Predation and Wiedenhoeft 2008, p. 7; Wydeven et mortalities, were from illegal killing al. 2009a, pp. 19–21; Wydeven and Because our concern about human (mainly shootings). Another 9 percent of Wiedenhoeft 2009, Table 3; Wydeven et predation is its overall effect on wolf all the diagnosed mortalities (15 percent al. 2010, Table 7). mortality, the following discussion of the human-caused mortalities) A comparison over time for diagnosed addresses the major human causes of resulted from vehicle collisions. (These mortalities of radio-collared Wisconsin wolf mortality, including illegal killing, percentages and those in the following wolves shows that 18 of 57 (32 percent) depredation control, and vehicle paragraphs exclude seven radio-collared were illegally killed from October 1979 collisions. Wisconsin wolves that were killed in Humans have functioned as highly through 1998, while 12 of 42 (29 depredation control actions by USDA– percent) were illegally killed from 2002 effective predators of the wolf in North APHIS—Wildlife Services. The wolf America for several hundred years. through 2004 and 24 of 72 (33 percent) depredation control programs in the were illegally killed from 2005 to March European settlers in the Midwest Midwest are discussed separately under 2007 (WI DNR 1999, p. 63; Wydeven attempted to eliminate the wolf entirely Depredation Control, below.) Data from and Wiedenhoeft 2003a, pp. 11–12 in earlier times, and the U.S. Congress 2006 through 2010 (68 diagnosed Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 Table 4; 2005. passed a wolf bounty that covered the mortalities of radio-collared wolves) pp. 19–20 Table 4; Wydeven et al. Northwest Territories in 1817. Bounties show the mortality percentages for 2006a, p. 6; 2006b, p. 8; 2007, pp. 6–7; on wolves subsequently became the disease to be slightly lower and illegal 2008a, p. 10). In 2006, prior to the norm for States across the species’ kills to be similar, with 14 percent of the Federal delisting the following year, 17 range. In Michigan, an 1838 wolf bounty mortalities resulting from mange or of 72 wolves found dead in the state became the ninth law passed by the disease and 35 percent from being were killed illegally. Among nine radio- First Michigan Legislature; this bounty illegally killed. The mortality remained in place until 1960. A percentage for vehicle collisions during collared wolves that had died in 2006, Wisconsin bounty was instituted in this time period remained constant (13 six (67 percent) were illegally killed. In 1865 and was repealed about the time percent) (Wydeven et al. 2007, p. 10; 2007, after Federal delisting, 10 of 90 wolves were extirpated from the State in and Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2008, dead wolves found in the State were 1957. Minnesota maintained a wolf Summary). Most recently for 2010, illegally killed, and 3 (19 percent) of the bounty until 1965. mortality data from actively monitored radio-collared wolves found dead were Subsequent to the gray wolf’s listing wolves show that of wolves that died, illegally killed. In 2008, 14 of 94 dead as a Federally endangered species, the 38 percent were killed illegally (all wolves found in Wisconsin were Act and State endangered species shootings); 12 percent were euthanized illegally killed, and 4 (28 percent) of 14 statutes prohibited the killing of wolves for human safety concerns; 6 percent of radio-collared wolves found dead were except under very limited the deaths were disease related; 6 illegal kills. In 2009, when wolves were circumstances, such as in defense of percent died from apparent old age, 6 again Federally listed for most of the human life, for scientific or percent from intraspecific strife, and 12 year, 20 of the 72 dead wolves found in conservation purposes, or under special percent from vehicle collisions; and the Wisconsin were illegally killed, and 8 regulations intended to reduce wolf causes for 19 percent of the deaths were (62 percent) of 13 radio-collared wolves depredations of livestock or other unknown (Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 2). found dead were illegal kills. In 2010, domestic animals. The resultant During the periods that wolves were when wolves continued to be Federally reduction in human-caused wolf Federally delisted (from March 2007 listed, 14 of 72 dead wolves were mortality is the main cause of the wolf’s through September 2008 and from April illegally killed, and 6 (38 percent) of 16 reestablishment in large parts of its through early July 2009), 92 wolves radio-collared wolves were illegally historical range. It is clear, however, were killed for depredation control, killed. that illegal killing of wolves has including 8 legally shot by private Thus the number of known illegally continued in the form of intentional landowners (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft killed wolves declined slightly from 17 mortality and incidental deaths. 2008, p. 8; Wydeven et al. 2009b, p. 6; in 2006, to 10 in 2007 and 14 in 2008, Illegal killing of wolves occurs for a Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 13). increased to 20 in 2009, and declined to number of reasons. Some of these As the Wisconsin population has 14 in 2010. Among radio-collared killings are accidental (for example, increased in numbers and range, vehicle wolves found dead, illegal killing wolves are hit by vehicles, mistaken for collisions have increased as a represented 67 percent of all mortality coyotes and shot, or caught in traps set percentage of radio-collared wolf in 2006, 19 percent in 2007, 23 percent for other animals); some of these mortalities. During the October 1979 in 2008, 62 percent in 2009, and 38

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26117

percent in 2010 (Wydeven et al. 2010, possible to translocate the animal alive), 1992 (Licht and Fritts 1994, pp. 76–77). p. 13; Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 2). or while wolves were not Federally Seven more were killed in North Dakota In the UP of Michigan, human-caused protected (Roell 2010 et al., p. 9). Since since 1992, with four of these mortalities accounted for 75 percent of 2004 the Michigan DNR and USDA– mortalities occurring in 2002 and 2003; the diagnosed mortalities, based upon Wildlife Services have killed 13 animals in 2001, one wolf was killed in Harding 34 wolves recovered from 1960 to 1997, (12 involving human safety and 1 sick County in extreme northwestern South including mostly non-radio-collared wolf) under the authority of this Dakota. The number of reported wolves. Twenty-eight percent of all the regulation (Roell 2010 et al., p. 9). Two sightings of wolves in North Dakota is diagnosed mortalities and 38 percent of others were killed for human safety increasing. From 1993 to 1998, six wolf the human-caused mortalities were from concerns while wolves were Federally depredation reports were investigated in shooting. In the UP during that period, delisted (Roell 2010, pers. comm.). North Dakota, and adequate signs were about one-third of all the known North-central Minnesota data from 16 found to verify the presence of wolves mortalities were from vehicle collisions diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared in two of the cases. A den with pups (MI DNR 1997, pp. 5–6). During the wolves over a 12-year period (1994– was also documented in extreme north- 1998 Michigan deer hunting season, 2005) show that human-causes resulted central North Dakota near the Canadian three radio-collared wolves were shot in 69 percent of the diagnosed border in 1994. From 1999 to 2003, and killed, resulting in one arrest and mortalities. This includes 1 wolf residents of North Dakota reported 16 conviction (Hammill in litt. 1999, accidentally snared, 2 vehicle collisions, wolf sightings or depredation incidents Michigan DNR 1999). During the and 8 (50 percent of all diagnosed to USDA–APHIS–Wildlife Services, and subsequent 3 years, eight additional mortalities) that were shot (DelGiudice 9 of these incidents were verified. wolves were killed in Michigan by in litt. 2005). However, this data set of Additionally, one North Dakota wolf gunshot, and the cut-off radio-collar only 16 mortalities over 12 years is too sighting was confirmed in early 2004, from a ninth animal was located, but the small for reliable comparison to two wolf depredation incidents were animal was never found. These Wisconsin and Michigan data. verified north of Garrison in late 2005, incidents resulted in six guilty pleas, A smaller mortality dataset is and one wolf was found dead in Eddy with three cases remaining open. available from a 1987–91 study of County in 2009. USDA–APHIS–Wildlife Data collected from radio-collared wolves in, and adjacent to, Minnesota’s Services also confirmed a wolf sighting wolves from the 1999 to 2009 bioyears Voyageurs National Park, along the along the Minnesota border near Gary, (mid-April to mid-April) show that Canadian border. Of 10 diagnosed South Dakota, in 1996, and a trapper human-caused mortalities still account mortalities, illegal killing outside the with the South Dakota Game, Fish, and for the majority of the wolf mortalities Park was responsible for a minimum of Parks Department sighted a lone wolf in (66 percent) in Michigan. Deaths from 60 percent of the deaths (Gogan et al. the western Black Hills in 2002. vehicular collisions were about 18 2004, p. 22). Several other unconfirmed sightings percent of total mortality (27 percent of Two Minnesota studies provide some have been reported from these States, the human-caused mortality) and limited insight into the extent of including two reports in South Dakota showed no trend over this 11-year human-caused wolf mortality before and in 2003. Wolves killed in North and period. Deaths from illegal killing after the species’ listing. On the basis of South Dakota were most often shot by constituted 39 percent of all mortalities bounty data from a period that predated hunters after being mistaken for coyotes, (60 percent of the human-caused wolf protection under the Act by 20 or were killed by vehicles. The 2001 mortality) over the period. From 1999 years, Stenlund (1955, p. 33) found an mortality in South Dakota and one of through 2001, illegal killings were 31 annual human-caused mortality rate of the 2003 mortalities in North Dakota percent of the mortalities, but this 41 percent. Fuller (1989, pp. 23–24) were caused by M–44 devices that had increased to 42 percent during the 2002 provided 1980–86 data from a north- been legally set in response to through 2004 bioyears and to 40 percent central Minnesota study area and found complaints about coyotes. during bioyears 2005 through 2010 an annual human-caused mortality rate In and around the core recovery areas (Roell 2010, pers. comm.). of 29 percent, a figure that includes 2 in the Midwest, a continuing increase in Most Michigan residents place a high percent mortality from legal depredation wolf mortalities from vehicle collisions, priority on wolf management actions control actions. Drawing conclusions both in actual numbers and as a percent that address public concerns for human from comparisons of these two studies, of total diagnosed mortalities, is safety (Beyer et al. 2006). Quick and however, is difficult due to the expected as wolves continue their professional responses to wolf conflicts confounding effects of habitat quality, colonization of areas with more human have been important for wolf recovery exposure to humans, prey density, developments and a denser network of (Ruid et al. 2009, p. 280). In most cases, differing time periods, and vast roads and vehicle traffic. In addition, people can take simple, sensible differences in study design. Although the growing wolf populations in measures to avoid those situations and these figures provide support for the Wisconsin and Michigan are producing protect themselves against harm. Other contention that human-caused mortality greater numbers of dispersing cases may warrant higher levels of decreased after the wolf’s protection individuals each year, and this also will concern and professional assistance. under the Act, it is not possible at this contribute to increasing numbers of Michigan DNR solved most wolf-human time to determine if human-caused wolf-vehicle collisions. This increase in conflicts using nonlethal methods (Roell mortality (apart from mortalities from accidental deaths would be unaffected 2010, pers. comm.). However, in a few depredation control) has significantly by a removal of wolves in the proposed incidents lethal control was warranted changed over the nearly 35-year period WGL DPS from the protections of the and carried out under Federal that the gray wolf has been listed as Act. regulations (50 CFR 17.21, which allows threatened or endangered. In those areas of the proposed WGL the take of an endangered species when Wolves were largely eliminated from DPS that are beyond the areas currently there is a ‘‘demonstrable but the Dakotas in the 1920s and 1930s and occupied by wolf packs in Minnesota, nonimmediate threat’’ to protect human were rarely reported from the mid-1940s Wisconsin, and Michigan, we expect safety, or to euthanize a sick or injured through the late 1970s. Ten wolves were that human-caused wolf mortality in the wolf, but only if it is not reasonably killed in these two States from 1981 to form of vehicle collisions, shooting, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26118 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

trapping have been removing all, or apparent, in general, wolf populations in the proposed WGL DPS to be likely nearly all, the wolves that disperse into increased if their total average annual to become endangered in the foreseeable these areas. We expect this to continue mortality was 30 percent or less, and future in all or a significant portion of after Federal delisting. Road densities populations decreased if their total the range within the proposed WGL are high in these areas, with numerous average annual mortality was 40 percent DPS. interstate highways and other freeways or more. Four of the cited studies and high-speed thoroughfares that are showed wolf population stability or D. The Inadequacy of Existing extremely hazardous to wolves increases with human-caused mortality Regulatory Mechanisms attempting to move across them. rates of 24 to 30 percent. The clear The inadequacy of existing regulatory Shooting and trapping of wolves also is conclusion is that a wolf population mechanisms is one of five factors that, likely to continue as a threat to wolves with high pup productivity—the normal under the Endangered Species Act (Act), in these areas for several reasons. situation in a wolf population—can may result in a determination as to Especially outside of Minnesota, withstand levels of overall and of whether a species should be listed or Wisconsin, and Michigan, hunters will human-caused mortality without not. In analyzing whether the existing not expect to encounter wolves, and suffering a long-term decline in regulatory mechanisms are adequate, may easily mistake them for coyotes numbers. the Service reviews relevant Federal, from a distance, resulting in The wolf populations in Minnesota, state, and Tribal laws, plans, unintentional shootings. Wisconsin, and Michigan will stop regulations, Memorandum of It is important to note that, despite the growing when they have saturated the Understandings, Cooperative difficulty in measuring the extent of suitable habitat and are curtailed in less Agreements and other such factors that illegal killing of wolves, all sources of suitable areas by natural mortality influence conservation of the species in wolf mortality, including legal (for (disease, starvation, and intraspecific question, including analyzing the extent example, depredation control) and aggression), depredation management, those mechanism can be relied upon. illegal human-caused mortality, have incidental mortality (for example, road Other examples include State not been of sufficient magnitude to stop kill), illegal killing, and other means. At governmental actions enforced under a the continuing growth of the wolf that time, we should expect to see State statute or constitution, or Federal population in Wisconsin and Michigan, population declines in some years action under statute. nor to cause a wolf population decline followed by short-term increases in Strongest weight is given to statutes in Minnesota. This indicates that total other years, resulting from fluctuations and their implementing regulations, and wolf mortality does not threaten the in birth and mortality rates. Adequate management direction that stems from continued viability of the wolf wolf monitoring programs, however, as those laws and regulations. Some other population in these three States, or in described in the Michigan, Wisconsin, agreements are more voluntary in the proposed WGL DPS. and Minnesota wolf management plans, nature; in those cases we analyze the are likely to identify high mortality rates Human Predation Summary specific facts to determine the extent to or low birth rates that warrant corrective which it can be relied on in the future, The high reproductive potential of action by the management agencies (see including how it addresses threats to the wolves allows wolf populations to Regulatory Mechanisms in Minnesota, species. We consider all pertinent withstand relatively high mortality Wisconsin, and Michigan, below). The information, including the efforts and rates, including human-caused goals of all three State wolf management conservation practices of State mortality. The principle of plans are to maintain wolf populations governments, whether or not these are compensatory mortality is believed to well above the numbers recommended enforceable by law. Regulatory occur in wolf populations. This means in the Recovery Plan for the Eastern mechanisms, if they exist, may preclude that human-caused mortality is not Timber Wolf to ensure long-term viable the need for listing if such mechanisms simply added to ‘‘natural’’ mortality, but wolf populations. The State are judged to adequately address the rather replaces a portion of it. For management plans recommend a threat to the species such that listing is example, some of the wolves that are minimum wolf population of 1,600 in not warranted. Conversely, threats on killed during depredation control Minnesota, 350 in Wisconsin, and 200 the landscape are exacerbated when not actions would have otherwise died in Michigan. addressed by existing regulatory during that year from disease, Despite human-caused mortalities of mechanisms, or when the existing intraspecific strife, or starvation. Thus, wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and mechanisms are not adequate (or not the addition of intentional killing of Michigan, these wolf populations have adequately implemented or enforced). wolves to a wolf population will reduce continued to increase in both numbers The following sections discuss the the mortality rates from other causes on and range. If wolves in the proposed adequacy of regulatory mechanisms that the population. Based on 19 studies by WGL DPS are delisted, as long as other would be implemented if the WGL DPS other wolf researchers, Fuller et al. mortality factors do not increase were delisted, that is, removed from the (2003, pp. 182–186) concludes that significantly and monitoring is adequate List of Endangered and Threatened human-caused mortality can replace to document, and if necessary Wildlife. For the reasons described in about 70 percent of other forms of counteract (see Post-Delisting the following section, the Service has mortality. Monitoring, below), the effects of determined that, if delisted, adequate Fuller et al. (2003, p. 182 Table 6.8) excessive human-caused mortality has summarized the work of various should that occur, the Minnesota– regulatory mechanisms would be in researchers in estimating mortality rates, Wisconsin–Michigan wolf population place to ensure that this DPS of wolves especially human harvest, that would will not decline to nonviable levels in is neither threatened nor endangered. result in wolf population stability or the foreseeable future as a result of Regulatory Mechanisms in Minnesota, decline. They provide a number of human-caused killing or other forms of Wisconsin, and Michigan human-caused and total mortality rate predation. Therefore, we conclude that estimates and the observed population predation, including all forms of State Wolf Management Planning effects in wolf populations in the United human-caused mortality, will not be a During the 2000 legislative session, States and Canada. While variability is sufficient future threat to cause wolves the Minnesota Legislature passed wolf

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26119

management provisions addressing wolf Roundtable committee (Roundtable) to inevitably result when wolves and protection, taking of wolves, and provide guiding principles to the DNR people live in the same vicinity’’ (MN directing MN DNR to prepare a wolf on changes and revisions to the 1997 DNR 2001, p. 2). It establishes a management plan. The MN DNR revised Plan and to guide management of minimum goal of 1,600 wolves in the a 1999 draft wolf management plan to Michigan wolves and wolf-related State. Key components of the plan are reflect the legislative action of 2000, and issues following Federal delisting of the population monitoring and completed the Minnesota Wolf species. The MI DNR relied heavily on management, management of wolf Management Plan (MN Plan) in early those guiding principles as it drafted a depredation of domestic animals, 2001 (MN DNR 2001, pp. 8–9). new wolf management plan. The management of wolf prey, enforcement The Wisconsin Natural Resources Roundtable was composed of of laws regulating take of wolves, public Board (NRB) approved the Wisconsin representatives from 20 Michigan education, and increased staffing to Wolf Management Plan in October 1999 stakeholder interests in wolf recovery accomplish these actions. Following the (WI Plan). In 2004 and 2005 the and management, and its membership is proposed delisting, Minnesota DNR’s Wisconsin Wolf Science Advisory roughly equal in numbers from the UP management of wolves would differ Committee and the Wisconsin Wolf and the LP. During 2006, the from their current management while Stakeholders group reviewed the 1999 Roundtable provided its ‘‘Recommended listed as threatened under the Act. Most Plan, and the Science Advisory Guiding Principles for Wolf of these differences deal with the Committee subsequently developed Management in Michigan’’ to the DNR in control of wolves that attack or threaten updates and recommended November (Michigan Wolf Management domestic animals. modifications to the 1999 Plan. The WI Roundtable 2006. p. 2). Based on those The Minnesota Plan divides the State DNR presented the Plan updates and Roundtable recommendations, a revised into two wolf management zones— modifications to the Wisconsin NRB on Michigan Wolf Management Plan was Zones A and B (see Figure 2 below). June 28, 2006, and the NRB approved completed in July 2008 (MI DNR 2008a). Zone A corresponds to Federal Wolf them at that time, with the The complete text of the Wisconsin, Management Zones 1 through 4 understanding that some numbers Michigan, and Minnesota wolf plans (approximately 30,000 sq mi (48,000 sq would be updated and an additional can be found on our Web site (see FOR km) in northeastern Minnesota) in the reference document would be added FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Service’s Recovery Plan for the Eastern (Holtz in litt. 2006). The updates were Timber Wolf, whereas Zone B The Minnesota Wolf Management Plan completed and received final NRB constitutes Zone 5 in that recovery plan approval on November 28, 2006 (WI The Minnesota Plan is based, in part, (MN DNR 2001, pp. 19–20 and DNR 2006a, p. 1). on the recommendations of a State wolf Appendix III; USFWS 1992, p. 72). In late 1997, the Michigan Wolf management roundtable (MN DNR 2001, Within Zone A, wolves would receive Recovery and Management Plan (MI Appendix V) and on a State wolf strong protection by the State, unless Plan) was completed and received the management law enacted in 2000 (MN they were involved in attacks on necessary State approvals. It primarily DNR 2001, Appendix I). This law and domestic animals. The rules governing focused on wolf recovery, rather than the Minnesota Game and Fish Laws the take of wolves to protect domestic long-term management of a large wolf constitute the basis of the State’s animals in Zone B would be less population and the conflicts that result authority to manage wolves. The Plan’s protective than in Zone A (see Post- as a consequence of successful wolf stated goal is ‘‘to ensure the long-term delisting Depredation Control in restoration. In 2006 the MI DNR survival of wolves in Minnesota while Minnesota below). convened a Michigan Wolf Management addressing wolf-human conflicts that BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26120 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C wolf population or range (MN DNR wolves in the State (MN DNR 2001, pp. The MN DNR plans to allow wolf 2001, pp. 18–19). The agency is 29–30). These are all measures that have numbers and distribution to naturally currently evaluating alternatives to its been in effect for years in Minnesota, expand, with no maximum population current methodology with the potential although increased enforcement of State goal, and if any winter population to improve the efficiency and accuracy laws against take of wolves would estimate is below 1,600 wolves, it would of its statewide population estimates replace enforcement of the Act’s take take actions to ‘‘assure recovery’’ to (Stark 2009a, pers. comm.). prohibitions. Financial compensation 1,600 wolves (MN DNR 2001 p. 19). The Minnesota (MN DNR 2001, pp. 21–24, for livestock losses has increased to the MN DNR plans to continue to monitor 27–28) plans to reduce or control illegal full market value of the animal, wolves in Minnesota to determine mortality of wolves through education, replacing previous caps of $400 and whether such intervention is necessary. increased enforcement of the State’s $750 per animal (MN DNR 2001, p. 24). The MN DNR plans to conduct another wolf laws and regulations, discouraging We do not expect the State’s efforts to statewide population survey in the new road access in some areas, and result in the reduction of illegal take of winter of 2012–13 and at subsequent 5- maintaining a depredation control wolves from existing levels, but we year intervals. In addition to these program that includes compensation for believe these measures will be crucial in statewide population surveys, MN DNR livestock losses. The MN DNR plans to ensuring that illegal mortality does not annually reviews data on depredation use a variety of methods to encourage significantly increase if this proposed incident frequency and locations and support education of the public delisting is finalized. provided by Wildlife Services and about the effects of wolves on livestock, The likelihood of illegal take winter track survey indices (see Erb wild ungulate populations, and human increases in relation to road density and 2008) to help ascertain annual trends in activities and the history and ecology of human population density, but

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP05MY11.125 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26121

changing attitudes towards wolves may allowed in Federal Wolf Management percentages of wolves (Paul 2004, pp. 2– allow them to survive in areas where Zone 1, comprising about 4,500 sq mi 7). road and human densities were (7,200 sq km) in extreme northeastern Under a Minnesota statute, the previously thought to be too high (Fuller Minnesota (USFWS 1992, p. 72). In Minnesota Department of Agriculture et al. 2003, p. 181). The MN DNR does Federal Wolf Management Zones 2 (MDA) compensates livestock owners not plan to reduce current levels of road through 5, employees or agents of the for full market value of livestock that access, but would encourage managers Service (including USDA–APHIS– wolves have killed or severely injured. of land areas large enough to sustain one Wildlife Services) have taken wolves in An authorized investigator must or more wolf packs to ‘‘be cautious about response to depredations of domestic confirm that wolves were responsible adding new road access that could animals within one-half mile of the for the depredation. The Minnesota exceed a density of one mile of road per depredation site. Young-of-the-year statute also requires MDA to square mile of land, without considering captured on or before August 1 must be periodically update its Best the potential effect on wolves’’ (MN released. The regulations that allow for Management Practices (BMPs) to DNR 2001, pp. 27–28). this take (50 CFR 17.40(d)(2)(i)(B)(4)) do incorporate new practices that it finds Under Minnesota law, the illegal not specify a maximum duration for would reduce wolf depredation killing of a wolf is a gross misdemeanor depredation control, but Wildlife (Minnesota Statutes 2010, Section 3.737, and is punishable by a maximum fine of Services personnel have followed subdivision 5). $3,000 and imprisonment for up to one internal guidelines under which they Post-delisting Depredation Control in year. The restitution value of an illegally trap for no more than 10–15 days, Minnesota—If the WGL DPS is delisted, killed wolf is $2,000 (MN DNR 2001, p. except at sites with repeated or chronic depredation control will be authorized 29). The MN DNR acknowledges that depredation, where they may trap for up under Minnesota State law and increased enforcement of the State’s to 30 days (Paul 2004, pers. comm.). conducted in conformance with the wolf laws and regulations would be During the period 1980–2009, the Minnesota Wolf Management Plan (MN dependent on increases in staff and Federal Minnesota wolf depredation DNR 2001). The Minnesota Plan divides resources, additional cross-deputization control program euthanized from 20 (in the State into Wolf Management Zones of Tribal law enforcement officers, and 1982) to 216 (in 1997) wolves annually. A and B. Zone A is composed of Federal continued cooperation with Federal law Annual averages (and percentage of Wolf Management Zones 1–4, covering enforcement officers. Minnesota DNR statewide population) were 30 (2.2 30,728 sq mi (49,452 sq km), has designated three conservation percent) wolves killed from 1980 to approximately the northeastern third of officers who are stationed in the State’s 1984, 49 (3.0 percent) from 1985 to the State. Zone B is identical to the wolf range as the lead officers for 1989, 115 (6.0 percent) from 1990 to current Federal Wolf Management Zone implementing the wolf management 1994, 152 (6.7 percent) from 1995 to 5, and contains the 54,603 sq mi (87,875 plan (MN DNR 2001, pp. 29, 32; Stark 1999, and 128 wolves (4.2 percent) from sq km.) that make up the rest of the 2009a, pers. comm.). 2000 to 2005. During 2006–10 an State (MN DNR 2001, pp. 19–20 and Minnesota DNR will consider wolf average of 157 wolves were killed each Appendix III; USFWS 1992, p. 72). The population management measures, year—approximately 5.4 percent of statewide survey conducted during the including public hunting and trapping wolves in the State (Erb 2008; USDA– winter of 2003–04 estimated that there seasons and other methods, in the Wildlife Services 2010, p. 3). Since were approximately 2,570 wolves in future. However, State law and the 1980, the lowest annual percentage of Zone A and 450 in Zone B (Erb in litt. Minnesota Plan state that such Minnesota wolves killed under this 2005). As discussed in Recovery Criteria consideration will occur no sooner than program was 1.5 percent in 1982; the above, the Federal planning goal is 5 years after Federal delisting, and there highest percentage was 9.4 in 1997 (Paul 1,251–1,400 wolves for Zones 1–4 and would be opportunity for full public 2004, pp. 2–7; 2006, p. 1). Following the no wolves in Zone 5 (USFWS 1992, p. comment on such possible changes at return of wolves in Minnesota to the list 28). that time (Minnesota Statutes 97B.645 of threatened species in 2009, 195 and In Zone A wolf depredation control is Subdiv. 9, see MN DNR 2001 Appendix 192 wolves were killed in 2009 and limited to situations of (1) immediate 1, p. 6; MN DNR 2001, p. 20). The 2010, respectively, in response to threat and (2) following verified loss of Minnesota Plan requires that these depredation of domestic animals in domestic animals. In this zone, if the population management measures be Minnesota. This is the highest 22-year DNR verifies that a wolf destroyed any implemented in such a way to maintain consecutive total since authorization to livestock, domestic animal, or pet, and a statewide late-winter wolf population control depredating wolves was allowed if the owner requests wolf control be of at least 1,600 animals (MN DNR 2001, by special regulation under section 4(d) implemented, trained and certified pp. 19–20), well above the planning goal of the Act while wolves were Federally predator controllers may take wolves of 1,251 to 1,400 wolves for the State in listed. (specific number to be determined on a the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS This level of wolf removal for case-by-case basis) within a 1-mile 1992, p. 28), therefore, implementing depredation control has not interfered radius of the depredation site such management measures under that with wolf recovery in Minnesota, (depredation control area) for up to 60 requirement would ensure the wolf’s although it may have slowed the days. In contrast, in Zone B, predator continued survival in Minnesota. increase in wolf numbers in the State, controllers may take wolves (specific Depredation Control in Minnesota— especially since the late-1980s, and may number to be determined on a case-by- Although Federally protected as a be contributing to the possibly case basis) for up to 214 days after MN threatened species in Minnesota (since stabilized Minnesota wolf population DNR opens a depredation control area, their 1978 reclassification), wolves that suggested by the 2003–04 and 2007–08 depending on the time of year. Under have attacked domestic animals have estimates (see additional information in State law, the DNR may open a control been killed by designated government Minnesota Recovery). Minnesota wolf area in Zone B anytime within 5 years employees under the authority of a numbers grew at an average annual rate of a verified depredation loss upon special regulation (50 CFR 17.40(d)) of nearly 4 percent between 1989 and request of the landowner, thereby under section 4(d) of the Act. However, 1998 while the depredation control providing more of a preventative no control of depredating wolves was program was taking its highest approach than is allowed in Zone A, in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26122 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

order to head off repeat depredation number of depredating wolves being a Minnesota wolf population that incidents (MN DNR 2001, p. 22). killed there after delisting. continues to satisfy the Federal recovery State law and the Minnesota Plan will The final change in Zone A is the criteria after Federal delisting. also allow for private wolf depredation ability for owners or lessees to respond This expansion of depredation control control throughout the State. Persons to situations of immediate threat by activities will not threaten the may shoot or destroy a wolf that poses shooting wolves in the act of stalking, continued survival of wolves in the ‘‘an immediate threat’’ to their livestock, attacking, or killing livestock or other State or the long-term viability of the guard animals, or domestic animals on domestic animals. We believe this is not wolf population in Zone A, the large lands that they own, lease, or occupy. likely to result in the killing of many part of wolf range in Minnesota. Immediate threat is defined as ‘‘in the additional wolves, as opportunities to Significant changes in wolf depredation act of stalking, attacking, or killing.’’ shoot wolves ‘‘in the act’’ will likely be control under State management will This does not include trapping because few and difficult to successfully primarily be restricted to Zone B, which traps cannot be placed in a manner such accomplish, a belief shared by the most is outside of the area necessary for wolf that they trap only wolves in the act of experienced wolf depredation agent in recovery (USFWS 1992, pp. 20, 28). stalking, attacking, or killing. Owners of the lower 48 States (Paul in litt. 2006, Furthermore, wolves may still persist in domestic pets may also kill wolves p. 5). It is also possible that illegal Zone B despite the likely increased take posing an immediate threat to pets killing of wolves in Minnesota will there. The Eastern Timber Wolf under their supervision on lands that decrease, because the expanded options Recovery Team concluded that the they do not own or lease, although such for legal control of problem wolves may changes in wolf management in the actions are subject to local ordinances, lead to an increase in public tolerance State’s Zone A would be ‘‘minor’’ and trespass law, and other applicable for wolves (Paul in litt. 2006, p. 5). would not likely result in ‘‘significant restrictions. The MN DNR will Within Zone B, State law and the change in overall wolf numbers in Zone investigate any private taking of wolves Minnesota Plan provide broad authority A.’’ They found that, despite an in Zone A (MN DNR 2001, p. 23). to landowners and land managers to expansion of the individual depredation shoot wolves at any time to protect their To protect their domestic animals in control areas and an extension of the livestock, pets, or other domestic Zone B, individuals do not have to wait control period to 60 days, depredation animals on land owned, leased, or ‘‘ ’’ for an immediate threat or a depredation control will remain very localized in managed by the individual. Such incident in order to take wolves. At any Zone A. The requirement that such takings can occur in the absence of wolf depredation control activities be time in Zone B, persons who own, lease, attacks on the domestic animals. Thus, conducted only in response to verified or manage lands may shoot wolves on the estimated 450 wolves in Zone B wolf depredation in Zone A played a those lands to protect livestock, could be subject to substantial reduction key role in the team’s evaluation domestic animals, or pets. They may in numbers, and at the extreme, wolves (Peterson in litt. 2001). While wolves also employ a predator controller to trap could be eliminated from Zone B. were under State management in 2007 a wolf on their land or within 1 mile of However, there is no way to reasonably and 2008, the number of wolves killed their land (with permission of the evaluate in advance the extent to which for depredation control (133 wolves in landowner) to protect their livestock, residents of Zone B will use this new 2007 and 143 wolves in 2008) remained domestic animals, or pets (MN DNR authority, nor how vulnerable Zone B consistent with those killed under the 2001, p. 23–24). wolves will be. While wolves were special regulation under section 4(d) of The Minnesota Plan will also allow under State management in 2007–08, the Act while wolves were Federally persons to harass wolves anywhere in landowners in Zone B shot six wolves listed (105, in 2004; 134, in 2005; and the State within 500 yards of ‘‘people, under this authority. One additional 122, in 2006). buildings, dogs, livestock, or other wolf was trapped and euthanized in Minnesota will continue to monitor domestic pets or animals.’’ Harassment Zone B by a State certified predator wolf populations throughout the State may not include physical injury to a controller in 2009 (Stark 2009b, pers. and will also monitor all depredation wolf. comm.). control activities in Zone A (MN DNR Depredation control will be allowed The limitation of this broad take 2001, p. 18). These and other activities throughout Zone A, which includes an authority to Zone B is fully consistent contained in their plan will be essential area (Federal Wolf Management Zone 1) with the Recovery Plan for the Eastern in meeting their population goal of a where such control has not been Timber Wolf’s advice that wolves minimum statewide winter population permitted under the Act’s protection. should be restored to the rest of of 1,600 wolves, well above the Depredation in Zone 1, however, has Minnesota but not to Zone B (Federal planning goal of 1,251 to 1,400 wolves been limited to 2 to 4 reported incidents Zone 5) because that area ‘‘is not that the Revised Recovery Plan per year, mostly of wolves killing dogs, suitable for wolves’’ (USFWS 1992, p. identifies as sufficient to ensure the although Wildlife Services received one 20). The Recovery Plan for the Eastern wolf’s continued survival in Minnesota livestock depredation complaint in Timber Wolf envisioned that the (USFWS 1992, p. 28). Zone 1 in 2008 (Hart pers. comm. 2009), Minnesota numerical planning goal and some dog kills in this zone probably would be achieved solely in Zone A The Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan go unreported. In 2009, there was one (Federal Zones 1–4) (USFWS 1992, p. Both the Wisconsin and Michigan probable and one verified depredation 28), and that has occurred. Wolves Wolf Management Plans are designed to of a dog near Ely, Minnesota, and in outside of Zone A are not necessary to manage and ensure the existence of wolf 2010 Wildlife Services confirmed three the establishment and long-term populations in the States as if they are dogs killed by wolves in Zone 1 (USDA– viability of a self-sustaining wolf isolated populations and are not Wildlife Services 2009, p. 3; USDA– population in the State, and therefore dependent upon immigration of wolves Wildlife Services 2010, p. 3). There are there is no need to establish or maintain from an adjacent State or Canada, while few livestock in Zone 1; therefore, the a wolf population in Zone B. still maintaining connections to those number of verified future depredation Accordingly, there is no need to other populations. We support this incidents in that Zone is expected to be maintain significant protection for approach and believe it provides strong low, resulting in a correspondingly low wolves in Zone B in order to maintain assurances that the wolf in both States

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26123

will remain a viable component of the trapping of the species (Wydeven and guidelines for the wolf depredation proposed WGL DPS for the foreseeable Jurewicz 2005, p. 1; WI DNR 2006b, p. control program did not undergo future. 71). The Wisconsin Plan includes significant alteration during the update The WI Plan allows for differing criteria that would trigger State relisting process. The only substantive change to levels of protection and management to threatened (a decline to fewer than depredation control practices is to within four separate management zones 250 wolves for 3 years) or endangered expand the area of depredation control (see figure 3). The Northern Forest Zone status (a decline to fewer than 80 wolves trapping in Zones 1 and 2 to 1 mi (1.6 (Zone 1) and the Central Forest Zone for 1 year). The Wisconsin Plan will be km) outward from the depredation site, (Zone 2) now contain most of the State’s reviewed annually by the Wisconsin replacing the previous 0.5 mi (0.8 km) wolf population, with approximately 6 Wolf Advisory Committee and will be radius trapping zone (WI DNR 2006a, percent of the Wisconsin wolves in reviewed by the public every 5 years. pp. 3–4). Zones 3 and 4 (Wydeven and Recently the WI DNR began work on An important component of the WI Wiedenhoeft 2009, Table 1). Zones 1 updating the State’s wolf management Plan is the annual monitoring of wolf and 2 contain all the larger plan, which may include increasing the populations by radio collars and winter unfragmented areas of suitable habitat State management goal (Wydeven and track surveys in order to provide (see Wolf Range Ownership and Wiedenhoeft 2009, p. 3). comparable annual data to assess Protection, above), so most of the State’s The WI Plan was updated during population size and growth for at least wolf packs will continue to inhabit 2004–06 to reflect current wolf 5 years after Federal delisting. This those parts of Wisconsin for the numbers, additional knowledge, and monitoring will include health foreseeable future. At the time the issues that have arisen since its 1999 monitoring of captured wolves and Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan was completion. This update is in the form necropsies of dead wolves that are completed, it recommended immediate of text changes, revisions to two found. Wolf scat will be collected and reclassification from State-endangered appendices, and the addition of a new analyzed to monitor for canine viruses to State-threatened status, because appendix to the 1999 plan, rather than and parasites. Health monitoring will be Wisconsin’s wolf population had as a major revision to the plan. Several part of the capture protocol for all already exceeded its reclassification components of the plan that are key to studies that involve the live capture of criterion of 80 wolves for 3 years. That our delisting evaluation are unchanged. Wisconsin wolves (WI DNR 2006a, p. state reclassification occurred in 1999, The State wolf management goal of 350 14). after the population exceeded that level animals and the boundaries of the four for 5 years. wolf management zones remain the Cooperative habitat management will The Wisconsin Plan further same as in the 1999 Plan. The updated be promoted with public and private recommends that the State manage for a 2006 Plan continues access management landowners to maintain existing road wolf population of 350 wolves outside on public lands and the protection of densities in Zones 1 and 2, protect wolf of Native American reservations, and active den sites. Protection of pack dispersal corridors, and manage forests specifies that the species should be rendezvous sites, however, is no longer for deer and beaver (WI DNR 1999, pp. delisted by the State once the considered to be needed in areas where 4, 22–23; 2006a, pp. 15–17). population reaches 250 animals outside wolves have become well established, Furthermore, in Zone 1, a year-round of reservations. The species was due to the transient nature of these sites prohibition on tree harvest within 330 proposed for State delisting in late 2003, and the larger wolf population. The feet (100 m) of den sites, and seasonal and the State delisting process was updated Plan states that rendezvous restrictions to reduce disturbance completed in 2004. Upon State sites may need protection in areas within one-half mile of dens, will be WI delisting, the species was classified as a where wolf colonization is still DNR policy on public lands and will be ‘‘protected nongame species,’’ a underway or where pup survival is encouraged on private lands (WI DNR designation that continues State extremely poor, such as in northeastern 1999, p. 23; 2006a, p. 17). prohibitions on sport hunting and Wisconsin (WI DNR 2006a, p. 17). The BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26124 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C wolves. The Plan continues the State independent field testing of the The 1999 WI Plan contains, and the reimbursement for depredation losses Minnesota method several years ago and 2006 update retains, other (including dogs and missing calves), found that method to be unsuitable for recommendations that will provide citizen stakeholder involvement in the both States’ lower wolf population protection to assist in maintenance of a wolf management program, and density and uneven pack distribution. viable wolf population in the State: (1) coordination with the Tribes in wolf In both States the application of that Continue the protection of the species as management and investigation of illegal method resulted in an overestimate of ‘‘ ’’ a protected wild animal with penalties killings (WI DNR 1999, pp. 24, 28–29; wolf abundance, possibly due to the similar to those for unlawfully killing 2006a, pp. 22–23). more patchy distribution of wolves and large game species (fines of $1,000– packs in these States and the difficulty $2,000, loss of hunting privileges for 3– Given the decline and ultimate in accurately delineating occupied wolf 5 years, and a possible 6-month jail termination in Federal funding for wolf range in areas where wolf pack density sentence), (2) maintain closure zones monitoring that would occur upon is relatively low in comparison to where coyotes cannot be shot during delisting, Wisconsin and Michigan Minnesota and where agricultural lands deer hunting season in Zone 1, (3) DNRs are seeking an effective, yet cost- are interspersed with forested areas legally protect wolf dens under the efficient, method for detecting wolf (Wiedenhoeft 2005, pp. 11–12; Beyer in Wisconsin Administrative Code, (4) population changes to replace the litt. 2006b). require State permits to possess a wolf current labor-intensive and expensive or wolf-dog hybrid, and (5) establish a monitoring protocols. Both DNRs have Both States remain interested in restitution value to be levied in addition considered implementing a ‘‘Minnesota- developing accurate but less costly to fines and other penalties for wolves type’’ wolf survey. Such methodology is alternate survey methods. WI DNR that are illegally killed (WI DNR 1999, less expensive for larger wolf might test other methods following any pp. 21, 27–28, 30–31; 2006a, pp. 3–4). populations than the intensive radio Federal delisting, but the State will not The 2006 update of the WI Plan monitoring and track survey methods replace its traditional radio tracking/ continues to emphasize the need for currently used by the two States, and if snow tracking surveys during the 5 year public education efforts that focus on the wolf population continues to grow post-delisting monitoring period living with a recovered wolf population, there will be increased need to develop (Wydeven in litt. 2006b). The 2006 ways to manage wolves and wolf-human and implement a less expensive update to the Wisconsin Wolf conflicts, and the ecosystem role of method. However, each State conducted Management Plan has not changed the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP05MY11.126 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26125

WI DNR’s commitment to annual wolf in 2007 and 2008 through State control in Wisconsin will be carried out population monitoring in a manner that management following a temporary according to the 2006 Updated ensures accurate and comparable data period of Federal delisting appear to Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan (WI (WI DNR 1999, pp.19–20), and we are have started to stabilize levels of DNR 2006a, pp. 19–23), Guidelines for confident that adequate annual livestock depredation in 2007–09, but Conducting Depredation Control on monitoring will continue for the loss of those control methods allowed Wolves in Wisconsin Following Federal foreseeable future. major increases in levels of depredation Delisting (WI DNR 2008), and any Tribal Depredation Control in Wisconsin— in 2010. wolf management plans or guidelines The rapidly expanding Wisconsin wolf A significant portion of depredation that may be developed for reservations population has resulted in an increased incidents in Wisconsin involve attacks in occupied wolf range. The 2006 need for depredation control. From 1979 on dogs, primarily those engaged in bear updates have not significantly changed through 1989, there were only five cases hunting activities or dogs being trained the 1999 State Plan, and the State wolf (an average of 0.4 per year) of verified in the field for hunting. In most cases, management goal of 350 wolves outside wolf depredations in Wisconsin. these have been hunting dogs that were of Indian reservations (WI DNR 2006a, Between 1990 and 1997, there were 27 being used for, or being trained for, p. 3) is unchanged. Verification of wolf verified depredation incidents in the hunting bears, bobcats, coyotes, and depredation incidents will continue to State (an average of 3.4 per year), and snowshoe hare (Ruid et al. 2009, pp. be conducted by USDA–APHIS– 82 incidents (an average of 16.4 per 285–286). It is believed that the dogs Wildlife Services, working under a year) occurred from 1998 to 2002. entered the territory of a wolf pack and cooperative agreement with WI DNR, or Depredation incidents increased to 23 may have been close to a den, at the request of a Tribe, depending on cases (including 50 domestic animals rendezvous site, or feeding location, the location of the suspected killed and 4 injured) in 2003, 35 cases thus triggering an attack by wolves depredation incident. If determined to (53 domestic animals killed, 3 injured, defending their territory or pups. The be a confirmed or probable depredation and 6 missing) in 2004, and to 45 cases frequency of attacks on hunting dogs by a wolf or wolves, one or more of (53 domestic animals killed and 11 has increased as the State’s wolf several options will be implemented to injured) in 2005 (Wydeven and population has grown. Between 1986 address the depredation problem. These Wiedenhoeft 2004a, pp. 2–3, 7–8 Table and 2010, 206 dogs were killed and 80 options include technical assistance, 3; Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 7; Wydeven were injured by wolves in Wisconsin loss compensation to landowners, et al. 2006b, p. 7). From 2005 to 2008, (WI DNR data files and summary of wolf translocating or euthanizing problem depredation incidents continued to survey reports). Generally about 90 wolves, and private landowner control increase, with 52 cases (92 domestic percent of dogs killed were hunting of problem wolves in some animals killed (includes 50 chickens) hounds and about 50 percent of dogs circumstances (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 3– 4, and 16 injured) in 2006, 60 cases (51 injured were pet dogs attacked near 20–22). domestic animals killed, 18 injured, and homes (Ruid et al. 2009). Technical assistance, consisting of 14 missing) in 2007, and 57 cases (67 More than 80 percent of the dog kills advice or recommendations to prevent domestic animals killed and 10 injured) occurred since 2001, with an average of or reduce further wolf conflicts, will be in 2008 (Wydeven et al. 2007a, p. 7; 17.2 dogs killed annually (range 6 to 25 provided. This may also include Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2008, pp. 8, dogs killed per year), and 6.8 injured providing to the landowner various 25–32; Wydeven et al. 2009a, p. 6). each year (range 1 to 14 dogs) during the forms of noninjurious behavior Similar levels of depredations period 2001–10 (WI DNR files). Data on modification materials, such as flashing continued to occur in 2009, with 55 recent depredations in 2009 and 2010 lights, noise makers, temporary fencing, cases (65 domestic animals killed and show a continued increase in wolf and fladry (a string of flags used to 11 injured), but increased again to 81 attacks on dogs, with 23 dogs killed and contain or exclude wild animals). cases (99 domestic animals killed and 11 injured by 20 wolf packs (12 percent Monetary compensation is also 20 injured) in 2010 (Wydeven et al. of Wisconsin packs) in 2009, and 24 provided for all verified and probable 2010, pp. 9–10; Wydeven et al. 2011, p. dogs killed and 14 injured by 21 wolf losses of domestic animals and for a 3). packs in 2010 (Wydeven et al. 2010, pp. portion of documented missing calves The number of farms experiencing 51–52; Wydeven et al. 2011 p.3). While (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23). wolf depredations has increased from 5 the WI DNR compensates dog owners The WI DNR compensates livestock farms in 2000, to 28–32 farms from 2007 for mortalities and injuries to their dogs, and pet owners for confirmed losses to to 2009, and to 47 farms in 2010, a the DNR takes no action against the depredating wolves. The compensation nearly ten-fold increase in the number depredating pack unless the attack was is made at full market value of the of farms experiencing depredations on a dog that was leashed, confined, or animal (up to a limit of $2,500 for dogs) during the last decade. The number of under the owner’s control on the and can include veterinarian fees for the counties with wolf depredations on owner’s land. Instead, the DNR issues treatment of injured animals (WI DNR farms also grew during that time period press releases to warn bear hunters and 2006c 12.54). Compensation costs have from 5 to 17 counties, indicating that bear dog trainers of the areas where wolf been funded from the endangered wolf depredation problems on farms are packs have been attacking bear dogs (WI resources tax check-off and sales of the continuing to expand (Wydeven in litt. DNR 2008, p. 5) and provides maps and endangered resources license plates. 2009; Wydeven et al. 2009a, p. 23; advice to hunters on the WI DNR Web Current Wisconsin law requires the Wydeven et al. 2011, p.3). Between site (see http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/ continuation of the compensation 1995 and 2002, an average of 7 percent land/er/mammals/wolf/dogdepred.htm). payment for wolf depredation regardless of packs in Wisconsin were involved in In 2010, 14 wolf attacks on dogs had of Federal listing or delisting of the livestock depredations (Wydeven et al. occurred near homes, which was the species (WI DNR 2006c 12.50). In recent 2004, p.36), and between 2002 and highest level seen of this type of years annual depredation compensation 2010, an average of 13 percent (from 7 depredation (Wydeven et al. 2011, p.3). payments have ranged from $68,907.88 to 17) of the State’s packs were involved Post-delisting Depredation Control in (2007) to $203,943.51 (2010). From 1985 in livestock depredation (WI DNR data). Wisconsin—Following the proposed through December 24, 2010, the WI DNR More aggressive lethal controls possible Federal delisting, wolf depredation had spent $1,083,162.62 on

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26126 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

reimbursement for damage caused by to the WI DNR (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22– percent (including the several possible wolves in the State, with 82 percent of 23; WI DNR 2008, p. 6). During the 19 wolf-dog hybrids), respectively, of the that total spent since 2000 (http:// months wolves were Federally delisted late-winter population of Wisconsin dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/mammals/wolf/ in 2007 and 2008, 5 wolves were shot wolves during the previous winter. Note pdfs/wolf_damage_payments_2010.pdf). in the act of depredations on domestic that some of the wolves euthanized after For depredation incidents in animals, and 2 wolves were shot by one August 1 were young-of-the-year who Wisconsin Zones 1 through 3, where all landowner out of 67 permits issued. were not present during the late-winter wolf packs currently reside, wolves may One wolf was shot in the act of attack survey, so the cited percentages are be trapped by Wildlife Services or WI on domestic animals during 2 months overestimates. DNR personnel and, if feasible, when wolves were delisted in 2009. This level of lethal depredation translocated and released at a point The updated Wisconsin Plan also control was followed by a wolf distant from the depredation site. If envisions the possibility of intensive population increase of 11 percent from wolves are captured adjacent to an control management actions in sub- 2003 to 2004, 17 percent from 2004 to Indian reservation or a large block of zones of the larger wolf management 2005, and 7 percent from 2005 to 2006 public land, the animals may be zones (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23). (Wydeven and Jurewicz 2005, p. 5; translocated locally to that area. As Triggering actions and type of controls Wydeven et al. 2006a, p. 10). Limited noted above, long-distance translocating planned for these ‘‘proactive control lethal control authority was granted to of depredating wolves has become areas’’ are listed in recent versions of the WI DNR in 2006 by a section 10 permit increasingly difficult in Wisconsin and WI DNR depredation control guidelines resulting in removal of 18 wolves (3.9 is likely to be used infrequently in the (WI DNR 2008, pp. 7–9). Controls on percent of winter wolf population), and future as long as the off-reservation wolf these actions would be considered on a this permit remained in effect for 3.5 population is above 350 animals. In case-by-case basis to address specific months (Wydeven et al. 2007, p. 7). most wolf depredation cases where problems, and would likely be carried Lethal depredation control was again technical assistance and nonlethal out only in areas that lack suitable authorized in the State while wolves methods of behavior modification are habitat, have extensive agricultural were delisted in 2007 (9.5 months) and judged to be ineffective, wolves will be lands with little forest interspersion, in 2008 (9 months). During those times, 40 shot or trapped and euthanized by urban or suburban settings, and only and 43 wolves, respectively, were killed Wildlife Services or DNR personnel. when the State wolf population is well for depredation control (by Wildlife Trapping and euthanizing will be above the management goal of 350 Services or by legal landowner action), conducted within a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius wolves outside Indian reservations in representing 7 and 8 percent of the late- of the depredation in Zones 1 and 2, and late-winter surveys. The use of intensive winter population of Wisconsin wolves within a 5-mi (8-km) radius in Zone 3. population management in small areas during the previous year. There is no distance limitation for will be adapted as experience is gained This level of lethal depredation depredation control trapping in Zone 4, with implementing and evaluating control was followed by a wolf and all wolves trapped in Zone 4 will localized control actions (Wydeven population increase of 0.5 percent from be euthanized, rather than translocated 2006, pers. comm.). 2007 to 2008, and 12 percent from 2008 (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23). We have evaluated future lethal to 2009, (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft Following the proposed Federal depredation control based upon verified 2008, pp. 19–22; Wydeven et al. 2009a, delisting, Wisconsin landowners who depredation incidents over the last p. 6). Authority for lethal control on have had a verified wolf depredation decade and the impacts of the depredating wolves only occurred for 2 will be able to obtain limited-duration implementation of similar lethal control months in 2009. During that time, eight permits from WI DNR to kill a limited of depredating wolves under 50 CFR wolves were euthanized for depredation number of depredating wolves on land 17.40(d) for Minnesota, § 17.40(o) for control by USDA–WS, and one wolf was they own or lease, based on the size of Wisconsin and Michigan, and section shot by a landowner; additionally a wolf the pack causing the local depredations 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act for Wisconsin and was captured and euthanized by USDA– (WI DNR 2008, p. 8). Such permits Michigan. Under those authorities, WI WS for human safety concerns later in would be issued to: (1) Landowners DNR and Wildlife Services trapped and 2009 after relisting (Wydeven et al. with verified permits on their property euthanized 17 wolves in 2003, 24 in 2010, p. 15). Thus in 2009, 10 wolves, within the last 2 years; (2) landowners 2004, 29 in 2005, 18 in 2006, 37 in 2007, or 2 percent of the winter wolf within 1 mile of properties with verified 39 in 2008, 9 in 2009, and 16 in 2010 population, were removed in control wolf depredations during the calendar (WI DNR 2006a, p. 32; Wydeven et al. activities. year; (3) landowners with vulnerable 2008, pp. 8–9; Wydeven et al. 2009, pp. The Wisconsin wolf population in livestock within WI DNR-designated 6–7; Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 15; winter 2010 grew to 690 wolves, an proactive control areas; (4) landowners Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 3). Although increase of 8 percent from the wolf with human safety concerns on their these lethal control authorities applied population in 2009 (Wydeven et al. property, and (5) landowners with to Wisconsin and Michigan DNRs for 2010, pp. 12–13). In 2010, authority for verified harassment of livestock on their only a portion of 2003 (April through lethal control of wolves depredating property (WI DNR 2008, p. 8). Limit on December) and 2005 (all of January for livestock was not available in number of wolves to control will be both States; April 1 and April 19, for Wisconsin, but 16 wolves or 2 percent based on estimated number of wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan respectively, of the winter population were removed the pack causing depredation problems. through September 13), they covered for human safety concerns (Wydeven et In addition, landowners and lessees of nearly all of the verified wolf al. 2011, p. 3). This provides strong land statewide will be allowed to kill a depredations during 2003–05, and thus evidence that this form and magnitude wolf without obtaining a permit ‘‘in the provide a reasonable measure of annual of depredation control will not act of killing, wounding, or biting a lethal depredation control. Lethal adversely impact the viability of the domestic animal,’’ the incident must be control authority only occurred for Wisconsin wolf population. The reported to a conservation warden about 3.5 months in 2006. locations of depredation incidents within 24 hours and the landowners are For 2003, 2004, and 2005, this provide additional evidence that lethal required to turn any dead wolves over represents 5.1 percent, 6.4 percent, 7.4 control will not have an adverse impact

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26127

on the State’s wolf population. Most livestock, which in 2010 included 25 goal in the Recovery Plan for the Eastern livestock depredations are caused by packs attacking livestock (23 packs that Timber Wolf of 200 late-winter wolves packs near the northern forest-farm land were also documented in the previous for an isolated population and 100 interface. Few depredations occur in winter surveys), 8 packs attacking dogs wolves for a subpopulation connected to core wolf range and in large blocks of at homes, and 5 packs attacking both the larger Minnesota population, public land. Thus, lethal depredation livestock and dogs. Thus control would regardless of the extent of wolf mortality control actions will not impact most of have been applied to 31 packs (17 from all causes in Zones 3 and 4. the Wisconsin wolf population (WI DNR percent of State packs) previously Ongoing annual wolf population 2006a, p. 30). detected and 2 new packs. Because of monitoring by WI DNR will provide Control actions in Wisconsin also these state-imposed limitations, we timely and accurate data to evaluate the resulted in removal of wolf-dog hybrids believe that lethal control of wolves effects of wolf management under the from the wild that had begun depredating on hunting dogs will be Wisconsin Plan. associating with packs. Wolf-dog hybrid rare and, therefore, will not be a The possibility of a public harvest of removal in depredation control activity significant additional source of wolves is acknowledged in the by USDA–WS included 3 in 2005, 1 in mortality in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan and 2007, 2 in 2008, and 1 in 2010 (WI DNR Lethal control of wolves that attack in plan updates (WI DNR 1999, files). captive deer is included in the WI DNR Appendix D; 2006c, p. 23). However, One substantive change to lethal depredation control program, because the question of whether a public harvest control that will result from the farm-raised deer are considered to be will be initiated and the details of such proposed Federal delisting is the ability livestock under Wisconsin law (WI DNR a harvest are far from resolved. Public of a small number of private 2008, pp. 5–6; 2006c, 12.52). However, attitudes toward a wolf population in landowners, whose farms have a history Wisconsin regulations for deer farm excess of 350 would have to be fully of recurring wolf depredation, to obtain fencing have been strengthened, and it evaluated, as would the impacts from DNR permits to kill depredating wolves is unlikely that more than an occasional other mortalities, before a public harvest (WI DNR 2006a, p. 23; WI DNR 2008, p. wolf will need to be killed to end wolf could be initiated. 8). During the time wolves were depredations inside deer farms in the The Wisconsin Conservation Federally delisted from March 12, 2007 foreseeable future. Claims for wolf Congress, a group that advises the WI through September 29, 2008, the DNR depredation compensation are rejected DNR on issues of fishing and hunting issued 67 such permits, resulting in 2 if the claimant is not in compliance regulations, held hearings in 2008 wolves being killed. Some landowners with regulations regarding farm-raised (while wolves were Federally delisted received permits more than once and deer fencing or livestock carcass in the WGL) to gather information on permits were issued for up to 90 days disposal (Wisconsin Statutes 90.20 & the public’s attitudes toward a public at a time and restricted to specific 90.21, WI DNR 2006c 12.54). harvest of wolves in the State. Of the calendar years. During that same time Data from verified wolf depredations people attending those meetings, 86 period, under Wisconsin depredation in recent years indicate that depredation percent recommended that efforts begin management guidelines, landowners on livestock is likely to increase as long to develop public harvest regulations for were allowed to shoot wolves in the act as the Wisconsin wolf population wolves in the State, indicating a strong of attacks on domestic animals on increases in numbers and range. Wolf interest among hunters and anglers to private land without a permit; under packs establishing in more marginal begin such development. Establishing a that authority, landowners killed a total habitat with high acreage of pasture public harvest, however, would be of five wolves. The death of these seven land are more likely to become preceded by extensive public input, additional wolves—only one percent of depredators (Treves et al. 2004, p. 121– including public hearings, and would the State’s wolves in 2008—did not 122). Most large areas of forest land and require legislative authorization and affect the viability of the population. public lands are included in Wisconsin approval by the Wisconsin Natural Another substantive change after the Wolf Management Zones 1 and 2, and Resources Board. Because of the steps proposed delisting may be potential they have already been colonized by that must precede a public harvest of proactive trapping or ‘‘intensive control’’ wolves. Therefore, new areas likely to wolves and the uncertainty regarding of wolves in limited areas as described be colonized by wolves in the future the possibility of, and the details of, any above. We are confident that the number will be in Zones 3 and 4, where they such program, we consider public of wolves killed by these actions will will be exposed to much higher harvest of Wisconsin wolves to be not impact the long-term viability of the densities of farms, livestock, and highly speculative at this time. The Wisconsin wolf population, because residences. During 2008, of farms Service will closely monitor any steps generally less than 15 percent of packs experiencing wolf depredation, 25 taken by States and Tribes within the cause depredations that would initiate percent (8 of 32) were in Zone 3, yet proposed WGL DPS to establish any such controls, and ‘‘proactive’’ controls only 4 percent of the State wolf public harvest of wolves during our will be carried out only if the State’s population occurs in this zone post-delisting monitoring program. late-winter wolf population exceeds 350 (Wydeven et al. 2009a, p. 23). Further Future updates for the Wisconsin wolf animals outside Indian reservations. expansion of wolves into Zone 3 would management and conservation plan will The State’s current guidelines for likely lead to an increase in depredation likely contain more specific language on conducting depredation control actions incidents and an increase in lethal any potential public harvest for the say that no control trapping will be control actions against Zone 3 wolves. State. The WI DNR is committed to conducted on wolves that kill ‘‘dogs that However, these Zone 3 mortalities will maintaining a wolf population at 350 are free-roaming, roaming at large, have no impact on wolf population wolves outside of Indian reservations, hunting, or training on public lands, viability in Wisconsin because of the which translates to a statewide and all other lands except land owned much larger wolf populations in Zones population of 361 to 385 wolves in late or leased by the dog owner’’ (WI DNR 1 and 2. winter. No harvest would be considered 2008, p. 5). Controls would be applied For the foreseeable future, the wolf if the wolf population fell below this on wolves depredating pet dogs attacked population in Zones 1 and 2 will goal (WI DNR 1999, pp. 15, 16). Any near homes and wolves attacking continue to greatly exceed the recovery harvest would consist of limited permits

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26128 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

on limited portions of the wolf range to needed to maintain a viable wolf DNR also conducted a field evaluation reduce wolf-human conflict, and population in the UP of Michigan, while of a less expensive ‘‘Minnesota-type’’ extensive areas in wolf range would be facilitating wolf-related benefits and wolf survey. However, similar to WI closed to harvest of wolves (WI DNR minimizing conflicts. The four principal DNR’s experience, the evaluation 1999, p. 21). Also, the fact that the goals are to ‘‘1) maintain a viable concluded that the method Wisconsin Plan calls for State relisting Michigan wolf population above a level overestimated wolf numbers, and is not of the wolf as a threatened species if the that would warrant its classification as suitable for use on the State’s wolf population falls to fewer than 250 for 3 threatened or endangered; 2) facilitate population as it currently is distributed years provides a strong assurance that wolf-related benefits; 3) minimize wolf- (Beyer in litt. 2006b). any future public harvest is not likely to related conflicts; and 4) conduct From 1989 through 2006, the WI DNR threaten the persistence of the science-based wolf management with attempted to count wolves throughout population (WI DNR 1999, pp. 15–17). socially acceptable methods’’ (MI DNR the entire UP. As the wolf population Based on wolf population data, the 2008a, p. 22). The Michigan Plan details increased, this method became more current Wisconsin Plan and the 2006 wolf management actions, including difficult. In the winter of 2006–07, the updates, we believe that any public public education and outreach MI DNR implemented a new sampling harvest plan would continue to activities, annual wolf population and approach based on an analysis by Potvin maintain the State wolf population well health monitoring, research, et al. (2005, p. 1668) to increase the above the recovery goal of 200 wolves depredation control, ensuring adequate efficiency of the State survey. The new in late winter. legal protection for wolves, and prey approach is based on a geographically and habitat management. It does not based stratified random sample and The Michigan Wolf Management Plan address the potential need for wolf produces an unbiased, regional estimate In 1997, the Michigan DNR finalized recovery or management in the Lower of wolf abundance. The UP was the Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and Peninsula, nor wolf management within stratified into three sampling areas, and Management Plan (MI DNR 1997). That Isle Royale National Park (where the within each stratum the DNR plan was developed when the number wolf population is fully protected by the intensively surveys roughly 40 to 50 of wolves in the State was relatively National Park Service). percent of the wolf habitat area small, and focused on recovery. In 2001, As with the WI Plan, the MI DNR has annually. Computer simulations have the MI DNR began reevaluating the 1997 chosen to manage the State’s wolves as shown that such a geographically Plan and appointed a committee to though they are an isolated population stratified monitoring program will evaluate wolf recovery and management that receives no genetic or demographic produce unbiased and precise estimates in the State. As a result of that benefits from immigrating wolves, even of the total wolf population which can evaluation, MI DNR concluded that the though their population will continue to be statistically compared to estimates 1997 Plan needed revising, which be connected with populations in derived from the previous method to prompted a more formal review, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Canada. The detect significant changes in the UP including extensive stakeholder input. Michigan wolf population must exceed wolf population (Beyer in litt 2006b, see Recognizing that wolf recovery had been 200 wolves in order to achieve the attachment by Drummer; Lederle in litt. achieved in Michigan, additional Plan’s first goal of maintaining a viable 2006; Roell et al. 2009, p. 3). scientific knowledge had been gained, wolf population in the UP. This number Another component of wolf and new social issues had arisen since is consistent with the Federal Recovery population monitoring is monitoring the 1997 Plan was drafted, the focus of Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf’s wolf health. The MI DNR will continue the revised plan shifted from a recovery definition of a viable, isolated wolf to monitor the impact of parasites and plan to a wolf management plan. To population (USFWS 1992, p. 25). The disease on the viability of wolf assist in this endeavor, the DNR MI Plan, however, clearly states that 200 populations in the State through convened a Michigan Wolf Management wolves is not the target population size, necropsies of dead wolves and Roundtable, composed of a diverse and that a larger population may be analyzing biological samples from group of citizens spanning the spectrum necessary to meet the other goals of the captured live wolves. Prior to 2004, MI of those interested in, and impacted by, Plan. Therefore, the State will maintain DNR vaccinated all captured wolves for wolf recovery and management in a wolf population that will ‘‘provide all canine distemper and parvovirus and Michigan, including Tribal entities and of the ecological and social benefits treated them for mange. These organizations focused on agriculture, valued by the public’’ while inoculations were discontinued to hunting and trapping, the environment, ‘‘minimizing and resolving conflicts provide more natural biotic conditions animal protection, law enforcement and where they occur’’ (MI DNR 2008a, pp. and to provide biologists with an public safety, and tourism. 22–23). We strongly support this unbiased estimate of disease-caused The Roundtable was asked to review approach, as it provides assurance that mortality rates in the population (Roell the 1997 wolf management goal, to set a viable wolf population will remain in in litt. 2005b). Since diseases and priorities for management issues, and to the UP regardless of the future fate of parasites are not currently a significant recommend strategic goals or policies wolves in Wisconsin or Ontario. threat to the Michigan wolf population, the DNR should use in addressing the The 2008 Michigan Plan identifies the MI DNR is continuing the practice management issues. The Roundtable wolf population monitoring as a priority of not actively managing disease. If provided ‘‘guiding principles’’ for activity, and specifically states that the monitoring indicates that diseases or managing wolves and wolf-related WI DNR will monitor wolf abundance parasites may pose a threat to the wolf issues following Federal delisting annually for at least 5 years post- population, the MI DNR will again (Michigan Wolf Management delisting (MI DNR 2008a, pp. 31–32). consider more active management Roundtable 2006, pp. 6–7). Those This includes monitoring to assess wolf similar to that conducted prior to 2004. guiding principles strongly influenced presence in the northern Lower The 2008 Plan includes maintaining the 2008 Michigan Wolf Management Peninsula. As discussed previously, the habitat and prey necessary to sustain a Plan (MI Plan) (MI DNR 2008a). size of the wolf population in Michigan viable wolf population in the State as a The 2008 MI Plan describes the wolf is determined by extensive radio and management component. This includes recovery goals and management actions snow tracking surveys. Recently the MI maintaining prey populations required

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26129

for a viable wolf population while for depredation losses, citizen TABLE 2—NUMBER OF VERIFIED LIVE- providing for sustainable human uses, stakeholder involvement in the wolf STOCK DEPREDATION EVENTS BY maintaining habitat linkages to allow for management program, continuing WOLVES IN MICHIGAN BY YEAR wolf dispersal, and minimizing important research efforts, and disturbance at known, active wolf dens minimizing the impacts of captive Year Number of animals killed (MI DNR 2008a, pp. 36–41). wolves and wolf-dog hybrids on the The Plan does not determine whether wild wolf population (MI DNR 2008a, 1998 ...... 3 a public harvest will be used as a pp. 31, 59, 61, and 66). 1999 ...... 1 management strategy in Michigan, but it The 2008 Michigan Plan calls for 2000 ...... 5 discusses developing a ‘‘socially and establishing a wolf management 2001 ...... 3 2002 ...... 5 biologically responsible policy advisory group that would meet 2003 ...... 13 regarding public harvest’’ (MI DNR annually to monitor the progress made 2004 ...... 11 2008a, p. 65). Instituting public harvest toward implementing the Plan. 2005 ...... 5 during a regulated season would first Furthermore, the Plan will be reviewed 2006 ...... 10 require that the wolf be classified as a and updated at 5-year intervals, to 2007 ...... 14 ‘‘game animal’’ in the State. Game- address ‘‘ecological, social, and 2008 ...... 14 animal status in Michigan may be regulatory’’ changes (MI DNR 2008a, p. 2009 ...... 12 designated only by the State Legislature 66). The plan also addresses currently 2010 ...... 46 and, additionally, only the State available and potential new sources of Legislature could authorize the first funding to offset costs associated with Michigan has not experienced as high harvest season. If such designation and wolf management. a level of attacks on dogs by wolves as authorization were conferred, the The MI DNR has long been an Wisconsin, although a slight increase in Michigan Natural Resources innovative leader in wolf recovery such attacks has occurred over the last Commission would then need to enact efforts, exemplified by its initiation of decade. Yearly losses vary and actions regulations pertaining to the methods of the nation’s first attempt to reintroduce of a single pack of wolves can be an a public harvest. wild wolves to vacant historical wolf important influence. In Michigan, there To minimize illegal take, the 2008 habitat in 1974 (Weise et al. 1975). The is not a strong relationship between Plan calls for enacting and enforcing MI DNR’s history of leadership in wolf wolf depredation on dogs and wolf regulations to ensure adequate legal recovery and its repeated written abundance (Roell et al. 2010, p. 7). The protection for wolves in the State. commitments to ensure the continued number of dogs killed in the State Under State regulations, wolves could viability of a Michigan wolf population between 1996 and 2010 was 34; 12 be classified as threatened, endangered, above a level that would trigger State or additional dogs were injured in wolf game, or protected animal, all of which Federal listing as threatened or attacks during that same period. Of the prohibit killing (or harming) the species endangered further reinforces that the 34 wolf-related dog deaths during that except under a permit, license, or revised 2008 Michigan Wolf time, 50 percent involved hounds used specific conditions. As discussed above, Management Plan will provide adequate to hunt bears (Roell 2010, pers. comm.). designating a species as a ‘‘game animal’’ regulatory mechanisms for Michigan Similar to Wisconsin, MI DNR has would require action by the State wolves. The DNR’s primary goal guidelines for its depredation control Legislature. Michigan reclassified remains to conduct management to program, stating that lethal control will wolves from endangered to threatened maintain the wolf population in not be used when wolves kill dogs that in June 2002, and in April 2009, Michigan above the minimum size that are free-roaming, hunting, or training on removed gray wolves from the State’s is biologically required for a viable, public lands. Lethal control of wolves, Threatened and Endangered species list isolated population and to provide for however, would be considered if wolves and amended the Wildlife Conservation ecological and social benefits valued by have killed confined pets and remain in Order to grant ‘‘protected animal’’ status the public while resolving conflicts the area where more pets are being held to the gray wolf in the State (Roell 2009, where they occur (MI DNR 2008a, p. (MI DNR 2005a, p. 6). However, in 2008, pers. comm.). A person who commits a 22). the Michigan Legislature passed a law violation regarding the possession or Depredation Control in Michigan— that would allow dog owners or their taking of most wildlife species with the Data from Michigan show a general designated agents to remove, capture, four legal designations (threatened, increase in confirmed events of wolf or, if deemed necessary, use lethal endangered, game, or protected animal) depredations on livestock (Table 2). means to destroy a gray wolf that is in in Michigan is guilty of a misdemeanor These livestock depredations occurred the act of preying upon the owner’s dog, punishable by imprisonment for not at 59 different UP farms (approximately which includes dogs free-roaming or more than 90 days, or a fine of not less 7 percent of the existing farms); 16 (27 hunting on public lands. than $100 or more than $1,000, or both. percent) of those 59 farms have During the several years that lethal Penalties may also include costs of experienced more than one depredation control of depredating wolves had been prosecution, loss of hunting privileges, event. Over 80 percent of the conducted in Michigan, there is no and reimbursing the value of the animal depredation events were on cattle, with evidence of resulting adverse impacts to ($1,500 for a threatened or endangered the rest on sheep, poultry, rabbits, and the maintenance of a viable wolf species, $100 to $500 for most game captive cervids (Roell et al. 2009, pp. 9, population in the UP. A total of 41 species, and $100 for protected animals) 11). In 2010, 26 (57 percent) of the wolves were killed by the MI DNR and (MI DNR 2008a, p. 35). depredation events occurred on a single USDA –Wildlife Services in response to The 2008 Plan emphasizes the need farm. The relationship between the depredation events during the time for public education efforts that focus number of wolves and the number of period when permits or special rules on living with a recovered wolf depredation events suggests that for were in effect or while wolves were not population and ways to manage wolves every 100 additional wolves in the on the Federal list of threatened and and wolf-human interaction (both population there will be about 3 endangered species (Roell et al. 2010, p. positive and negative). The Plan additional livestock depredation events 8). Four, five, two, seven, fourteen, recommends continuing reimbursement per year (Roell et al. 2010, p. 6). eight, and one wolves, respectively,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:20 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26130 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

were euthanized in 2003, 2004, 2005, suitable relocation sites are becoming a manner that results in significant 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 (2 months) rarer, and there is local opposition to reductions in Michigan wolf (Beyer et al. 2006, p. 88; Roell in litt. the release of translocated depredators. populations. The MI DNR remains 2006, p. 1; Roell et al. 2010, p. 19; Roell Furthermore, none of the past committed to ensuring a viable wolf 2010, pers. comm.). This represents 1.2 translocated depredators have remained population above a level that would percent, 1.7 percent, 0.5 percent, 1.6 near their release sites, making this a trigger relisting as either threatened or percent, 2.7 percent, 2.5 percent, and questionable method to end the endangered in the future (MI DNR 0.2 percent, respectively, of the UP’s depredation behaviors of these wolves 2008a, p. 9). late-winter population of wolves during (MI DNR 2005a, pp. 3–4). Therefore, Similar to Wisconsin, Michigan the previous winter. Following this reducing depredation problems by livestock owners are compensated when level of lethal depredation control, the relocation is no longer recommended as they lose livestock as a result of a UP wolf population increased 12 a management tool in Michigan (MI confirmed wolf depredation. Currently percent from 2003 to 2004, 13 percent DNR 2008a, p. 57). there are two complementary from 2004 to 2005, 7 percent from 2005 Lethal control of depredating wolves compensation programs in Michigan, to 2006, 17 percent from 2006 to 2007, is likely to be the most common future one funded by the MI DNR and 2 percent from 2007 to 2008, and 11 response in situations when improved implemented by Michigan Department percent from 2008 to 2009, livestock husbandry and wolf behavior of Agriculture (MI DA) and another set demonstrating that the wolf population modification techniques (for example, up through donations (from Defenders continues to increase at a healthy rate flashing lights, noise-making devices) of Wildlife and private citizens) and (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6; MI DNR are judged to be inadequate. As wolf administered by the International Wolf 2006a, Roell et al. 2009, p. 4). Lethal numbers continue to increase on the UP, Center (IWC), a nonprofit organization. control of wolves during livestock the number of verified depredations will From the inception of the program to depredation was not available in 2010. also increase, and will probably do so at 2000, MI DA has paid 90 percent of full Post-delisting Depredation Control in a rate that exceeds the rate of wolf market value of depredated livestock at Michigan—Following the proposed population increase. This will occur as the time of loss. The IWC account was Federal delisting, wolf depredation wolves increasingly disperse into and used to pay the remaining 10 percent control in Michigan would be carried occupy areas of the UP with more from 2000 to 2002 when MI DA began out according to the 2008 Michigan livestock and more human residences, paying 100 percent of the full market Wolf Recovery and Management Plan leading to additional exposure to value of depredated livestock. The IWC (MI DNR 2008) and any Tribal wolf domestic animals. In a previous account continues to be used to pay the management plans that may be application for a lethal take permit difference between value at time of loss developed in the future for reservations under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, MI and the full fall market value for in occupied wolf range. DNR requested authority to euthanize depredated young-of-the-year livestock, To provide depredation control up to 10 percent of the late-winter wolf and together the two funds have guidance when lethal control is an population annually (MI DNR 2005b, p. provided nearly $38,000 in livestock option, MI DNR has developed detailed 1). However, based on 2003–05 and loss compensation through 2008 (Roell instructions for incident investigation 2007–09 depredation data, it is likely et al., p. 15). Neither of these programs and response (MI DNR 2005a). that significantly less than 10 percent provides compensation for pets or for Verification of wolf depredation lethal control will be needed over the veterinary costs to treat wolf-inflicted incidents will be conducted by MI DNR next several years. livestock injuries. The MI DNR plans to or USDA–APHIS—Wildlife Services The MI Plan provides continue cooperating with MI DA and personnel (working under a cooperative recommendations to guide management other organizations to maintain the wolf agreement with MI DNR or at the of various conflicts caused by wolf depredation compensation program (MI request of a Tribe, depending on the recovery, including depredation on DNR 2008a, pp. 59–60). location) who have been trained in livestock and pets, human safety, and In 2009, Michigan passed two House depredation investigation techniques. public concerns regarding wolf impacts Bills that would become effective after The MI DNR specifies that the on other wildlife. We view the MI Plan’s Federal delisting. Those bills authorized verification process will use the depredation and conflict control a livestock or dog owner (or a investigative techniques that have been strategies to be conservative, in that they designated agent) to ‘‘remove, capture, developed and successfully used in commit to nonlethal depredation or use lethal means to destroy a wolf Minnesota by Wildlife Services (MI management whenever possible, oppose that is in the act of preying upon’’ the DNR 2005a, Append. B, pp. 9–10). preventative wolf removal where owner’s livestock or dog. During the 2 Following verification, one or more of problems have not yet occurred, months that wolves were Federally and several options will be implemented to encourage incentives for best State delisted in 2009, no wolves were address the depredation problem. management practices that decrease killed under these authorizations. We Technical assistance, consisting of wolf-livestock conflicts without advice or recommendations to reduce impacting wolves, and support closely are confident that the limited number of wolf conflicts, will be provided. monitored and enforced take by wolves expected to be taken under these Technical assistance may also include landowners of wolves ‘‘in the act of Bills would not affect the viability of the providing to the landowner various livestock depredation’’ or under limited Michigan wolf population. forms of noninjurious behavior permits if depredation is confirmed and Regulatory Mechanisms in Other States modification materials, such as flashing nonlethal methods are determined to be and Tribal Areas Within the Proposed lights, noise makers, temporary fencing, ineffective. Based on these components WGL DPS and fladry. of the revised MI Plan and the stated Trapping and translocating goal for maintaining wolf populations at North Dakota and South Dakota depredating wolves has been used in the or above recovery goals, the Service North Dakota lacks a State endangered past, resulting in the translocation of 23 believes any wolf management changes species law or regulation. Any wolves in UP wolves during 1998–2003 (Beyer et implemented following the proposed the State currently are classified as al. 2006, p. 88), but as with Wisconsin, delisting would not be implemented in furbearers, with a closed season. North

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26131

Dakota Game and Fish Department is wolf or a wolf population in the Dakotas on the continued viability of wolf unlikely to change the species’ State will not make a meaningful contribution populations in the proposed WGL DPS. classification immediately following the to the maintenance of the current viable, Tribal Management and Protection of proposed Federal delisting. Wolves are self-sustaining, and representative Wolves included in the State’s Wildlife Action metapopulation of wolves in the Plan as a ‘‘Level 3’’ Species of proposed WGL DPS. Native American Tribes and inter- Conservation Priority. Level 3 species Tribal resource management are those ‘‘having a moderate level of Other States in the Western Great Lakes organizations have indicated to the conservation priority, but are believed DPS Service that they will continue to to be peripheral or do not breed in The proposed DPS includes the conserve wolves on most, and probably North Dakota.’’ Placement on this list portion of Iowa that is north of Interstate all, Native American reservations in the gives species greater access to Highway 80, which is approximately 60 core recovery areas of the proposed conservation funding, but does not percent of the State. The Iowa Natural WGL DPS. The wolf retains great afford any additional regulatory or Resource Commission currently lists cultural significance and traditional legislative protection (Bicknell in litt. wolves as furbearers, with a closed value to many Tribes and their members 2009). season (Howell in litt. 2005). If the State (additional discussion is found in Factor Currently any wolves that may be in retains this listing following the E), and to retain and strengthen cultural South Dakota are not State listed as proposed Federal delisting of the DPS, connections, many Tribes oppose threatened or endangered, nor is there a wolves dispersing into northern Iowa unnecessary killing of wolves on hunting or trapping season for them. will be protected by State law. reservations and on ceded lands, even Upon the effective date of any Federal The portion of Illinois that is north of following any Federal delisting (Hunt in delisting, gray wolves in eastern South Interstate Highway 80, less than one- litt. 1998; Schrage in litt. 1998a; Schlender in litt. 1998). Some Native Dakota will fall under general fifth of the State, is included in the DPS, Americans view wolves as competitors protections afforded all State wildlife. and is part of the geographic area where for deer and moose, whereas others are These protections require specific wolves are proposed for removal from interested in harvesting wolves as provisions—seasons and regulations— Federal protection. Gray wolves are furbearers (Schrage in litt. 1998a). Many be established prior to initiating any currently protected in Illinois as a Tribes intend to sustainably manage form of legal take. Thus, the State could threatened species under the Illinois their natural resources, wolves among choose to implement a hunting or Endangered Species Protection Act (520 them, to ensure that they are available trapping season for wolves east of the ILCS 10). Thus, following the proposed to their descendants. Traditional natural Missouri River; however, absent some Federal delisting, wolves dispersing into definitive action to establish a season, resource harvest practices, however, northern Illinois would continue to be often include only a minimum amount wolves would remain protected. protected from human take by State law. Following the proposed Federal of regulation by the Tribal governments The extreme northern portions of delisting, any verified depredating (Hunt in litt. 1998). Indiana and northwestern Ohio are wolves east of the Missouri will likely Although not all Tribes with wolves be trapped and killed by the USDA– included within the proposed DPS. If that visit or reside on their reservations APHIS–Wildlife Services program this proposal is made final, any wolves have completed management plans (Larson in litt. 2005). Non-depredating that are found in this area would no specific to the wolf, several Tribes have wolves in North and South Dakota not longer be Federally protected under the informed us that they have no plans or on the Federal list will continue to Act. The State of Ohio classifies the gray intentions to allow commercial or receive protection by the States’ wildlife wolf as ‘‘extirpated,’’ and there are no recreational hunting or trapping of the protection statutes unless specific action plans to reintroduce or recover the species on their lands after the proposed is taken to open a hunting or trapping species in the State. The species lacks Federal delisting. The Red Lake Band of season or otherwise remove existing State protection, but State action is Chippewa Indians (Minnesota) and the protections. likely to apply some form of protection Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Post-delisting Depredation Control in if wolves begin to disperse into the State Indians (Michigan) have developed wolf North and South Dakota—Since 1993, (Caldwell in litt. 2005). Indiana DNR monitoring and/or management plans. five incidents of verified wolf lists the gray wolf as extirpated in the The Service has also awarded a grant to depredation have occurred in North State, and the species would receive no the Ho-Chunk Nation to identify wolf Dakota, with one in September 2003 and State protection under this classification habitat on reservation lands. two more in December 2005. There have following any Federal delisting. The As a result of many past contacts been no verified wolf depredations in only means to provide State protection with, and previous written comments South Dakota in recent decades. would be to list them as State- from, the Midwestern Tribes and their Following the proposed Federal endangered, but that is not likely to inter-Tribal natural resource delisting we assume that lethal control occur unless wolves become resident in management agencies—the Great Lakes of a small number of depredating Indiana (Johnson in litt. 2005, in litt. Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission wolves will occur in one or both of 2006). Thus, if this proposal is made (GLIFWC), the 1854 Authority, and the these States. Lethal control of final, Federally delisted wolves that Chippewa Ottawa Treaty Authority—it depredating wolves may have adverse might disperse into Indiana and Ohio is clear that their predominant impacts on the ability of wolves to would lack State protection there, sentiment is strong support for the occupy any small areas of suitable or unless these two States take specific continued protection of wolves at a marginally suitable habitat that may action to provide new protections. level that ensures that viable wolf exist in the States. However, lethal Because the portions of Iowa, Illinois, populations remain on reservations and control of depredating wolves in these Indiana, and Ohio within the proposed throughout the treaty-ceded lands two States will have no adverse effects WGL DPS do not contain suitable surrounding the reservations. While on the long-term viability of wolf habitat or currently established packs, several Tribes stated that their members populations in the proposed WGL DPS depredation control in these States may be interested in killing small as a whole, because the existence of a would not have any significant impact numbers of wolves for spiritual or other

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26132 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

purposes, this would be carried out in negatively affect the wolf population. monitor another pair that had moved a manner that would not impact The Council is revising the Reservation onto the Reservation, as well as other reservation or ceded territory wolf Conservation Code to allow Tribal wolves near the reservation (Wydeven populations. members to harvest some wolves after in litt. 2006a). When that pair produced The Red Lake Band of Chippewa Federal delisting (Googgleye, Jr. in litt. pups in 2006, but the adult female was Indians (Minnesota) completed a wolf 2004). The Tribe is currently developing killed, Reservation biologists and staff management plan in 2010 (Red Lake a wolf management plan (Mortensen worked diligently with the WI DNR and Band of Chippewa Indians 2010). A 2011, pers. comm.). In 2005, the Leech the Wildlife Science Center (Forest primary goal of the management plan is Lake Reservation was home to an Lake, Minnesota) to raise the pups in to maintain wolf numbers at a level that estimated 75 wolves, the largest captivity in the hope that they could will ensure the long-term survival of population of wolves on a Native later be released to the care of the adult wolves on Red Lake lands. Key American reservation in the 48 male. However, the adult male died components of the plan are habitat conterminous States (Mortensen 2006, prior to pup release, and they were management, public education, and law pers. comm.; White in litt. 2003). moved back to the Wildlife Science enforcement. To address human-wolf Although no recent surveys have been Center (Pioneer Press 2006), and were interactions, the plan outlines how conducted, the number of wolves on the subsequently transferred to the wolves may be taken on Red Lake lands. reservation likely remains the same International Wolf Center in Ely, Wolves thought to be a threat to public (Mortensen 2009, pers. comm.). Minnesota, where they remain in safety may be harassed at any time, and The Fond du Lac Band (Minnesota) captivity. if they must be killed, the incident must believes that the ‘‘well being of the wolf The Menominee Tribe continues to be reported to Tribal law enforcement. is intimately connected to the well support wolf conservation and Agricultural livestock are not common being of the Chippewa People’’ (Schrage monitoring activity in Wisconsin. In on Red Lake lands, and wolf-related in litt. 2003). In 1998, the Band passed recent years the Menominee Tribe has depredation on livestock or pets is a resolution opposing Federal delisting assisted the WI DNR in radio-telemetry unlikely to be a significant management and any other measure that would wolf flights, allowing more regular issue. If such events do occur, Tribal permit trapping, hunting, or poisoning flights to occur across all of northern members may protect their livestock or of the wolf (Schrage in litt. 1998b; in Wisconsin. pets by lethal means, but ‘‘* * * all litt. 2003; 2009, pers. comm.). If this The Keweenaw Bay Indian reasonable efforts should be made to prohibition is rescinded, the Band’s Community (Michigan) will continue to deter wolves using non-lethal means’’ Resource Management Division will list the wolf as a protected animal under (Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians coordinate with State and Federal the Tribal Code following any Federal 2010, p. 15). Hunting or trapping of agencies to ensure that any wolf hunting delisting, with hunting and trapping wolves on Tribal lands will be or trapping would be ‘‘conducted in a prohibited (Mike Donofrio 1998, pers. prohibited. The Reservation currently biologically sustainable manner’’ comm.). Furthermore, the Keweenaw has seven or eight packs with an (Schrage in litt. 2003). Bay Community plans to develop a estimated 40–48 wolves within its The Red Cliff Band (Wisconsin) has management plan that will address boundaries (Red Lake Band of strongly opposed State and Federal wolves (Donofrio in litt. 2003; Warner Chippewa Indians 2010, p. 12). delisting of the gray wolf. Current Tribal 20010, pers. comm.). At least three other In 2009, the Little Traverse Bay Bands law protects wolves from harvest, Tribes (Stock-bridge Munsee of Odawa Indians (LTBB) finalized a although harvest for ceremonial Community, Lac Courte Oreilles Band of management plan for the 1855 purposes would likely be permitted Ojibwe, the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Reservation and portions of the 1936 after Federal delisting (Symbal in litt. and Grand Portage Band of Lake ceded territory in the northern LP of 2003). Superior Chippewa) have indicated that Michigan (Little Traverse Bay Bands of The Menominee Indian Tribe of they are currently developing Tribal Odawa Indians Natural Resource Wisconsin is committed to establishing wolf management plans. Department 2009). The plan provides a self-sustaining wolf population, Several Midwestern Tribes (for the framework for managing wolves on continuing restoration efforts, ensuring example, the Bad River Band of Lake the LTBB Reservation with the goal of the long-term survival of the wolf in Superior Chippewa Indians and the maintaining a viable wolf presence on Menominee, placing emphasis on the LTBB) have expressed concern that the LTBB Reservation or within the cultural significance of the wolf as a Federal delisting will result in increased northern LP should a population clan member, and resolving conflicts mortality of wolves on reservation become established by (1) prescribing between wolves and humans. They are lands, in the areas immediately scientifically sound biological wolf currently working on developing a surrounding the reservations, and in management, research, and monitoring Menominee Wolf Management Plan lands ceded by treaty to the Federal strategies; (2) addressing wolf-related (Cox 2011, pers. comm.). Government by the Tribes (Kiogama and conflicts; (3) facilitating wolf-related The Tribe has shown a great deal of Chingwa in litt. 2000). The Tribe’s goal benefits; and (4) developing and interest in wolf recovery and protection. is to reduce the threats to reservation implementing wolf-related education In 2002, the Tribe offered their wolf packs when they are temporarily and public information. Reservation lands as a site for off the reservation. Other Tribes have The Tribal Council of the Leech Lake translocating seven depredating wolves expressed interest in such an agreement. Band of Minnesota Ojibwe (Council) that had been trapped by WI DNR and If this and similar agreements are approved a resolution that describes the Wildlife Services. Tribal natural implemented, they will provide sport and recreational harvest of wolves resources staff participated in the soft additional protection to certain wolf as an inappropriate use of the animal. release of the wolves on the Reservation packs in the western Great Lakes area. That resolution supports limited harvest and helped with the subsequent radio- The GLIFWC has stated its intent to of wolves to be used for traditional or tracking of the wolves. Although by work closely with the States to spiritual uses by enrolled Tribal early 2005 the last of these wolves died cooperatively manage wolves in the members if the harvest is done in a on the reservation, the Tribal ceded territories in the core areas, and respectful manner and would not conservation department continued to will not develop a separate wolf

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26133

management plan (Schlender in litt. population, either locally or across the Fish and Wildlife Commission. We 1998). Furthermore, the Voigt Intertribal proposed WGL DPS. encourage the States and Tribes within Task Force of GLIFWC has expressed its The Service and the Department of the WGL DPS to work together on support for strong protections for the the Interior recognize the unique status management and monitoring issues wolf, stating ‘‘[delisting] hinges on of the Federally recognized Tribes, their post-delisting. right to self-governance, and their whether wolves are sufficiently restored Federal Lands and will be sufficiently protected to inherent sovereign powers over their ensure a healthy and abundant future members and territory. If we ultimately The five national forests with resident for our brother and ourselves’’ determine that delisting the WGL DPS is wolves (Superior, Chippewa, (Schlender in litt. 2004). supported by the best available science, Chequamegon-Nicolet, Hiawatha, and According to the 1854 Authority, the Department, the Service, the Bureau Ottawa National Forests) in Minnesota, ‘‘attitudes toward wolf management in of Indian Affairs (BIA), and other Wisconsin, and Michigan are all the 1854 Ceded Territory run the gamut Federal agencies, as appropriate, will operating in conformance with from a desire to see total protection to take the needed steps to ensure that standards and guidelines in their unlimited harvest opportunity.’’ Tribal authority and sovereignty within management plans that follow the 1992 However, the 1854 Authority would not reservation boundaries are respected as Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber ‘‘implement a harvest system that would the States implement their wolf Wolf’s recommendations for the eastern have any long-term negative impacts to management plans and revise those timber wolf (USDA FS 2004a, chapter 2, p. 31; USDA FS 2004b, chapter 2, p. 28; wolf populations’’ (Edwards in litt. plans in the future. Furthermore, there USDA FS 2004c, chapter 2, p. 19; USDA 2003). In comments submitted for our may be Tribal activities or interests FS 2006a, chapter 2, p. 17; USDA FS 2004 delisting proposal for a larger associated with wolves encompassed 2006b, chapter 2, pp. 28–29). Delisting Eastern DPS of the gray wolf, the 1854 within the Tribes’ retained rights to is not expected to lead to an immediate Authority stated that the Authority is hunt, fish, and gather in treaty-ceded change in these standards and ‘‘confident that under the control of territories. The Department is available guidelines; in fact, the Regional Forester State and Tribal management, wolves to assist in the exercise of any such for U.S. Forest Service Region 9 is will continue to exist at a self-sustaining rights. If biological assistance is needed, expected to maintain the classification level in the 1854 Ceded Territory. the Service may provide it via our field of the wolf as a Regional Forester Sustainable populations of wolves, their offices. Upon delisting, the Service would remain involved in the post- Sensitive Species for at least 5 years prey and other resources within the delisting monitoring of the wolves in after Federal delisting (Moore in litt. 1854 Ceded Territory are goals to which the WGL, but all Service management 2003). Under these standards and the 1854 Authority remains committed. and protection authority under the Act guidelines, a relatively high prey base As such, we intend to work with the would end. Legal assistance would be will be maintained, and road densities State of Minnesota and other Tribes to provided to the Tribes by the will be limited to current levels or ensure successful state and Tribal Department of the Interior, and the BIA decreased. For example, on the management of healthy wolf will be involved, when needed. If this Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest populations in the 1854 Ceded proposal is finalized, we strongly in Wisconsin, the standards and Territory’’ (Myers in litt. 2004). The encourage the States and Tribes to work guidelines specifically include the 1854 Authority is currently developing cooperatively toward post-delisting wolf protection of den sites and key a wolf management plan for the 1854 management. rendezvous sites, and management of Ceded Territory, based on the above Consistent with our responsibilities to road densities in existing and potential principles (Edwards 2011, pers. comm.). Tribes and our goal to have the most wolf habitat (USDA 2004c, Chap. 2, p. While there are few written Tribal comprehensive data available for our 19). protections currently in place for post-delisting monitoring, if the The trapping of depredating wolves wolves, the highly protective and proposal to delist the WGL DPS is made would likely be allowed on national reverential attitudes that have been final, we will annually contact Tribes forest lands under the guidelines and expressed by Tribal authorities and and their designated intertribal natural conditions specified in the respective members have assured us that any post- resource agencies within the DPS during State wolf management plans. However, delisting harvest of reservation wolves the 5-year post-delisting monitoring there are relatively few livestock raised would be very limited and would not period to obtain any information they within the boundaries of national forests adversely impact the delisted wolf wish to share regarding wolf in the upper Midwest, so wolf populations. Furthermore, any off- populations, the health of those depredation and lethal control of wolves reservation harvest of wolves by Tribal populations, or changes in their is neither likely to be a frequent members in the ceded territories would management and protection. occurrence, nor constitute a significant be limited to a portion of the harvestable Reservations within the WGL DPS that mortality factor, for the wolves in the surplus at some future time. Such a may have significant wolf data to proposed WGL DPS. Similarly, in harvestable surplus would be provide during the post-delisting period keeping with the practice for other determined and monitored jointly by include Bois Forte, Bad River, Fond du State-managed game species, any public State and Tribal biologists, and would Lac, Grand Portage, Keweenaw Bay hunting or trapping season for wolves be conducted in coordination with the Indian Community, Lac Courte Oreilles, that might be opened in the future by Service and the Bureau of Indian Lac du Flambeau, Leech Lake, the States would likely include hunting Affairs, as is being successfully done for Menominee, Oneida, Red Lake, and trapping within the national forests the ceded territory harvest of inland and Stockbridge-Munsee Community, and (Lindquist in litt. 2005; Williamson in Great Lakes fish, deer, bear, moose, and White Earth. Throughout the 5-year litt. 2005; Piehler in litt. 2005; Evans in furbearers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and post-delisting monitoring period, the litt. 2005). The continuation of current Michigan. Therefore, we conclude that Service will annually contact the national forest management practices any future Native American take of natural resource agencies of each of will be important in ensuring the long- delisted wolves will not significantly these reservations and that of the 1854 term viability of wolf populations in impact the viability of the wolf Treaty Authority and Great Lakes Indian Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26134 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Wolves regularly use four units of the The wolf population in Isle Royale Wolves also occupy the Fort McCoy National Park System in the proposed National Park is described above (see military installation in Wisconsin. In WGL DPS and may occasionally use Michigan Recovery). The NPS has 2003, one pack containing five adult three or four other units. Although the indicated that it will continue to closely wolves occupied a territory that National Park Service (NPS) has monitor and study these wolves. This included the majority of the installation; participated in the development of some wolf population is very small and in 2004 and 2006, the installation had of the State wolf management plans in isolated from the other wolf populations one pack with two adults; in 2005 there this area, NPS is not bound by States’ in the proposed WGL DPS; as described was a single pack with four wolves. In plans. Instead, the NPS Organic Act and above, it is not considered to be 2008–09, there were seven wolves using the NPS Management Policy on Wildlife significant to the recovery or long-term the installation (Wilder 2009, pers. generally require the agency to conserve viability of the wolf (USFWS 1992, p. comm.). In 2010 a pack of three wolves natural and cultural resources and the 28). occurred in the northern portions of the wildlife present within the parks. Two other units of the National Park Fort, and a pack of two occurred on the National Park Service management System, Pictured Rocks National south side (Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 42). policies require that native species be Lakeshore and St. Croix National Scenic Management and protection of wolves protected against harvest, removal, Riverway, are regularly used by wolves. on the installation would not change destruction, harassment, or harm Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is a significantly after Federal or State through human action, although certain narrow strip of land along Michigan’s delisting. Den and rendezvous sites parks may allow some harvest in Lake Superior shoreline. Lone wolves would continue to be protected, hunting accordance with State management periodically use, but do not appear to be seasons for other species (coyote) would plans. Management emphasis in year-round residents of, the Lakeshore. be closed during the gun-deer season, National Parks after delisting will If denning occurs after delisting, the and current surveys would continue, if continue to minimize the human Lakeshore would protect denning and resources are available. Fort McCoy has impacts on wolf populations. Thus, rendezvous sites at least as strictly as no plans to allow a public harvest of because of their responsibility to the Michigan Plan recommends (Gustin wolves on the installation (Nobles in preserve all native wildlife, units of the in litt. 2003). Harvesting wolves on the litt. 2004; Wydeven et al. 2005a, p. 25; National Park System are often the most Lakeshore may be allowed (if the 2006a, p. 25). protective of wildlife. In the case of the Michigan DNR allows for harvest in the Minnesota National Guard’s (MNG) wolf, the NPS Organic Act and NPS State), but trapping is not allowed. The Camp Ripley contains parts of two pack policies will continue to provide St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, in territories, which typically include 10 to protection following the proposed Wisconsin and Minnesota, is also a 20 wolves. MNG wildlife managers try to have at least one wolf in each pack Federal delisting. mostly linear ownership. radio-collared and to fit an additional Approximately 54–58 wolves from 11 Management and protection of wolves one or two wolves in each pack with packs used the Riverway on the in Voyageurs National Park, along satellite transmitters that may record Wisconsin side in 2010 (Wydeven 2011, Minnesota’s northern border is not long-distance movements. There have pers. comm.). The Riverway is likely to likely to change after delisting. The been no significant conflicts with limit public access to denning and park’s management policies require that military training or with the permit-only rendezvous sites and to follow other ‘‘native animals will be protected against public deer-hunting program at the management and protective practices harvest, removal, destruction, camp, and no new conflicts are outlined in the respective State wolf harassment, or harm through human expected following delisting. Long-term action.’’ No population targets for management plans, although trapping is and intensive monitoring has detected wolves will be established for the not allowed on NPS lands except only two wolf mortalities within the National Park (Holbeck in litt. 2005). To possibly by Native Americans camp boundaries—both were of natural reduce human disturbance, temporary (Maercklein in litt. 2003). causes (Dirks 2009, pers. comm.). closures around wolf denning and At least one pack of 4–5 wolves used The protection afforded to resident rendezvous sites will be enacted the shoreline areas of the Apostle and transient wolves, their den and whenever they are discovered in the Islands National Lake Shore, with a rendezvous sites, and their prey by five park. Sport hunting is already major deer yard area occurring on national forests, four National Parks, prohibited on park lands, regardless of portions of the Park Service land. Wolf two military facilities, and numerous what may be allowed beyond park tracks have been detected on Sand National Wildlife Refuges in Minnesota, boundaries (West in litt. 2004). A radio- Island, and a wolf was photographed by Wisconsin, and Michigan would further telemetry study conducted between a trail camera on the island in ensure the conservation of wolves in the 1987 and 1991 of wolves living in and September 2009. It is not known if three States after delisting. In addition, adjacent to the park found that all wolves periodically swim to this and wolves that disperse to other units of mortality inside the park was due to other islands, or if they only travel to the National Refuge System or the natural causes (for example, killing by islands on ice in winter. National Park System within the other wolves or starvation), whereas the Wolves occurring on NWRs in the proposed WGL DPS will also receive the majority (60–80 percent) of mortality proposed WGL DPS will be monitored, protection afforded by these Federal outside the park was human-induced and refuge habitat management will agencies. (for example, shooting and trapping) maintain the current prey base for them (Gogan et al. 2004, p. 22). If there is a for a minimum of 5 years after delisting. Summary of Factor D need to control depredating wolves Trapping or hunting by government In summary, if this proposed delisting outside the park, which seems unlikely trappers for depredation control will not of the WGL DPS of gray wolves is made due to the current absence of be authorized on NWRs. Because of the final, there would be varying State and agricultural activities adjacent to the relatively small size of these NWRs, Tribal classifications and protections park, the park would work with the however, most or all of these packs and provided to wolves. The wolf State to conduct control activities where individual wolves also spend significant management plans currently in place for necessary (West in litt. 2004). amounts of time off these NWRs. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26135

will be more than sufficient to retain domestic animals, or livestock or to place subsequent to Federal delisting viable wolf populations in each State protect human safety (MN DNR 2001, are adequate to control threats to wolves that are above the Federal recovery pp. 3–4). Since the wolf management in the proposed WGL DPS such that criteria for wolf metapopulation plan was completed in 2001, MN DNR wolves in the proposed WGL DPS are subunits, and even for three completely has fully staffed its conservation officer not likely to become endangered in the isolated wolf populations. These State corps in the State’s wolf range (Stark foreseeable future in all or a significant plans provide a very high level of 2009a, pers. comm.). portion of the range. assurance that wolf populations in these Except for the very small portions of three States will not decline to Indiana and Ohio, if delisted, wolves in E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors nonviable levels in the foreseeable the proposed WGL DPS are likely to Affecting Its Continued Existence future. Furthermore, the 2006 Update to remain protected by various State Taking of Wolves by Native Americans the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan designations for the immediate future. for Certain Purposes States within the boundaries of the DPS (WI DNR 2006a, p. 3–4) demonstrates As noted elsewhere in this proposed either currently have mechanisms in the State’s commitment by retaining the rule, the wolf has great significance to place to kill depredating wolves (North previous management goal of 350 many Native Americans in the western Dakota and South Dakota) or can be wolves, and it did not weaken any Great Lakes area, especially to Wolf expected to develop mechanisms significant component of the original Clan members, and has a central role in following the proposed Federal delisting 1999 Plan. Similarly, the 2008 revised their creation stories. The wolf, Michigan wolf plan continues to of the DPS, in order to deal with wolf- Ma’’ingan, is viewed as a brother to the maintain the State’s commitments to livestock conflicts in areas where wolf Anishinaabe people, and their fates are maintain viable wolf populations after protection would no longer be required believed to be closely linked. Ma’’ingan Federal delisting. While these State by the Act. Because these States is a key element in many of their beliefs, plans recognize there may be a need to (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, North traditions, and ceremonies, and wolf control or even reduce wolf populations Dakota, and South Dakota) constitute pack systems are used as a model for at some future time, none of the plans only about one-third of the land area Anishinaabe families and communities. include a public harvest of wolves, and within the DPS, and contain virtually no We are not aware of any takings of all would maintain sufficient numbers suitable habitat of sufficient size to host wolves in the Midwest for use in these of wolves to ensure their continued viable wolf populations, it is clear that survival. even complete protection for wolves in traditions or ceremonies while the wolf If Federally delisted, wolves in these areas would neither provide has been listed as a threatened or Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan significant benefits to wolf recovery in endangered species. While wolves have would continue to receive protection the DPS, nor to the long-term viability been listed as threatened in Minnesota, from general human persecution by of the recovered populations that we have instructed Wildlife Services to State laws and regulations. Michigan currently reside in the DPS. Therefore, provide, upon request, wolf pelts and met the criteria established in their although current and potential future other parts from wolves killed during management plan for State delisting and regulatory mechanisms may allow the depredation control actions to Tribes in in April 2009 removed gray wolves from killing of wolves in these six States, order to partially serve these traditional the State’s threatened and endangered these threats, and the area in which they needs. species list and amended the Wildlife will be, will not impact the recovered Some Tribal representatives, as well Conservation Order to grant ‘‘protected wolf populations in the DPS now or in as the GLIFWC, have indicated that if animal’’ status to the gray wolf in the the foreseeable future. wolves are delisted, there is likely to be State (Roell 2009, pers. comm.). That Finally, based on our review of the interest in the taking of small numbers status ‘‘prohibit[s] take, establish[es] completed Tribal management plans of wolves for traditional ceremonies penalties and restitution for violations and communications with Tribes and (King in litt. 2003; White in litt. 2003). of the Order, and detail[s] conditions Tribal organizations, Federally delisted This take could occur on reservation under which lethal depredation control wolves are very likely to be adequately lands where it could be closely measures could be implemented’’ protected on Tribal lands. Furthermore, regulated by a Tribe to ensure that it (Humphries in litt. 2004). the numerical recovery criteria (and for does not affect the viability of the Since 2004 wolves have been listed as Minnesota, the numerical planning goal) reservation wolf population. Such a ‘‘protected wild animal’’ by the WI in the Recovery Plan would be achieved takings might also occur on off- DNR, allowing no lethal take unless and maintained (based on the reservation treaty lands on which special authorization is requested from population and range of off-reservation certain Tribes retained hunting, fishing, the WI DNR (Wydeven et al. 2009c). wolves) even without Tribal protection and gathering rights when the land was Following the proposed Federal of wolves on reservation lands. In ceded to the Federal Government in the delisting, Wisconsin will fully addition, on the basis of information 19th Century. Native American taking of implement that ‘‘protected wild animal’’ received from other Federal land wolves from ceded lands would be status for the species, including management agencies in Minnesota, limited to a specified portion of a protections that provide for fines of Wisconsin, and Michigan, we expect harvestable surplus of wolves that is $1,000 to $2,000 for unlawful hunting. National Forests, units of the National established in coordination with the Minnesota DNR will consider Park System, military bases, and Tribes, consistent with past Federal population management measures, National Wildlife Refuges will provide court rulings on treaty rights. Such including public hunting and trapping, protections to wolves in the areas they taking would not occur until such time but this will not occur sooner than 5 manage if delisted that will match, and as a harvestable surplus has been years after Federal delisting, and MN in some cases will exceed, the documented based on biological data, DNR will maintain a wolf population of protections provided by State wolf and regulations and monitoring have at least 1,600 animals (MN DNR 2001, management plans and State protective been established by the States and p. 2). In the meantime, wolves may be regulations. Tribes to ensure a harvest can be carried taken legally in Zone A only when they Therefore, we conclude that the out in a manner that ensures the pose an immediate threat to pets, regulatory mechanisms that will be in continued viability of the wolf

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26136 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

population in that State. Previous court creature, shape attitudes from an early conducted, similar to the 1985 study, rulings have ensured that Native age. Although it found children to be using a stratified random sample of American treaty harvest of fish or more negative toward the wolf, a vast northern residents, southern residents, wildlife species have not risked majority of adults held positive beliefs farmers, hunters, and trappers (Kellert endangering the resource. and attitudes. Most respondents felt that 1999). During this study period, If requested by the Tribes, multitribal wolves were not a danger to humans, Minnesota wolves were being natural resource agencies, or the States, should not be exterminated, had value considered for Federal delisting. the Service or other appropriate Federal for Minnesota, and are good for the deer Compared to the 1985 survey, this study agencies will work with these parties to and moose populations. found an overall increase in positive help determine if a harvestable surplus Llewellyn (1978) reported the results perceptions of the wolf. The general exists, and if so, to assist in devising of a content analysis of 1,083 public public expressed more affection and reasonable and appropriate methods comment letters received by the Service ethical concern for wolves than did and levels of harvest for delisted wolves regarding the proposed reclassification farmers, although there was not a for traditional cultural purposes. of the timber wolf in Minnesota from significant difference between groups in We conclude that the small number of endangered to threatened. Of the 700 level of dislike of wolves. Over 70 wolves that may be taken by Native letters from Minnesota residents (the percent of respondents believed wolves Americans would not be a threat other letters were from out-of-state), 23 symbolize the beauty in nature and a sufficient to cause the wolves in the percent favored retention of endangered large portion of the sample perceived proposed WGL DPS to be in danger of status, 7 percent supported other values of wolves, including extinction in the foreseeable future. reclassification, and 70 percent were in ecological, scientific, and moral. favor of delisting and return to State Public Attitudes Toward the Wolf Suburban and urban residents, the management. Of note were differences college educated, and younger Human behavior has had a between urban and rural residents, with respondents were more likely to have tremendous effect on wolf populations a large majority (78 percent) of urban positive attitudes. Farmers were more around the world. Theory and social residents and a minority (16 percent) of science research have identified rural residents in favor of continued knowledgeable about the wolf and more attitudes, and the beliefs on which they Federal protection of wolves. Support likely to support delisting. Of note was are based, as important drivers of for delisting was largely based on a substantial increase in the number of behavior. Therefore, understanding concern for livestock and fear of wolves. northern Minnesota residents who public attitudes toward wolves is a key Kellert (1986) conducted a statewide reported either killing a wolf themselves component of wolf management. The phone survey of Minnesota residents’ or knowing someone who did. success of the United States wolf- knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors Chavez et al. (2005) assessed attitudes eradication programs of the late- toward the wolves. The study sample of residents of northwestern Minnesota. nineteenth and early twentieth centuries comprised the general public The sample of 600 rural residents was are often accepted as evidence of (Minneapolis-St. Paul residents and stratified by location: inside wolf range negative public attitudes that were mostly rural, northern county residents), and outside but adjacent to wolf range. based on perceptions and beliefs deer hunters, trappers, and livestock The study did not find large differences brought by European settlers that producers. Most respondents held between geographic groups or farmers portrayed the wolf as an evil, menacing favorable attitudes toward wolves and non-farmers, with all groups threat (Browne-Nunez and Taylor 2002, (except farmers), supported protection indicating slightly unfavorable attitudes p. 1; Fogleman 1988; Kellert 1986; of wolves and their habitat as long it did toward wolves. The authors suggest this Schanning 2009, pp. 252–253) and were not interfere with human needs, and could be attributable to shared rural perpetuated by exaggerated accounts of supported control of problem wolves. cultural values and utilitarian attitudes. marauding wolves preying on livestock Urban residents expressed more They also consider the possible (Schanning 2009, p. 253). protectionist attitudes, while rural influence of immigrant roots in Europe As the wolf arrived on the brink of residents’ attitudes were more where folklore and early conflicts with extinction, there was a shift in utilitarian in nature. There was wolves fostered negative attitudes. Both management and a parallel shift in ‘‘somewhat-limited’’ factual knowledge geographic groups agreed that wolves attitudes (Kellert et al. 1996; Schanning among the general public, but a higher cause unacceptable levels of damage to 2009, pp. 253–254; Williams et al. 2002, knowledge level among trappers and, to northwest Minnesota’s livestock p. 581). In the Great Lakes region, a lesser degree, hunters and individuals industry, although predators were with a higher income. Fear of wolves bounty systems were repealed perceived as less of an agricultural was expressed by some respondents, (Wisconsin in 1957, Michigan in 1960, threat than other threats (e.g., livestock although most did not feel that wolves and Minnesota in 1965) and, in 1972, diseases, crop pests). the first of many attitudinal studies are a threat to people. Rather large regarding wolves was carried out in percentages of farmers (12 percent) and Using a random sample of 909 Minnesota (Johnson 1974). In the last trappers (17 percent) reported capturing respondents (18 percent response rate), three decades, investigations of attitudes or killing a wolf, and a majority of Schanning (2005) reported ‘‘pragmatic/ toward wolves and wolf management farmer, hunter, trapper, and northern utilitarian’’ beliefs regarding wolves have burgeoned. county respondents reported knowing among Minnesota residents. Most someone who captured or killed a wolf. respondents supported compensation to Minnesota Additionally, almost one-third of livestock owners and having problem The first empirical examination of farmers, hunters, and trappers and a wolves shot by the DNR. Counter to attitudes toward wolves was conducted quarter of northern county respondents Kellert’s earlier findings, there was a using a convenience sample of 1,692 indicated that, given the opportunity, significant level of fear of wolves among attendees of the Minnesota State Fair they might shoot a wolf while deer Schanning’s sample, including fear for (Johnson 1974). It was based on the hunting. personal safety (31 percent), the safety premise that children’s stories, which In 1999, a second statewide phone of children (64 percent), and pets (70 typically cast the wolf as a villainous survey of Minnesota residents was percent).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26137

Michigan Using a stratified random sample of general residents, wolf damage respondents from five regions in complainants, recipients of In Michigan, Hook and Robinson Michigan, Beyer (2006) measured compensation, and demographic (1982, pp. 388–391) found that only a tolerance of wolves using a scale for segments. The strongest predictor of small percentage of respondents scored social carrying capacity. The scale was tolerance was social group. A large high on their anti-predator scale and based on Michigan wolves’ perceived majority of bear hunters (73 percent) most respondents were in favor of wolf range, numbers, and the type and were in favor of reducing or eliminating restoration. Hunters were more positive number of interactions with people. The the wolf population, compared to 45 toward predators than nonhunters. Fear study found that most people were at percent of the livestock producers and of the wolf was the most important the most tolerant end of the scale, with 29 percent of general residents. factor related to an anti-predator smaller percentages classified as Individuals who had lost a domestic attitude, followed by negativistic intolerant (7 percent) or least tolerant animal to a predator were less tolerant attitudes toward all animals, and age, (20 percent). of wolves than those who had not. with older people holding more Preferences for management actions Wisconsin negative attitudes. depended on the conflict situation. Kellert (1990) conducted a statewide Knight (1985, reported in Schanning Approval for lethal control was highest mail survey of Michigan residents’ 2009, p. 257) surveyed hunter attitudes for depredation on livestock and pets. knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in two Wisconsin counties in wolf range Bear hunters also were highly in favor toward wolves. There were 639 where a minority (20 percent) of hunters of lethal control when hunting hounds respondents from the Upper (UP) and reported negative attitudes toward are killed, but other groups did not Lower (LP) peninsulas and members of wolves and most (69 percent) believed muster a majority for this option. three special interest groups: hunters, that wolves should not be eliminated. Compensation was not associated with trappers, and livestock producers. In 1988, when there were only 20 higher tolerance when comparing Livestock producers were the most wolves in Wisconsin, Nelson and recipients to nonrecipients among those likely of the special interest groups to Franson (1988) compared farmer’ and who reported losing a domestic animal hold negative attitudes toward the wolf. non-farmers’ attitudes toward wolves to wolves. LP residents were more likely than UP and wolf recovery in six Wisconsin Similar to his studies in Minnesota residents to express fear and dislike of counties. A series of agree-disagree and Michigan, Schanning (2003) wolves. A majority of respondents in belief statements was used to gauge surveyed 644 Wisconsin residents’ (13 each group, except livestock producers, attitudes toward wolves. Non-farmers percent response rate) attitudes toward supported restoration (64 percent of UP were more positive than farmers, and a wolves. He found a majority of residents, 57 percent of LP residents, 76 majority agreed that the wolf respondents held pro-wolf attitudes percent of hunters, 66 percent of ‘‘symbolizes the beauty and wonder in based on their agreement with three trappers, and 37 percent of livestock nature’’ and ‘‘it would be wonderful to belief statements: ‘‘the wolf is a symbol producers). Support was primarily hear the wolf howl in the wild’’ (64 of the beauty and wonder in nature,’’ motivated by the existence, ecological, percent and 62 percent respectively). ‘‘wolves are part of our vanishing and cultural values of the wolf. Almost half of farmers agreed with the wilderness and should be protected,’’ same statements. Both groups disagreed ‘‘ A 2002 statewide survey of 557 and wolves are essential to maintaining that they would be afraid of an attack if the balance in nature’’ (72 percent, 56 Michigan residents’ attitudes toward they saw a wolf while walking in the percent, and 62 percent in agreement, wolf recovery found that support for woods. Farmers and non-farmers were respectively). There was substantial recovery by UP residents had declined divided about wolf restoration, with half support for wolf hunting (41 percent), since Kellert’s 1990 study (Mertig 2004). of farmers and about one-third of non- and a majority (60 percent) indicated At the time this study was conducted, famers opposed. Both groups favored they would shoot a wolf if it threatened the UP’s wolf population had risen to trapping and removal of problem their pet. about 250 animals (Hammill 2007), but wolves. In a followup to Naughton et al. in the LP, where wolves were not Wilson (1999) examined knowledge, (2001), Treves et al. (2009) reported known to be present, there was attitudes, and behaviors toward wolves attitudes of 1,364 respondents (62 increased support for wolf recovery in in a 1997 survey of two random percent response rate) toward the UP. Other differences from Kellert’s samples: all Wisconsin license plate compensation after wolf recovery. They (1990) findings included increased owners and those who purchased an compared the attitudes of individuals support for wolf control and for hunting Endangered Resources (ER) license who contributed to Wisconsin’s and trapping for pelts. plate. Fifty percent of all license plate voluntary compensation fund with Based on a sample of 1,017 Michigan owners and almost 90 percent of ER those of noncontributors and found that residents (20 percent response rate), license plate owners supported efforts to attitudes of each group differed in Schanning (2004) found that a majority increase the State wolf population. several ways. Contributors favored of respondents in his survey agreed with There were slight differences between nonlethal over lethal problem wolf pro-wolf statements including ‘‘wolves hunters (47 percent) and non-hunters management actions and supported all are a part of our vanishing wilderness (54 percent) who support wolf recovery. types of payments more strongly with and should be protected’’ (51 percent). Naughton et al. (2003) assessed the exception of payment for hunting Similar to his 2005 study of Minnesota tolerance of wolves among 535 rural dogs injured or killed by wolves on residents and his 2003 study of Wisconsin residents using a mail-back public land, but a majority of Wisconsin residents (reported below), questionnaire (82 percent response rate). respondents of both groups supported Schanning found a substantial level of They examined the influence of compensation ‘‘even when wolves are fear of wolves among the Michigan compensation for livestock losses to no longer threatened or endangered.’’ sample. Respondents reported fear for wolves and preferences for wolf Noncontributors were more likely to their personal safety (40 percent), the management actions among different believe that wolf damages were part of safety of children (70 percent), pets (7 segments of the sample, including raising livestock and should not be percent), and livestock (66 percent). livestock producers, bear hunters, compensated.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26138 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Treves et al. (in review) report the In Wisconsin, bear hunters in 2001, wolves; those with higher education first longitudinal results for change in followed by other hunters, were most levels have more positive attitudes; and individual attitudes over time using likely to support an immediate hunt, compensation does not translate into findings from surveys conducted in whereas nonhunters in favor of wolf increased tolerance. 2001 (Naughton et al. 2003), 2004 hunting were more likely to be In several studies, hunters were (Treves et al. 2009), and 2009. During supportive when managers estimate the mostly positive toward wolves (Hook the data collection period, wolf numbers wolf population could sustain harvests and Robinson 1982, Kellert 1990, Knight nearly tripled and greatly exceeded the or when the majority of the public 1985), with the exception of Wisconsin State population goal, the level of wolf believe damages have become bear hunters who were the most depredation on pets increased and intolerable. There was a shift in 2004 negative among special interest groups became the third most frequent conflict when a majority of hunters indicated (Naughton et al. 2003). Cross-sectional after attacks on beef calves and bear- they would support wolf hunting when studies suggest increasing support for hunting dogs, and wolf management the population was deemed to be at a control of problem wolves and public authority was granted to State level that could sustain harvests. More harvest of wolves (Kellert 1985, Mertig governments and subsequently revoked nonhunters agreed with a hunt when 2004, Naughton et al. 2003), and one several times after Federal court the public felt damages had become recent study shows this support has challenges. The 2009 survey found intolerable. Inclination to kill a wolf increased among individuals re-sampled attitudes toward wolves had become illegally in Wisconsin in 2001 and 2004 over time (Treves et al., in review). less favorable, and fear of wolves, was high among hunters, particularly Some respondents indicated they had or perceived competition for deer, and among likely carnivore-hunters. These would kill a wolf illegally (Kellert 1985; reported inclination to illegally kill two groups favored a significant Treves et al., in review). wolves increased. In the 2009 survey, 18 reduction (up to half) of the Wisconsin While most respondents were positive percent of hunters indicated they would wolf population. toward wolves, it is evident that there shoot a wolf if they saw one while In addition to the studies summarized have long been competing attitudes hunting. Nearly half of respondents above, citizen input on the wolf toward wolves. While attitudes in other agreed their tolerance for wolves in management plans of Minnesota, regions have been shown to be relatively Wisconsin would increase if people Wisconsin, and Michigan has provided stable (Williams et al. 2002, Wilson and could hunt them. additional insight on public support for Bruskotter 2009), a troubling finding for Shelley et al. (in review) compared wolf recovery. Namely, it shows strong managers in the Great Lakes region is attitudes of Ojibwe Indians and support for wolf recovery if the adverse the most recent research showing nontribal residents of Wisconsin’s wolf impacts on recreational activities and declining support for wolves (Hammill range. Tribal membership was the best livestock production can be minimized 2007; Mertig 2004; Treves et al., in predictor of attitudes. Ojibwe (MI DNR 1997, pp. 13–14, 50–56; MN review) and an increasing inclination to respondents had more positive attitudes DNR 1998, p. 2; WI DNR 1999, pp. 51– kill wolves illegally (Treves et al., in toward wolves, were more supportive of 55; WI DNR 2006c, pp. 9–11). review). Possible explanations for this wolf protection policy, and were less decline include increasing wolf Summary of Public Attitudes supportive of a public wolf harvest and numbers, negative interactions with lethal control of problem wolves. A While there is a lack of empirical data humans, and negative media coverage considerable percentage (Ojibwe 33 on early attitudes toward wolves, (Hammill 2007). It is unclear how percent, nontribal 44 percent) of each historical accounts describe an delisting will affect attitudes and group indicated they would be afraid if antagonist view of wolves during the behavior toward wolves. Also in wolves lived near their homes. Fewer 19th and early 20th centuries. question is how public wolf harvest Ojibwe (8 percent) than nontribal Attitudinal research conducted might affect attitudes and behaviors. respondents (16 percent) indicated that throughout the lower 48 States in the While we do not believe the affects of they would shoot a wolf if they saw one last three decades has shown that a shift public attitudes on wolves will be a while hunting. Nontribal respondents toward more positive attitudes took significant threat to the species in the (57 percent) were more likely than place during the 20th century (Browne- foreseeable future, as the status and Ojibwe respondents (26 percent) to Nun˜ ez and Taylor 2002, Kellert et al. management of the wolf evolves, there believe that wolves threaten deer 1996, Williams et al. 2002). Although will be a need for continued hunting opportunities. Shelley et al. (in the basis for this shift is not understood, collaboration between managers and review) point out the potential suggested causes include changes in the researchers to monitor public attitudes significance of treaty rights, which grant portrayal of wolves in the media (Kellert toward wolves and their management. the Tribe half of any harvest, including et al. 1996) and a broader shift in Hybridization with Coyotes wolves, within the territories ceded by societal values of wildlife (Manfredo et them in nineteenth century Federal al. 2003). Genetic data relevant to possible treaties upheld by Federal courts in the Although direct comparisons cannot interbreeding between North American 1980s. be made of each study summarized wolves and coyotes was first reported in Treves and Martin (2011) examined here, given different research methods a study of mtDNA restriction fragment the attitudes of 2,320 respondents, and contextual circumstances, we can length polymorphisms by Lehman et al. hunters and nonhunters, living within summarize some common findings and (1991). They found mtDNA haplotypes or adjacent to wolf range in surveys general conclusions. Similar to research in wolf populations in the Great Lakes conducted in Wisconsin in 2001 and conducted outside the Great Lakes region that they interpreted as being 2004 (reported above) and the northern region (summarized in Williams et al. derived from coyotes (Lehman et al., p. Rocky Mountain (NRM) States of Idaho, 2002), many of the studies reviewed 108). As wolf haplotypes were not Montana, and Wyoming. A majority of here demonstrate urban-rural found in coyotes, the apparent respondents supported regulated, public differences in attitudes, with urban occurred through matings wolf hunting, although support was residents displaying more positive of wolf males with coyote females. They dependent on potential justifications for attitudes; farmers and livestock determined that a minimum of six a hunting season. producers are more negative toward instances of coyote-wolf hybridization

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26139

could account for the diversity of Koblmu¨ ller et al. (2009) addressed the mating (Wheeldon et al. 2010). This ‘‘coyote-type’’ haplotypes observed in issue of coyote hybridization in the suggests that there is some constraint on wolves (p. 112). Their general Great Lakes region from analyses of complete hybridization between the two interpretation was that introgression mtDNA sequence and both Y- species and that complete blending of primarily occurred as coyotes expanded chromosome and autosomal the two components of the population is their ranges into the Great Lakes region microsatellite DNA. They found not inevitable. The limited number of within historical time, although they evidence of repeated incidences of historical specimens from the western allow that two coyote-type haplotypes ancient introgression of coyotes into Great Lakes region that have been commonly observed in Great Lakes Great Lakes wolves, although they also genetically characterized all have wolves may have been the result of suggested that introgression by coyotes mtDNA indicative of C. lycaon (Leonard ancient hybridization. Their data also is recent and ongoing, especially north and Wayne 2008, pp. 2–3; Wheeldon indicated (Lehman et al., Figure 4) that of the Great Lakes. and White 2009, p. 1), but four of these coyote-type haplotypes were less Wheeldon and White (2009, p. 2) and from the early 20th century also had C. common in the western part of the Great Fain et al. (2010) concluded that the lupus Y-chromosome haplotypes, which Lakes region than in the east. coyote-related haplotype C13 is actually indicates that hybridization had Wilson et al. (2000, Figure 6, p. 2165) a C. lycaon marker based on its presence occurred by that time. The opportunity provided a different interpretation of mainly in C. lycaon-C. lupus hybrids in for hybridization between C. lycaon, wolf-coyote relationships in the region. the western Great Lakes region, the which belongs to a North American They found coyote-like mtDNA absence of C13 in non-hybridizing lineage, and C. lupus, which evolved in sequences in eastern Canadian wolves coyotes, and its occurrence in historical Eurasia, has existed since C. lupus from Algonquin Provincial Park, eastern wolves. Assessments based on entered North America about 500,000 Ontario, southern Manitoba, and mtDNA, Y-chromosome, and autosomal years ago (Kurte´n and Anderson 1980), northeastern Minnesota that were microsatellite DNA data consistently yet a predominantly C. lycaon intermediate in sequence divergence found that the wolf population in the population of wolves still persists in the between coyotes and gray wolves. As western Great Lakes region does not western Great Lakes region. these haplotypes were apparently absent currently interbreed with coyotes (Fain Hybrid indices based on the co- in coyotes, they were thought not to et al. 2010, p. 14; Wheeldon et al. 2010). occurrence of species specific mtDNA result from hybridization with coyotes, Previous reports of coyote-wolf and nuclear markers have been used to but to represent an eastern wolf species, hybridization in the WGL region were assess the depth and extent of hybrid Canis lycaon. They suggest that these based on the misidentification of zones in tiger salamanders, cutthroat Canis lycaon haplotypes may have been coyote-like haplotypes, which are now trout, red deer, and wolves (Abernathy previously reported as ‘‘coyote-type’’ in understood to be unique markers for C. 1994; Riley et al. 2003; Wheeldon and the study of Lehman et al. (1991). lycaon, as discussed above. White 2009). Wheeldon and White It is now generally agreed that Lehman et al.’s (1991, p. 114) (2009) used the mtDNA haplotype of an historical and most contemporary Great interpretation of coyote introgression individual wolf in combination with the Lakes wolves have unique mtDNA into Great Lakes wolves included an program STRUCTURE assignment of its haplotypes that are distinct from those explanation that it occurred at a time microsatellite to identify C. of other wolves, and more related to but when wolf population densities were lupus—C. lycaon hybrids in historical still distinct from those of coyotes. low in the region, so that wolves would WGL wolves. Applying this index, half Haplotypes specific to the early 20th be less likely to find mates of the same of WGL females with C. lupus mtDNA century wolf population of the western species and mating with coyotes was also exhibited high assignment to C. Great Lakes region were identified by more likely to take place. Conversely, lupus and half of WGL females with C. Leonard and Wayne (2008, pp. 2–3), Lehman et al. (1991) suggested that lycaon mtDNA were similarly assigned from a study of 17 historical specimens coyote introgression does not appear to to C. lycaon. Considering both lineage from Michigan, Wisconsin, Ontario, and occur when wolf densities are higher. If markers in males, 44 percent of males Quebec. Of the 17 specimens that gave so, the increase in population size that with C. lupus mtDNA and Y- conclusive results, 14 were either the has occurred over the last 30 years chromosome haplotypes exhibited high same or most similar to the haplotypes renders the western Great Lakes wolf assignment to C. lupus, but only 28 described by Wilson et al. (2000) as C. population less vulnerable to whatever percent of males exhibiting C. lycaon lycaon. Only one had a coyote threat may have been presented by mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplotypes haplotype. Wheeldon and White (2009) coyote introgression. The wolf also exhibited high assignment to C. reported haplotypes from three population of the region has likely been lycaon. The 8–12 microsatellite loci additional historical specimens from the exposed to this factor for centuries and typically used in studies of C. lupus— western Great Lakes region. Two has rebounded from near extirpation, C. lycaon introgression (Grewal et al. individuals from Minnesota (collected yet retains essential genetic, behavioral, 2004; Wilson et al. 2000, 2009; Fain et 1899 and 1900) had the same coyote- and other biological features of wolves al. 2010; Rutledge et al. 2010; Wheeldon like haplotypes (C13) found in a late without being displaced by coyotes. et al. 2010) can effectively estimate the 19th century specimen from Maine, 50 This fact suggests that the threat of amount of mixing at the population years before recorded coyote sightings coyote hybridization to a recovered wolf level, but not the individual level in Maine (Wilson et al. 2003), as well as population is small. (Allendorf et al. 2010). Based on the in contemporary western Great Lakes information presented in these studies, Hybridization Between C. lupus and C. wolves from Minnesota to Quebec there is no evidence showing that lycaon (Leonard and Wayne 2008, pp. 2–3). hybridization between C. lupus and C. The third specimen, collected in the Although it is clear that C. lycaon and lycaon is a threat to C. lupus. winter of 1907–08 in Wisconsin, had the C. lupus have hybridized in the western common Great Lakes wolf haplotype C1. Great Lakes region, same-species Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis Microsatellite DNA analysis of these combinations of paternal and maternal As required by the Act, we considered three specimens grouped them with markers in male wolves are more the five potential threat factors to assess wolves rather than coyotes. common than expected by random whether the wolves in the proposed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26140 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

WGL DPS are threatened or endangered foreseeable future. Finally, we believe Applying the definition described throughout all or a significant portion of that other natural or manmade factors, above for determining whether a species their range. When considering the status such as potential hybridization with is endangered or threatened in a of the species, the first step in the coyotes and public attitudes, are significant portion of its range, we first analysis is to determine whether the unlikely to threaten the wolves in the address whether any portions of the species is in danger of extinction or proposed WGL DPS in the foreseeable range of wolves in the WGL DPS likely to become endangered in the future in all portions of the range within warranted further consideration. We foreseeable future throughout all of its the DPS. evaluated the WGL DPS in the context range. We find that the threat of habitat of whether any potential remaining Human-caused mortality is the most destruction or degradation or a threats are concentrated in one or more significant issue to the long-term reduction in the range of the wolf; areas, such that if there were conservation status of the wolves in the utilization by humans; disease, concentrated impacts, those wolves proposed WGL DPS. Therefore, parasites, or predatory actions by other might be threatened, and further, managing this source of mortality (i.e., animals or humans; regulatory measures whether any such area might constitute human predation) remains the primary by State, Tribal, and Federal agencies; or a significant portion of the species challenge to maintaining a recovered other threats will not individually or in ranges. wolf population into the foreseeable combination cause wolves in the Wolves are highly adaptable habitat future. We have concluded that proposed WGL DPS to likely become generalists, and their primary biological Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan endangered within the foreseeable need is an adequate natural prey base of will maintain their share and future throughout all of the species’ large ungulates. The primary current distribution of the WGL wolf population range in the DPS. Ongoing effects of and likely future threats to wolves are above recovery levels for the foreseeable recovery efforts over the past decades, excessive human-caused mortality and future, and that the threats have been which resulted in a significant increased mortality from diseases and sufficiently reduced. All three States expansion of the occupied range of parasites. Based on the biology of the have wolf management laws, plans, and wolves in the proposed WGL DPS, in gray wolf, threats to its continued regulations that adequately regulate conjunction with future State, Tribal, existence, and conservation biology human-caused mortality. Each of the and Federal agency wolf management principles, the Recovery Plan specifies three States has committed to manage across that occupied range, will be that two populations (or what equates to its wolf population at or above viable adequate to ensure the conservation of a single metapopulation) are needed to population levels, and this commitment the proposed WGL DPS. These activities ensure long-term viability (see Recovery is not expected to change. will maintain an adequate prey base, Criteria, above). The Revised Recovery Regulatory mechanisms in all three preserve denning and rendezvous sites, Plan states the importance of a large States are adequate to facilitate the monitor disease, restrict human take, wolf population throughout Minnesota maintenance of, and in no way threaten, and keep wolf populations well above Wolf Management Zones 1 through 4 the recovered status of the wolves in the the numerical recovery criteria (geographically identical to Zone A in WGL DPS. If Federally delisted, wolves established in the Revised Recovery the 2001 Minnesota Wolf Management in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan Plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 25–28). Thus, Plan, see Figure 2 in this rule) and the would continue to receive protection the gray wolves in the proposed WGL need for a second viable wolf from general human persecution by DPS do not merit continued listing as State laws and regulations. Violation of threatened or endangered throughout all population occupying 10,000 sq mi or regulations will be subject to of their range. 5,000 sq mi elsewhere in the eastern prosecution. United States (depending on its As long as populations are maintained Is the Species Threatened or isolation from the Minnesota wolf well above minimal recovery levels, Endangered in a Significant Portion of population) (USFWS 1992, pp. 24–29). wolf biology (namely the species’ Its Range? The Recovery Plan also discusses the reproductive capacity) and the Having determined that wolves in the importance of low-road-density areas, availability of large, secure blocks of proposed WGL DPS do not meet the the importance of minimizing wolf– suitable habitat will maintain strong definition of endangered or threatened human conflicts, and the maintenance populations capable of withstanding all throughout their entire range, we must of an adequate natural prey base in the other foreseeable threats. In terms of next consider whether they are in areas hosting these two necessary wolf habitat, the amount and distribution of danger of extinction or are likely to populations. These portions of suitable habitat in public ownership become so in a significant portion of Minnesota (Management Zones 1 provides, and will continue to provide, their range. The Act does not define the through 4) and the portions of the large core areas that contain high- term ‘‘significant portion of its range.’’ proposed DPS that support the second quality habitat of sufficient size to Therefore, we must give meaning to this viable wolf population (Wisconsin anchor a recovered wolf population. phrase based on our experience and Zones 1 and 2 and the entire UP of Our analysis of land management shows expertise. We interpret a portion of a Michigan) provide an adequate wild these areas will maintain their species’ range as being significant if it prey base, suitably low levels of human- suitability into the foreseeable future, if is part of the current range of the species caused mortality, and sufficient not indefinitely. (species used here is as defined in the representation, resiliency, and While disease and parasites can Act, to include species, subspecies, or redundancy to buffer the impacts of temporarily impact population stability, DPS) and if it is important to the disease and parasite-induced mortality as long as populations are managed conservation of the species because it (See the discussion under Recovery above recovery levels, these factors are contributes meaningfully to the Criteria, above) regarding how achieving not likely to threaten the wolf representation, resiliency, or the goals of the Recovery Plan for the population at any point in the redundancy of the species. The Eastern Timber Wolf assures a viable foreseeable future. Natural predation is contribution must be at a level such that wolf population in terms of also likely to remain an insignificant its loss would result in a decrease in the representation, resiliency, and factor in population dynamics into the ability to conserve the species. redundancy).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26141

Post-delisting wolf protection, Proposed Western Great Lakes DPS, Proposed Determination management, and population and health above, for additional discussion). While After a thorough review of all monitoring by the States, Tribes, and the UP wolves may be significant to any available information and an evaluation Federal land management agencies will LP wolf population (occasional UP to LP of the five factors specified in section ensure the continuation of viable wolf movements may provide important 4(a)(1) of the Act, as well as populations above the Federal recovery genetic and demographic augmentation consideration of the definitions of criteria for the foreseeable future. This crucial to a small population founded ‘‘threatened’’ and ‘‘endangered’’ is particularly true in Minnesota Zone by only a few individuals), the reverse contained in the Act and the reasons for A, Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2, and across will not be true—LP wolves would not delisting as specified in 50 CFR the UP of Michigan, because the State be important to the wolf population in 424.11(d), we propose that revising the management plans provide for greater the UP, as that population is already boundary of the 1978 Minnesota gray protections for the species in that area large enough in size and range to be self- wolf listing and removing the WGL DPS (see the discussion of the three plans in sustaining. of gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the List State Wolf Management Planning, of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife above). The lack of sufficient areas of suitable Post-delisting threats to wolves in habitat in those parts of North Dakota, (50 CFR 17.11) is appropriate. Wolves Zone B in Minnesota, Zones 3 and 4 in South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, have recovered in the proposed WGL Wisconsin, and in the Lower Peninsula and Ohio that are within the proposed DPS as a result of the reduction of of Michigan will be more substantial, WGL DPS are expected to preclude the threats as described in the analysis of and may preclude the establishment of establishment of viable populations in the five categories of threats and no wolf packs in most or all of these areas these areas, although dispersing wolves longer are in danger of extinction, nor in Wisconsin and Michigan. The and packs may temporarily occur in are likely to become so in the Recovery Plan f specifically some of these areas. As a result, wolf foreseeable future, throughout all or a recommends against managing wolves numbers in these areas will have no significant portion of their range. in large areas of unsuitable habitat, impact on the continued viability of We recognize recent taxonomic stating that Minnesota Zone 5 (identical wolves in the proposed WGL DPS, and information indicating that the gray to Minnesota Wolf Management Zone B, are not necessary to maintain adequate wolf subspecies Canis lupus lycaon Figure 2) should be managed with a goal representation, resiliency, and should be elevated to the full species C. of zero wolves there, because ‘‘Zone 5 is redundancy for wolves in the proposed lycaon. Additionally, we acknowledge not suitable for wolves. Wolves found DPS. evidence that C. lycaon intercrosses with C. lupus in the western Great Lakes there should be eliminated by any legal In conclusion, Minnesota Zone A, means’’ (USFWS 1992, p 20). Therefore, region, resulting in a mixed population Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2, and the UP composed of C. lupus, C. lycaon, and the Recovery Plan views Zone 5, which of Michigan provide an adequate wild is roughly 60 percent of the State, as not their hybrids. As discussed under prey base, suitably low levels of human- Procedural Aspects of Proposal an important part of the range of the caused mortality, and sufficient wolf. This portion of the State is Applying to the Gray Wolf above, the numbers and distribution of wolves to procedural aspects of this proposed rule predominantly agricultural land, with ensure adequate representation, high road densities, and high potential refer to the gray wolf (C. lupus), because resiliency, and redundancy to buffer the that is the named entity currently on the for wolves to depredate on livestock. impacts of disease and parasite-induced Although individual wolves and some List of Endangered and Threatened mortality. Post-delisting wolf protection, Wildlife. Our proposed action here is to wolf packs occupy parts of Zone 5, these management, and population and health wolves are using habitat islands or are establish the existence of a WGL distinct monitoring by the States, Tribes, and population segment of C. lupus that is existing in other situations where Federal land management agencies will conditions generally are not conducive neither endangered nor threatened, ensure the continuation of viable wolf despite its proximity to a closely related to their long-term persistence. populations in those areas above the The northern LP of Michigan appears species, C. lycaon—a species whose recovery criteria established in the to have the only unoccupied potentially status we will evaluate for possible Recovery Plan for the foreseeable future. suitable wolf habitat in the Midwest that protection under the Act in the near is of sufficient size to maintain wolf In coming to this determination, we future. packs (Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1239; considered the quality, quantity, and Because C. lycaon was recently Potvin 2003, pp. 44–45), although its distribution of the habitat relative to the recognized as a unique species (rather small size and fragmented nature may biological needs of the species, the need than a subspecies of C. lupus), a mean that northern LP wolf population to maintain the remaining genetic complete status review of this species viability would be dependent upon diversity, the importance of geographic has never been conducted. Therefore, continuing immigration from the UP. distribution in coping with catastrophes we are initiating a status review for C. The only part of Michigan’s LP that may such as disease, the ability of the habitat lycaon throughout its range in the contain suitable habitat are those areas to provide adequate wild prey, and the United States and Canada. of fragmented habitat studied by Potvin need to otherwise meet the conservation We also are proposing to revise the (2003, pp. 44–45) and Gehring and needs of the species. Reasonably range of the gray wolf (the species C. Potter (2005, p. 1239). However, these foreseeable threats to wolves in all parts lupus) by removing all or parts of 29 areas amount to less than half of the of the proposed WGL DPS are not likely states (see Effects of the Rule, below) minimal area identified by the Recovery to threaten wolf population viability in because this area is outside of the Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf as the WGL DPS in the foreseeable future. currently known historical range of the needed for the establishment of viable Therefore, we find that wolves in the gray wolf (see Taxonomy and Historical populations. These LP areas therefore WGL DPS are not in danger of Ranges of Wolves in the United States). might have difficulty maintaining wolf extinction and are not likely to become These areas should not have been populations even with the help of endangered in the foreseeable future included in the original listing of the occasional immigration of wolves from throughout all or a significant portion of gray wolf because gray wolves did not the UP (see Suitable Habitat Within the their range. historically occur there; they were either

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26142 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

red wolf (C. rufus) range or eastern wolf Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North responsibilities for the species’ (C. lycaon) range. Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, conservation, after delisting. Florida, Ohio (the part outside WGL We developed a PDM plan for the Available Conservation Measures DPS), West Virginia, Kentucky, wolves in the proposed WGL DPS with Conservation measures provided to Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, the assistance of the Eastern Wolf species listed as endangered or Louisiana, Texas (east of Interstate Recovery Team. That document is threatened under the Act include Highway 35), Oklahoma (east of available on our Web site (see FOR recognition, recovery actions, Interstate Highway 35 and southeast of FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). requirements for Federal protection, and Interstate Highway 44 north of The PDM program will rely on a prohibitions against certain practices. Oklahoma City), Arkansas, Missouri continuation of State monitoring Recognition through listing encourages (southeast of Interstate Highway 44 and activities, similar to those which have and results in conservation actions by southeast of Interstate Highway 70 east been conducted by Minnesota, Federal, State, Tribal, and private of St. Louis), Indiana (the part outside Wisconsin, and Michigan DNR’s in agencies, groups, and individuals. The WGL DPS), and Illinois (the part outside recent years, and Tribal monitoring. Act provides for possible land WGL DPS)) because this area is outside Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan acquisition and cooperation with the of the currently known historical range comprise the core recovery areas within States and requires that recovery actions of the gray wolf. the DPS, and, therefore, the numerical be carried out for all listed species. This recovery criteria in the Recovery Plan We also note that this proposed rule proposed rule, if made final, would apply only to the area encompassed by initiates a 5-year status review and remove these Federal conservation these States’ boundaries. These request information for wolves in the measures for gray wolves within the activities will include both population western United States, which may proposed WGL DPS. and health monitoring of individual inform future rulemakings to replace the wolves. During the PDM period, the Effects of the Rule remainder of the revised lower 48-State Service and the Recovery Team will listing with more targeted regional units This proposal, if made final, would conduct a review of the monitoring data (as discussed above under National revise the pre-DPS policy Minnesota and program. We will consider various Wolf Strategy). This proposed rule does ‘‘species’’ listing and establish it as a relevant factors (including but not WGL DPS of the gray wolf (C. lupus), not apply to the separate listing and limited to mortality rates, population expand the boundaries of that DPS, and protection of the red wolf (C. rufus). changes and rates of change, disease remove the protections of the Act for Furthermore, the remaining protections occurrence, range expansion or that WGL DPS by removing the gray of the gray wolf under the Act do not contraction) to determine if the wolf wolves in that DPS from the List extend to gray wolf-dog hybrids. population of wolves within the DPS of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Post-Delisting Monitoring warrants expanded monitoring, This proposal, if made final, would additional research, consideration for remove the special regulations under Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in relisting as threatened or endangered, or section 4(d) of the Act for wolves in the 1988 reauthorization, requires us to emergency listing. Minnesota. These regulations currently implement a system, in cooperation Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan are found at 50 CFR 17.40(d). with the States, to monitor for not less DNRs have monitored wolves for several Critical habitat was designated for the than 5 years the status of all species that decades with significant assistance from gray wolf in 1978 (43 FR 9607, March have recovered and been removed from numerous partners, including the U.S. 9, 1978). That rule (codified at 50 CFR the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Forest Service, National Park Service, 17.95(a)) identifies Isle Royale National Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and USDA–APHIS–Wildlife Services, Tribal Park, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf 17.12). The purpose of this post- natural resource agencies, and the management zones 1, 2, and 3, as delisting monitoring (PDM) is to verify Service. To maximize comparability of delineated in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(1), as that a species delisted due to recovery future PDM data with data obtained critical habitat. Wolf management zones remains secure from risk of extinction before delisting, all three State DNRs 1, 2, and 3 comprise approximately after it no longer has the protections of have committed to continue their 25,500 sq km (9,845 sq mi) in the Act. To do this, PDM generally previous wolf population monitoring northeastern and north-central focuses on evaluating (1) demographic methodology, or will make changes to Minnesota. This proposal, if made final, characteristics of the species, (2) threats that methodology only if those changes would remove the designation of critical to the species, and (3) implementation will not reduce the comparability of pre- habitat for gray wolves in Minnesota of legal and/or management and post-delisting data. and on Isle Royale, Michigan. commitments that have been identified In addition to monitoring wolf As described in the Taxonomy and as important in reducing threats to the population numbers and trends, the Historical Ranges of Wolves in the species or maintaining threats at PDM will evaluate post-delisting United States section above, the species’ sufficiently low levels. We are to make threats, in particular human-caused historical range did not extend into prompt use of the emergency listing mortality, disease, and implementation many southern and eastern States. authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the of legal and management commitments. Therefore, our 1978 listing of the gray Act to prevent a significant risk to the If at any time during the monitoring wolf throughout the 48 States and well-being of any recovered species. period we detect a substantial Mexico was partially in error. This Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly downward change in the populations or proposed rule, if made final, would requires cooperation with the States in an increase in threats to the degree that revise the geographic boundaries for the development and implementation of population viability may be threatened, gray wolf as described in the 1978 PDM programs, but we remain we will work with the States and Tribes listing by removing all or parts of 29 responsible for compliance with section to evaluate and change (intensify, southern and eastern states (Maine, 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively extend, and/or otherwise improve) the Massachusetts, Connecticut, New engaged in all phases of PDM. We also monitoring methods, if appropriate, Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, will seek active participation of other and/or consider relisting the WGL DPS, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, entities that are expected to assume if warranted.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26143

This monitoring program will extend a collection of information is addressed requested, we will conduct additional for 5 years beyond the effective delisting by the agency within any 12-month consultations with Native American date of the DPS. At the end of the 5-year period. For purposes of this definition, Tribes and multitribal organizations period, we and the Recovery Team will employees of the Federal Government subsequent to any final rule in order to conduct another review and post the are not included. The Service may not facilitate the transition to State and results on our Web site. In addition to conduct or sponsor, and you are not Tribal management of wolves within the the above considerations, the review required to respond to, a collection of proposed WGL DPS. We will fully will determine whether the PDM information unless it displays a consider all of the comments on the program should be terminated or currently valid OMB control number. proposed rule that are submitted by extended. This proposal does not include any Tribes and Tribal members during the collections of information that require public comment period and will attempt Required Determinations approval by OMB under the Paperwork to address those concerns, new data, Clarity of the Rule Reduction Act. As proposed under the and new information where appropriate. Post-delisting Monitoring above, wolf Executive Order 12866 requires populations in the Western Great Lakes References Cited agencies to write regulations that are DPS will be monitored by the States of A complete list of all references cited easy to understand. We invite your Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in in this document is available upon comments on how to make this proposal accordance with their wolf State request from the Ft. Snelling, easier to understand including answers management plans. There may also be Minnesota, Regional Office and is to questions such as the following: (1) additional voluntary monitoring posted on our Web site (see FOR FURTHER Is the discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY activities conducted by a small number INFORMATION CONTACT). INFORMATION section of the preamble of Tribes in these three States. We do helpful to your understanding of the not anticipate a need to request data or Data Quality Act proposal? (2) Does the proposal contain other information from 10 or more In developing this rule we did not technical language or jargon that persons during any 12-month period to conduct or use a study, experiment, or interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the satisfy monitoring information needs. If survey requiring peer review under the format of the proposal (groupings and it becomes necessary to collect Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554). order of sections, use of headings, standardized information from 10 or Authors paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its more non-Federal individuals, groups, clarity? What else could we do to make or organizations per year, we will first The primary authors of this proposed the proposal easier to understand? Send obtain information collection approval rule are the staff members of the Ft. a copy of any comments on how we from OMB. Snelling, Minnesota, Regional Office could make this rule easier to (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), understand to: Office of Regulatory Government-to-Government with contributions from staff from Affairs, Department of the Interior, Relationship With Tribes Service Regions 2, 4, and 5. Staff from Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., In accordance with the President’s the Michigan DNR, Minnesota DNR, and Washington, DC 20240. You may also e- memorandum of April 29, 1994, Wisconsin DNR provided current mail the comments to this address: Government-to-Government Relations information regarding wolves in their [email protected]. with Native American Tribal States. Staff from the Nelson Institute Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, for Environmental Studies at the National Environmental Policy Act and the Department of the Interior’s University of Wisconsin-Madison We have determined that an manual at 512 DM 2, we readily compiled the current data on public environmental assessment or an acknowledge our responsibility to attitudes toward the wolf. environmental impact statement, as communicate meaningfully with defined under the authority of the recognized Federal Tribes on a List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 National Environmental Policy Act of government-to-government basis. In Endangered and threatened species, 1969, need not be prepared in accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 Exports, Imports, Reporting and connection with regulations adopted of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal recordkeeping requirements, pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Transportation. Responsibilities, and the Endangered published a notice outlining our reasons Proposed Regulation Promulgation for this determination in the Federal Species Act), we readily acknowledge Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR our responsibilities to work directly Accordingly, we hereby propose to 49244). with Tribes in developing programs for amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Paperwork Reduction Act Tribal lands are not subject to the same Regulations, as set forth below: Office of Management and Budget controls as Federal public lands, to (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 remain sensitive to Indian culture, and PART 17—[AMENDED] implement provisions of the Paperwork to make information available to Tribes. 1. The authority citation for part 17 Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We have coordinated the proposed rule continues to read as follows: The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) with the affected Tribes and, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. define a collection of information as the furthermore, throughout several years of 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– obtaining of information by or for an development of earlier related rules and 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. agency by means of identical questions this proposed rule, we have endeavored posed to, or identical reporting, to consult with Native American Tribes § 17.11 [Amended] recordkeeping, or disclosure and Native American organizations in 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the requirements imposed on, 10 or more order to both (1) provide them with a entry for ‘‘Wolf, gray’’ under persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR complete understanding of the proposed ‘‘MAMMALS’’ in the List of Endangered 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ‘‘ten or more changes, and (2) to understand their and Threatened Wildlife to read as persons’’ refers to the persons to whom concerns with those changes. If follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:49 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 26144 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened (h) * * * wildlife. * * * * *

Species Vertebrate population where Critical Special Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules Common name Scientific name threatened

MAMMALS

******* Wolf, gray ...... Canis lupus ...... Holarctic ...... U.S.A.: All of CA, E 1, 6, 13, 15, N/A N/A CO, KS, NE, NV, 35 OR, UT, and WA; those portions of AZ, NM, TX, ID, MT, and WY not included in an ex- perimental popu- lation as set forth below; and por- tions of IA, MO, ND, OK, SD, and TX as follows: (1) Southern IA, (that portion south of the centerline of Highway 80); (2) Northwestern MO (that portion northwest of the centerline of Inter- state Highway 44 and northwest of the centerline of Interstate High- way 70 east of St. Louis); ...... (3) Western ND (that portion south and west of the Missouri River up- stream to Lake Sakakawea and west of the cen- terline of Highway 83 from Lake Sakakawea to the Canadian border); ...... (4) Western OK (that portion west of the centerline of Interstate High- way 35 and north- west of the cen- terline of Inter- state Highway 44 north of Okla- homa City); ...... (5) Western SD (that portion south and west of the Missouri River); and ...... (6) Western TX (that portion west of the centerline of Interstate High- way 35). Mexico. Do ...... do ...... do ...... U.S.A. (portions of XN 631 N/A 17.84(k) AZ, NM, and TX—see § 17.84(k)).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:20 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26145

Species Vertebrate population where Critical Special Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules Common name Scientific name threatened

Do ...... do ...... do ...... U.S.A. (portions of XN 561, 562 N/A 17.84(i), ID, MT, and WY— 17.84(n). see § 17.84(i)).

*******

§ 17.40 [Amended] § 17.95 [Amended] Dated: April 12, 2011. 3. Amend § 17.40 by removing and 4. Amend § 17.95(a) by removing the Rowan W. Gould, reserving paragraph (d). critical habitat entry for ‘‘Gray Wolf Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Canis lupus).’’ [FR Doc. 2011–9557 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:20 May 04, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\05MYP3.SGM 05MYP3 emcdonald on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3