Vol. 76 Wednesday, No. 249 December 28, 2011

Part III

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revising the Listing of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in the Western Great Lakes; Final rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81666 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR www.regulations.gov at Docket No. connected, and that subspecies FWS–R3–ES–2011–0029, or by boundaries were thus malleable. Fish and Wildlife Service appointment, during normal business However, the 1978 rule also stated hours at the following Ecological that ‘‘biological subspecies would 50 CFR Part 17 Services offices: continue to be maintained and dealt [Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2011–0029; • Twin Cities, Minnesota Ecological with as separate entities’’ (43 FR 9609), FXES11130900000C6–123–FF09E32000] Services Field Office, 4101 American and offered ‘‘the firmest assurance that [the Service] will continue to recognize RIN 1018–AX57 Blvd. E., Bloomington, MN; (612) 725–3548. valid biological subspecies for purposes Endangered and Threatened Wildlife • Green Bay, Wisconsin Ecological of its research and conservation and Plants; Revising the Listing of the Services Field Office, 2661 Scott programs’’ (43 FR 9610, March 9, 1978). Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in the Western Tower Dr., New Franken, WI; (920) Accordingly, recovery plans were Great Lakes 866–1717. developed for the wolf populations in • East Lansing, Michigan Ecological the following regions of the United AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Services Field Office, 2651 Coolidge States: the northern Rocky Mountains in Interior. Road, Suite 101, East Lansing, MI; 1980, revised in 1987; the eastern U.S. ACTION: Final rule. (517) 351–2555. in 1978, revised in 1992; and the Southwest in 1982, the revision of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and which is now under way. Laura Ragan, (612) 713–5350. Direct all Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) are In the 1978 rule, we also identified questions or requests for additional revising the 1978 listing of the Isle Royale National Park, Michigan, information to: GRAY WOLF Minnesota population of gray wolves and Minnesota wolf management zones QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife (Canis lupus) to conform to current 1, 2, and 3, as critical habitat. We also Service, 5600 American Boulevard statutory and policy requirements. We promulgated special regulations under West, Suite 990, Bloomington, rename what was previously listed as section 4(d) of the Act for operating a Minnesota 55437. Additional the Minnesota population of the gray wolf management program in Minnesota information is also available on our Web wolf as the Western Great Lakes (WGL) at that time. The depredation control site at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ Distinct Population Segment (DPS), and portion of the special regulation was wolf. Individuals who are hearing- delineate the boundaries of the later modified (50 FR 50793; December impaired or speech-impaired may call expanded Minnesota population 12, 1985); these special regulations are the Federal Relay Service at 1–(800) segment to include all of Minnesota, found in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(2). 877–8337 for TTY assistance. Wisconsin, and Michigan and portions On April 1, 2003, we published a final of the adjacent states. We are removing SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: rule revising the listing status of the the WGL DPS from the List of Background gray wolf across most of the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. conterminous United States (68 FR We are taking this action because the Previous Federal Actions for WGL 15804). Within that rule, we identified best available scientific and commercial Wolves three DPSs for the gray wolf, including information indicates that the WGL DPS The eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus an Eastern DPS, which was reclassified does not meet the definitions of lycaon) was listed as endangered in from endangered to threatened, except threatened or endangered under the Act. Minnesota and Michigan in the first list where already classified as threatened. This final rule also removes the of species that were protected under the In addition, we established a second designated critical habitat for the wolf 1973 Act, published in May 1974 (USDI section 4(d) rule that applied provisions in Minnesota and Michigan and the 1974). On March 9, 1978, we published similar to those previously in effect in special regulations under section 4(d) of a rule (43 FR 9607) reclassifying the Minnesota to most of the Eastern DPS. the Act for wolves in Minnesota. gray wolf at the species level (Canis The special rule was codified in 50 CFR We are separating our determination lupus) as endangered throughout the 17.40(o). on the delisting of the Western Great conterminous 48 States and Mexico, U.S. District Court rulings in Oregon Lakes DPS from the determination on except for the Minnesota population, and Vermont on January 31, 2005, and our proposal regarding all or portions of which we classified to threatened. The August 19, 2005, respectively, the 29 eastern States we considered to separate subspecies listings, including invalidated the April 1, 2003, final rule. be outside the historical range of the C. l. lycaon, thus were subsumed into Consequently, the status of gray wolves gray wolf. This rule finalizes our the listings for the gray wolf in outside of Minnesota reverted back to determination for the WGL DPS. A Minnesota and the gray wolf in the rest endangered status, as had been the case subsequent decision will be made for of the conterminous United States and prior to the 2003 reclassification. The the rest of the eastern United States. Mexico. We considered the Minnesota courts also invalidated the three DPSs DATES: This rule becomes effective on group of gray wolves to be a listable identified in the April 1, 2003, rule, as January 27, 2012. entity under the Act, and listed it as well as the associated special ADDRESSES: This final rule is available threatened; we considered the gray wolf regulations. on the Internet at http:// group in Mexico and the 48 On March 27, 2006, we published a www.regulations.gov and at the U.S. conterminous States other than proposal (71 FR 15266–15305) to Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Minnesota to be another listable entity, identify a WGL DPS of the gray wolf, to Regional Office, 5600 American and listed it as endangered (43 FR 9607, remove the WGL DPS from the Boulevard West, Suite 990, 9610, respectively, March 9, 1978). This protections of the Act, to remove Bloomington, Minnesota 55437. reclassification was undertaken because designated critical habitat for the gray Comments and materials we received, as of uncertainty about the taxonomic wolf in Minnesota and Michigan, and to well as supporting documentation we validity of some of the previously listed remove special regulations for the gray used in preparing this final rule, are subspecies and because we recognized wolf in Minnesota. The proposal was available for public inspection on http:// that wolf populations were historically followed by a 90-day comment period,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81667

during which we held four public of Natural Resources requesting that the Conformance With the Act’s Definition hearings on the proposal. gray wolf in Minnesota be removed from of Species On February 8, 2007, the Service the List of Endangered or Threatened issued a rule that identified and delisted Wildlife under the Act. Likewise, on Given the assurances we provided in the 1978 Canis lupus listing that we the WGL DPS of the gray wolf (Canis April 26, 2010, we received a petition would continue to treat gray wolf lupus) (72 FR 6052). Three parties from the Wisconsin Department of subspecies as separate entities for challenged this rule (Humane Society of Natural Resources requesting that the conservation purposes (as noted in the United States v. Kempthorne, 579 F. gray wolf in Minnesota and Wisconsin Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008)), and on Previous Federal Actions for WGL be delisted. On April 26, 2010, we September 29, 2008, the court ruled in Wolves, above), we identified a need to received a petition from the Sportsmen’s favor of the plaintiffs and vacated the reconsider the listing in light of current rule and remanded it to the Service. Alliance, representing five other statutory and policy standards regarding On December 11, 2008, we published organizations, requesting that gray the Act’s definition of species. The Act a notice reinstating protections for the wolves in the Great Lakes area be provides for listing at various taxonomic gray wolf in the western Great Lakes delisted. On June 17, 2010, we received and subtaxonomic levels through its (and northern Rocky Mountains) a petition from Safari Club definition of ‘‘species’’ in section 3(16): pursuant to court orders (73 FR 75356). International, Safari Club International The term species includes any On April 2, 2009, we published a final Foundation, and the National Rifle subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, rule identifying the western Great Lakes Association of America requesting that and any distinct population segment of populations of gray wolves as a DPS and wolves of the western Great Lakes be any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife revising the List of Endangered and delisted. In response to those four which interbreeds when mature (16 Threatened Wildlife by removing the petitions, on September 14, 2010, we U.S.C. 1532(16). As a matter of DPS from that list (74 FR 15070). We published a 90-day finding determining procedure, then, the Service determines did not seek additional public comment that the petitions presented substantial whether it is most appropriate to list an on the 2009 final rule. On June 15, 2009, information that delisting may be entity as a full species, a subspecies, or five parties filed a complaint against the warranted and reinitiated a full status a DPS of either a species or subspecies. Department and the Service alleging review. The gray wolf has a Holarctic range; the that we violated the Act, the current listing encompasses the United Administrative Procedure Act (APA), We published a proposal to revise the States-Mexico segment of the range and and the court’s remand order by List of Endangered and Threatened consists, in turn, of multiple entities. publishing the 2009 final rule (74 FR Wildlife for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) The specific provision for listing 15070). On July 2, 2009, pursuant to a in the eastern United States and to distinct population segments of settlement agreement between the initiate status reviews for the gray wolf vertebrates was enacted through the parties, the court issued an order and for the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon) 1978 amendments to the Act (Pub. L. remanding and vacating the 2009 final on May 5, 2011 (76 FR 26806). On 95–362, November 10, 1978); these rule. August 26, 2011, we published a notice On March 1, 2000, we received a amendments replaced the ability to list (76 FR 53379) reopening the public ‘‘populations’’ with the ability to list petition from Mr. Lawrence Krak of comment period on the May 5, 2011, Gilman, Wisconsin, and on June 28, ‘‘distinct population segments’’ and proposal. We reopened the comment treat them as ‘‘species’’ under the Act. 2000, we received a petition from the period to allow for additional public Minnesota Conservation Federation. Mr. To interpret and implement the 1978 review and the inclusion of any new Krak’s petition requested the delisting of DPS amendment, the Service and the gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, information, specifically concerning National Marine Fisheries Service and Michigan. The Minnesota North American wolf taxonomy. That jointly published the Policy Regarding Conservation Federation requested the notice also informed the public that we the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate delisting of gray wolves in a Western were considering issuing separate final Population Segments Under the Great Lakes DPS. Because the data rules for our final determinations on the Endangered Species Act (DPS policy) reviews resulting from the processing of proposed delisting of the Western Great (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), setting these petitions would be a subset of the Lakes DPS and the proposed policy standards for designating review begun by our July 13, 2000, determination regarding all or portions populations as ‘‘distinct.’’ proposal (65 FR 43450) to revise the of the 29 States considered to be outside The March 1978 gray wolf listing current listing of the wolf across most of the historical range of the gray wolf. On predated the November 1978 the conterminous United States, we did September 19, 2011, the Service amendments to the Act. Although the not initiate separate reviews in response published a notice (76 FR 57943) 1978 rule lists two C. lupus entities, i.e., to those two petitions. While we informing the public that the endangered and threatened entities addressed these petitions in our supplementary materials were available. described above, these listings were not February 8, 2007, final rule (72 FR In recognition of intellectual property predicated upon a formal DPS analysis 6052), this rule was vacated by the right laws, the manuscript made and do not comport with current policy subsequent District Court ruling. While available on August 26 provided readers standards. Nonetheless, subsequent we view our actions on these petitions with references to the sources of several recovery plans and all gray wolf as final upon publication of the Federal copyrighted figures, but did not include rulemakings since 1996 have focused on Register determinations, we the figures themselves. The Service units reflective of the evident intent of nevertheless restate our 90-day findings subsequently obtained approval to the 1978 rule to manage and recover the different gray wolf groups covered by that the action requested by each of the include all copyrighted figures in the petitions may be warranted, as well as the 1978 listings as ’’separate entities’’ manuscript and on September 7, 2011, our 12-month finding that the action (43 FR 9609), i.e., subspecies or uploaded a complete copy of the requested by each petition is warranted. populations. This rule revises the 1978 On March 15, 2010, we received a manuscript to http:// threatened listing to bring that listing in petition from the Minnesota Department www.regulations.gov. line, insofar as possible, with the Act’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81668 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

requirements and current policy classification was primarily based on both ancient and recent incidences of standards. statistical analysis of measurements of interbreeding with coyotes and western skull features. He considered gray gray wolves, Great Lakes wolves remain Wolf Taxonomy in the Western Great wolves that historically occupied morphologically distinct and represent a Lakes Region Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota to ‘‘distinct taxon’’ of gray wolf (Canis The taxonomic status of the wolves in be within the range of C. l. nubilus. lupus) that is adapted to the region. the western Great Lakes region has long Based on analysis of additional They do not, however, conclude that been debated. They have been specimens, Nowak (2002, p. 119; 2003; this taxon is differentiated enough to be considered a subspecies of gray wolf, 2009, p. 238) continued to recognize recognized as a species separate from Canis lupus lycaon (Goldman 1944; Hall western Great Lakes wolves as C. l. gray wolves, as proposed by Wilson et and Kelson 1959); a second subspecies nubilus, but noted that historical al. (2000). of gray wolves, Canis lupus nubilis specimens from the Upper Peninsula Several recent studies conclude that (Nowak 1995, 2002, 2003); a Canis (UP) of Michigan were somewhat the eastern wolf is a unique species and lupus population that has been transitional between the two subspecies. should be recognized as C. lycaon influenced by interbreeding with Leonard and Wayne (2008, pp. 2–3) (Wheeldon and White 2009; Wilson et coyotes (Lehman et al. 1991, Koblmu¨ ller have reported on maternally inherited al. 2009; Fain et al. 2010, p. 15; et al. 2009; vonHoldt et al. 2011); mtDNA sequence haplotypes (DNA Wheeldon et al. 2010). Wheeldon and members of a full species Canis lycaon sequences or groups of alleles of White (2009, pp. 3–4) state that both the (or eastern wolf) that is considered different genes on a single chromosome present-day and pre-recovery wolf separate from Canis lupus (Wilson et al. that are inherited together as a single populations in the western Great Lakes 2000; Baker et al. 2003); possibly the unit) from historical (‘‘prerecovery’’) region are genetically similar and that same species as the red wolf, C. rufus wolves from Ontario, Quebec, Michigan, both were derived from hybridization (Wilson et al. 2000); the result of and Wisconsin compared with the between C. lupus and the eastern wolf, hybridization between C. rufus and C. recent population of the area. Their C. lycaon. Fain et al. (2010, p. 10) lupus (Nowak 2002, 2003, 2009); and as interpretation of these results is that the recognize C. lycaon as a unique species a mixed population of C. lupus, C. 6 unique haplotypes) identified in 15 of North American wolf, and based on lycaon, and their intercrosses (hybrids) historical individuals indicate that the mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplotypes (Wheeldon and White 2009; Fain et al. pre-recovery population was ‘‘an and autosomal microsatellite markers, 2010; Wheeldon et al. 2010). These endemic American wolf,’’ which they they establish that the population of varying interpretations of the taxonomic call ‘‘the Great Lakes wolf’’ (p. 1). wolves in the western Great Lakes status of western Great Lakes wolves are However, only the two haplotypes most region comprise C. lupus, C. lycaon, and summarized, respectively, below. common in the historical sample still their hybrids. Contrary to Koblmu¨ ller et Wolves in Michigan, Wisconsin, and occur in the modern wolf population of al. (2009), Fain et al. (2010, p. 14) found eastern Minnesota were considered by the western Great Lakes area. Leonard no evidence of interbreeding with Goldman (1944, p. 437 and Figure 14) and Wayne (2008) conclude that the coyotes. Furthermore, they conclude to be within the range of the subspecies modern population does not contain the that the western Great Lakes States were Canis lupus lycaon. Goldman based his diversity of Great Lakes wolf haplotypes included in the historical range of C. classification on variation in body size found in the prerecovery population lycaon and that hybridization between and proportions, and in pelage (coat) and that the current population is the two species ‘‘predates significant color. According to Goldman, this was primarily a mixture of Canis lupus and human intervention’’ (Fain et al. 2010, the subspecies of gray wolf historically coyote hybrids, with minor influence pp. 13–14). found across a wide range east of the from the endemic Great Lakes wolf (p. Wheeldon et al. (2010, p. 2) used Mississippi River in the United States 3). multiple genetic markers in an attempt and in southeastern Canada. Wolves Koblmu¨ ller et al. (2009) examined to clarify the taxonomic status of Canis immediately to the west of the wolves from the Great Lakes region species in the western Great Lakes Mississippi River were considered to be (they do not separate between the region of Minnesota, Wisconsin, part of the subspecies Canis lupus western and eastern Great Lakes) using Michigan, and western Ontario. They nubilus. This taxonomic interpretation three types of genetic markers: mtDNA; conclude that the current western Great was followed by Hall and Kelson (1959, Y-chromosome haplotypes based on Lakes wolf population is ‘‘composed of p. 849) and Hall (1981, p. 932). microsatellite DNA loci on the Y- gray-eastern wolf hybrids that probably Based on a study of DNA variation in chromosome, which is a paternally resulted from historic hybridization North American wolves, Wilson et al. inherited marker; and autosomal between the parental species’’ (2000, p. 2165) proposed that the microsatellite DNA, which provides (Wheeldon et al. 2010, p. 10), and that taxonomic standing of eastern wolves be information on recent and ongoing the appropriate taxonomic designation elevated to full species as Canis lycaon. interactions among populations rather for the western Great Lakes hybrid They found that eastern wolves were than evolutionary lineage information. wolves is C. lupus × lycaon. divergent from Canis lupus in both The historical sample from Minnesota Recently, vonHoldt et al. (2011) mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and was found to exhibit a third Great Lakes examined single nucleotide autosomal microsatellite DNA wolf mtDNA haplotype that is common polymorphisms (SNPs) to investigate composition. They considered the in the modern population. However, the the genetic distinctiveness of North geographic range of C. lycaon as Y-chromosome haplotypes identified in American canids. They conclude that extending west across the Great Lakes the historical sample were more similar wolves from the Great Lakes region are region to Minnesota and Manitoba. to those of western gray wolves, the product of low-level hybridization Nowak’s (2002, p. 119; 2003, p. 243) suggesting that interbreeding between between coyotes and C. lupus that likely revision of the subspecies taxonomy Great Lakes wolves and western gray occurred prior to the recent invasion of reduced the range of C. l. lycaon to wolves had taken place before 1910, the coyotes into the area and found no southern Ontario and Quebec and year of collection. evidence that C. lycaon exists as a northern portions of New York, Koblmu¨ ller et al. (2009) conclude distinct species (vonHoldt et al. 2011, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Nowak’s that, despite what they consider to be pp. 8–9). They further find that Great

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81669

Lakes wolves are genetically distinct reconsider our proposed interpretation. identified as a DPS. Then a third factor, from other North American gray wolves While Chambers et al. (in prep.) provide the DPS’s conservation status, is and coyotes, but to what degree remains a scientific basis for arguing the evaluated in relation to the Act’s controversial (vonHoldt et al. 2011, p. existence of eastern wolves as a distinct standards for listing, delisting, or 8). This study represents a new system species, this represents neither a reclassification, meaning that we for genetic testing using the whole scientific consensus nor the majority undertake an analysis to determine genome of organisms. This new genetic opinion of researchers on the taxonomy whether the DPS is endangered or testing system using SNPs promises to of wolves, as others continue to argue threatened or does not meet the criteria open new opportunities for studying the that eastern wolves are forms of gray for listing. All three steps are necessary ancestry and relatedness of canid wolves (Koblmu¨ ller et al. 2009, components of a complete DPS analysis. populations. vonHoldt et al. 2011). In light of the Past Practice and History of Using DPSs Chambers et al. (2011, in prep.) ongoing scientific debate, and the lack conducted a review of the available of clear resolution concerning the As of December 8, 2011, of the 388 scientific literature to assess the taxonomy of wolves in the western native vertebrate listings, 80 are listed as taxonomic standing of wolves in North Great Lakes, we are at this time less than an entire taxonomic species or America. They conclude the most continuing to recognize C. lupus as the subspecies (henceforth referred to in supportable interpretation is that the only species that occurs in the WGL. this discussion as populations) under eastern wolf is not a subspecies (C. The wolves that occupy the WGL DPS one of several authorities, including the lupus lycaon), but a full species (C. have long been accepted as gray wolves, ‘‘distinct population segment’’ language lycaon). This is based on the available C. lupus, and until greater scientific in the Act’s definition of species mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplotype consensus is reached regarding whether (section 3(16)). Thirty-three of these 80 data (pp. 91–95). The Service believes to revise this taxonomic classification, populations, which span 49 different the Chambers et al. (in prep.) the better conclusion is to continue to taxa, predate the 1996 DPS Policy; as manuscript (that includes the recognize them as gray wolves. such, the final listing determinations for information on which we at least these populations did not include partially based our proposal) is an Wolf-Coyote Relationships formal policy-based analyses or important synthesis of the available data For a discussion on interpretations of expressly designate the listed entity as that advances and focuses the debate wolf-coyote relationships in the western a DPS. In several instances, however, regarding canid taxonomy in North Great Lakes, see the discussion under the Service and National Marine America. The authors themselves Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Fisheries Service (NMFS) have acknowledge, nevertheless, that further Factors Affecting Its Continued established a DPS and revised the List research may change some of their Existence in this final rule. of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife conclusions (p. 128). in a single action, as shown in the Biology and Ecology of Wolves in the Wolf taxonomic classification is a following examples. fast-changing field in which research Western Great Lakes In February 1985, the Service delisted capabilities have greatly expanded in For a discussion of the biology and the brown pelican (Pelecanus recent years. It is clear from the studies ecology of wolves in the WGL, see the occidentalis) in the southeastern United discussed above that the taxonomic proposed WGL wolf rule published on States and continued to identify it as classification of wolves in the western May 5, 2011 (76 FR 26806–26145). endangered throughout the remainder of its range (50 FR 4938). In June 1994, Great Lakes region is one that has been, Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment NMFS revised the entry for the gray and will continue to be, debated in the Policy Overview scientific community. Most researchers, whale (Eschrichtius robustus) to remove however, agree that there is a unique Pursuant to the Act, we consider the eastern North Pacific population and genetically identifiable form of wolf whether the best scientific and from the List while retaining the that occupies the western Great Lakes commercial data available are sufficient western North Pacific population as region. Researchers differ in whether to indicate that listing, reclassifying, or endangered (59 FR 31094). In July 2003, this unique form of wolf should be delisting any species, subspecies, or, for the Service established two DPSs of the recognized as a species, a subspecies, or vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa may Columbian white-tailed deer a distinct taxon or ecotype. The be warranted. To interpret and (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus)—the taxonomic identity of eastern wolves implement the DPS provision of the Act Douglas County DPS and the Columbia has been controversial since Wilson et and congressional guidance, the Service River DPS—and delisted only the al. (2000) first claimed that eastern and the National Marine Fisheries Douglas County DPS, while retaining wolves are a separate species (Canis Service (NMFS) published a policy listed status for the Columbia River DPS lycaon) from the western wolf (Canis regarding the identification of distinct (68 FR 43647). In March 2007, the lupus). In our May 5, 2011, proposed vertebrate population segments under Service established a DPS of the grizzly rule (76 FR 26806), we proposed to the Act (Policy Regarding the bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) for the resolve the ongoing controversy over the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Greater Yellowstone Area and classification of wolves in the western Population Segments Under the surrounding area within the existing Great Lakes region by accepting what Endangered Species Act, 61 FR 4722, grizzly bear listing in the lower 48 we considered at the time to be the best February 7, 1996) (hereafter DPS States, and delisted this DPS (72 FR scientific interpretation of the available Policy). Under the DPS policy, two 14865). This decision was later vacated data and information. The scientific factors are considered in a decision by the court; however, not on the community then had the opportunity to regarding the potential identification of grounds of the DPS. Also in March review our analysis and respond to it a DPS: (1) Discreteness of the 2007, the Service identified the through the public and peer review population segment in relation to the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) processes. Comments on the proposed remainder of the taxon, and (2) the in Florida as a DPS within the existing rule, including comments provided by significance of the population segment endangered listing of the American leading researchers in the field of canid to the taxon to which it belongs. If a crocodile and reclassified the Florida biology and genetics, have led us to population meets both tests, it can be DPS from endangered to threatened (71

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81670 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

FR 13027). Revising and delisting the and Wildlife Service Authority Under reviews of the status of listed species WGL DPS of wolves is consistent with Section 4(c)(1) of the Endangered required by section 4(c)(2) of the Act.’’ the Service’s past practice and does not Species Act to Revise Lists of Based on this provision, we are, within represent a change in agency position. Endangered and Threatened Species to this rule, (1) recognizing that the 1978 On February 8, 2007, the Service ‘Reflect Recent Determinations’ ’’ (U.S. Minnesota listing has functioned issued a rule that identified and delisted DOI 2008). The Service fully agrees with effectively as a DPS, (2) reevaluating the WGL DPS of the gray wolf (Canis the analysis and conclusions set out in that listing by applying the same lupus) (72 FR 6052). Three parties the Solicitor’s opinion. This final action reevaluation process to this and other de challenged this rule (Humane Society of is consistent with the opinion. The facto DPSs that we apply to formally the United States v. Kempthorne, 579 F. complete text of the Solicitor’s opinion established DPSs, and (3) revising that Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008)), and on can be found at http://www.fws.gov/ de facto DPS listing to meet the criteria September 29, 2008, the court ruled in midwest/wolf/. in the DPS policy and to reflect the best favor of the plaintiffs and vacated the available biological data. rule and remanded it to the Service. On Western Great Lakes Distinct remand, the Service was directed to Population Segment A gray wolf DPS including only provide an explanation as to how In 1978, based on what was at that Minnesota would not meet the criteria simultaneously identifying and delisting time the best available biological data, in the DPS policy because it would not a DPS is consistent with the Act’s text, the Service stated that there were two be discrete ‘‘in relation to the remainder structure, policy objectives, legislative ‘‘species’’ of gray wolves in the of the species to which it belongs’’ (61 history, and any relevant judicial coterminous United States: ‘‘For FR 4725, February 7, 1996). The interpretations. The court’s primary purposes of this rulemaking, the gray Minnesota wolf population has question was whether the Service has wolf (Canis lupus) group in Mexico and expanded well beyond State boundaries the authority to identify a DPS within a the 48 conterminous States of the and is connected to the wolf population larger already-listed entity and, in the United States, other than Minnesota, is in Wisconsin and Michigan, as same decision, determine the DPS does being considered as one ‘species,’ and evidenced by frequent movements of not warrant the Act’s protections even the gray wolf group in Minnesota is wolves among the States (Van Deelen though the other populations of the being considered as another ‘species.’ 2009, p. 140; Treves at al. 2009, pp. species retain the original listing status. (43 FR 9607, 9610, March 9, 1978). The 192–195) and genetic analyses that Our authority to make these Service then assigned a different status demonstrate the Wisconsin and determinations and to revise the list under the Act to each of those two Michigan wolves are mostly of the same accordingly is a reasonable ‘‘species,’’ finding the Minnesota gray genetic makeup as Minnesota wolves interpretation of the language of the Act, wolf ‘species’ to be threatened, while (Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 4; Fain and our ability to do so is an important the other gray wolf ‘‘species’’ (the 48 et al. 2010). Therefore, we are revising component of the Service’s program for conterminous States, except Minnesota, the boundaries of the Minnesota DPS to the conservation of threatened and and in Mexico) to be endangered. The meet the criteria in the DPS policy and endangered species. Our authority to 1978 rule referred to the Minnesota to reflect the current geographic location revise the existing listing of a species listing as the listing of a ‘‘species’’ of the population as discussed under the (the gray wolf in Minnesota and the gray when, clearly, based on the information Distinct Population Segment Analysis, wolf in the lower 48 States and Mexico, available at that time, the Minnesota below. excluding Minnesota) to identify a wolves did not taxonomically constitute Western Great Lakes DPS and determine a separate species of wolf. However, Geographical Area of the Western Great that it is healthy enough that it no ever since the amendment to the Act Lakes DPS longer needs the Act’s protections is later in 1978 that revised the definition found in the precise language of the Act. of ‘‘species’’ to include distinct The geographical area of the WGL Moreover, even if that authority were population segments of vertebrate fish DPS is shown in figure 1, below, and is not clear, our interpretation of this or wildlife, the 1978 Minnesota gray described as all of Minnesota, authority to make determinations under wolf listing has functioned effectively as Wisconsin, and Michigan; the portion of section 4(a)(1) and to revise the a DPS. North Dakota north and east of the endangered and threatened species list The DPS Policy (61 FR 4725, February Missouri River upstream to Lake to reflect those determinations under 7, 1996) expressly provides for Sakakawea and east of the centerline of section 4(c)(1) is reasonable and fully reexamining pre-policy DPS listings: Highway 83 from Lake Sakakawea to the consistent with the Act’s text, structure, ‘‘Any DPS of a vertebrate taxon that was Canadian border; the portion of South legislative history, relevant judicial listed prior to implementation of this Dakota north and east of the Missouri interpretations, and policy objectives. policy will be reevaluated on a case-by- River; the portions of Iowa, Illinois, and We consulted with the Solicitor of the case basis as recommendations are made Indiana north of the centerline of Department of the Interior to address the to change the listing status for that Interstate Highway 80; and the portion issue in the court’s opinion. On distinct population segment. The of Ohio north of the centerline of December 12, 2008, a formal opinion appropriate application of the policy Interstate Highway 80 and west of the was issued by the Solicitor, ‘‘U.S. Fish will also be considered in the 5-year Maumee River at Toledo.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81671

Distinct Population Segment Analysis Markedly Separated from Other distances, but straight-line documented Populations of the Same Taxon—The dispersals of 400 mi (644 km) or more Analysis for Discreteness western boundaries of the WGL DPS are are very rare. Only three records exist of Under the 1996 DPS Policy (61 FR approximately 400 mi (644 km) from the tagged wolves dispersing from within 4722), a population segment of a nearest known gray wolf packs in the core of the WGL DPS that were vertebrate taxon may be considered Wyoming and Montana. The distance known to travel a straight-line distance discrete if it satisfies either of the between those western packs and the over 400 mi (644 km) (Treves et al. following conditions: (1) It is markedly nearest packs within the WGL DPS is 2009). Although we cannot rule out the separated from other populations of the nearly 600 mi (966 km). The area possibility of a WGL wolf traveling 600 same taxon as a consequence of between Minnesota packs and northern mi (966 km) or more and joining or physical, physiological, ecological, or Rocky Mountains (NRM) packs largely establishing a pack in the northern behavioral factors (quantitative consists of unsuitable habitat, with only Rockies, such a movement has not been measures of genetic or morphological scattered islands of possibly suitable documented and is expected to happen discontinuity may provide evidence of habitat, such as the Black Hills of very infrequently, if at all. Similar this separation); or (2) it is delimited by eastern Wyoming and western South movements from the NRM wolf international governmental boundaries Dakota. There are no known population into the WGL DPS are within which differences in control of populations of gray wolves to the south unknown and are expected to happen exploitation, management of habitat, or east of the WGL DPS within the infrequently. The 2006 Sturgis (South conservation status, or regulatory United States. Dakota) wolf is the closest that an NRM mechanisms exist that are significant in As discussed in the previous section, wolf has come to entering the WGL DPS light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. wolves are known to disperse over vast (Fain in litt. 2006); however, the Sturgis

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER28DE11.000 81672 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

wolf would still have had to travel over since about 1993 (Ontario MNR 2005a, successful restoration of a viable gray 300 mi (500 km) before encountering the pp. 7–9). In 2005, Ontario limited wolf metapopulation (a regional group nearest wolf pack in the WGL DPS. As hunting and trapping of wolves by of connected populations of a species) the discreteness criterion requires that closing the season from April 1 through to large parts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, the DPS be ‘‘markedly separated’’ from September 14 in central and northern and Michigan has filled a significant gap other populations of the taxon rather Ontario (Ontario MNR 2005b). In the in the holarctic range of gray wolves in than requiring complete isolation, this portion of Ontario that is adjacent to the the United States, and it provides an high degree of physical separation WGL DPS, wolf hunting and trapping is important extension of the range of gray between the WGL DPS and the northern permitted year round (Ontario MNR wolves in North America. The loss of Rocky Mountains satisfies the 2005c). If delisted, Minnesota, the WGL gray wolf population would, discreteness criterion. Wisconsin, and Michigan would therefore, represent a significant gap in Delimited by International Boundaries carefully monitor and manage wolves to the species’ holarctic range in that the With Significant Management retain populations at or above the WGL wolf population is the only gray Differences—The DPS policy allows us recovery goal (see Factor D). Therefore, wolf population in the conterminous to use international borders to delineate even though biologically the WGL wolf States east of the Rocky Mountains and the boundaries of a DPS if there are population is simply a well-connected currently holds about 70 percent of differences in control of exploitation, southern extension of wolves in Canada, North American gray wolves known to conservation status, or regulatory we will continue to use the United occur south of Canada. mechanisms between the countries. The States–Canada border to mark the Conclusion—Based on our analysis of border between the United States and northern boundary of the DPS due to the the best available scientific information, Canada has been used as the northern difference in control of exploitation, the WGL DPS is significant to the taxon boundary of the listed entity since gray conservation status, and regulatory to which it belongs because its loss wolves were reclassified in the lower 48 mechanisms between the two countries. would result in a significant gap in the States and Mexico in 1978. There Conclusion—Based on our analysis of range of the taxon. Therefore, the WGL remain significant cross-border the best available scientific information, DPS meets the criterion for significance differences in exploitation, the WGL DPS is markedly separated under the DPS policy. management, conservation status, and from other U.S. populations of gray Discrete Vertebrate Population Segment regulatory mechanisms. About 52,000 to wolves and difference in control of Conclusion 60,000 wolves occur in Canada, where exploitation, conservation status, and suitable habitat is abundant (Boitani regulatory mechanisms justifies Based on our review of the best 2003, p. 322). Because of this discreteness between U.S. and Canadian available scientific data, we determine abundance, wolves in Canada are not wolf populations. Therefore, the WGL that the WGL DPS is discrete from other protected by Federal laws and are only DPS meets the criterion for discreteness gray wolf populations as a result of minimally protected in most Canadian under the DPS policy. physical separation from other gray wolf provinces (Pletscher et al. 1991, p. 546). populations in the United States and the Analysis for Significance In the United States, unlike Canada, international border with Canada. The Federal protection and intensive If we determine that a population DPS is significant to the taxon to which management has been necessary to segment is discrete, we next consider it belongs because it contains a wolf recover the wolf (Carbyn 1983). available scientific evidence of its metapopulation that fills a large gap in In general, Canadian gray wolf significance to the taxon to which it the historical range of the taxon in the populations are sufficiently large and belongs. Our DPS policy states that this conterminous States. Therefore, we have healthy so that population regulation, consideration may include, but is not determined that this population rather than protection and close limited to, the following: (1) Persistence segment of wolves satisfies the monitoring, is the management focus. of the discrete population segment in an discreteness and significance criteria There are an estimated 4,000 wolves in ecological setting unusual or unique for required for a DPS. The evaluation of Manitoba (Manitoba Conservation the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the the appropriate conservation status for undated). Hunting is allowed nearly discrete population segment would the WGL DPS is found below. province-wide, including in those result in a significant gap in the range provincial hunting zones adjoining of the taxon; (3) evidence that the Delineating the Boundaries of the WGL northwestern Minnesota, with this discrete population segment represents Gray Wolf DPS year’s season running from August 31, the only surviving natural occurrence of In contrast to a species or a 2011, through March 31, 2012 a taxon that may be more abundant subspecies, a DPS is a biological (Manitoba Conservation 20011a). elsewhere as an introduced population population that is delineated by a Trapping wolves is allowed province- outside its historic range; and/or (4) boundary that is based on something wide, except in and immediately around evidence that the discrete population other than established taxonomic Riding Mountain National Park segment differs markedly from other distinctions. Therefore, the starting (southwestern Manitoba), with this populations of the species in its genetic point for delineating a DPS is the year’s season running from September 1, characteristics. Factor 2 applies to the biological population or 2011 through August 31, 2012 or WGL DPS and is included in our metapopulation, and a geographical October 14, 2011 through March 31, analysis for significance. Factors 1, 3, delineation of the DPS must reasonably 2012 (varies with trapping zone) and 4 do not apply to the WGL DPS and represent the population or (Manitoba Conservation 20011b). thus are not included in our analysis for metapopulation and its biological The Ontario Ministry of Natural significance. characteristics and recovery needs. Resources estimates there are 8,850 Significant Gap in the Range of the To delineate the boundary of the WGL wolves in the province, based on prey Taxon—Gray wolves once lived DPS, we considered the current composition and abundance, throughout most of North America. Gray distribution of wolves in the Midwest topography, and climate, and wolf wolves have been extirpated from most and the characteristic movements of numbers in most parts of the province of the southern portions of their those wolves and of wolves elsewhere. are believed to be stable or increasing historical North American range. The We examined the best available

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81673

scientific data on long-distance population continues to annually Wisconsin—In 2004, a wolf tagged in movements, including long-distance increase in numbers and, to a lesser Michigan was killed by a vehicle in movements followed by return degree, in area (Wydeven and Rusk County in northwestern movements to the vicinity of the natal Wiedenhoeft 2009, p. 2). The UP of Wisconsin, 295 mi (475 km) west of his pack. We concluded that wolf behavior Michigan has wolf packs throughout the original capture location in the eastern and the nature of wolf populations peninsula. In the last 22 years, the wolf UP (Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 4). A require that we include within the area population in the UP has grown every north-central Wisconsin yearling female of the DPS some subset of known long- year except 1997 and 2010 (Roell 2010, wolf traveled a similar distance (298 mi, distance movement locations. However, pers. comm.). Over the past 5 years, the 480 km) to the Rainy Lake region of as explained below, wolf biology and average annual growth has been about 7 Ontario during 1988–89 (Wydeven et al. common sense argue against including percent. While the population trend 1995, p. 149). all known or potential long-distance continues to increase, the rate of Michigan—Drummer et al. (2002, pp. movements within the DPS’s increase has slowed, consistent with 14–15) reported 10 long-distance boundaries. any population expanding into and then dispersal events involving UP wolves. The analysis detailed below resulted filling available habitat. The population One of these wolves moved to north- in the boundaries of the WGL DPS that may continue to grow or remain steady; central Missouri and another to are shown in figure 1. This DPS has however, a small or even negative southeastern Wisconsin, both beyond been delineated to include the core growth rate may occur any year and the core wolf areas in the WGL. The recovered wolf metapopulation plus a should be considered a natural average straight-line distance traveled wolf movement zone around the core fluctuation seen in any wildlife by those two wolves was 377 mi (608 wolf metapopulation. This geographic population. km), while the average straight-line delineation is not intended to include When delineating the WGL DPS, we distance for all 10 of these wolves was all areas to which wolves have moved had to consider the high degree of 232 mi (373 km). Their straight-line from the Great Lakes population. Rather, mobility shown by wolves. The distances ranged from 41 to 468 mi (66 it includes the area currently occupied dispersal of wolves from their natal to 753 km). by wolf packs in Minnesota, Wisconsin, packs and territories is a normal and Illinois and Indiana—In December and Michigan; the nearby areas in these important behavioral attribute of the 2002, a Marshall County (Illinois) wolf States in which wolf packs may become species that facilitates the formation of likely dispersed from the Wisconsin established in the foreseeable future; new packs, the occupancy of vacant wolf population, nearly 200 mi (322 km) and a surrounding area into which territories, and the expansion of to the north (Great Lakes Directory Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan occupied range by the ‘‘colonization’’ of 2003). The Randolph County (Indiana) wolves occasionally move but where vacant habitat. Data on wolf dispersal wolf had traveled a minimum distance persistent packs are not expected to be rates from numerous North American of at least 428 mi (689 km) to get around established because suitable habitat is studies (summarized in Fuller et al. Lake Michigan from its central rare and exists only as small patches. 2003, p. 179, Table. 6.6; Boyd and Wisconsin birthplace; it likely traveled The area surrounding the core wolf Pletscher 1999, p. 1102, Table 6) show much farther than that unless it went populations includes the locations of dispersal rates of 13 to 48 percent of the through the city or suburbs of Chicago most known dispersers from the core individuals in a pack. Sometimes the (Wydeven et al. 2004, pp. 10–11; Treves populations, especially the shorter and et al. 2009, p. 194). The Pike County medium-distance movements from movements are temporary, and the wolf which wolves are most likely to return returns to a location in or near its natal (Illinois) wolf that was shot in late 2005 to the core areas and contribute to the territory. In some cases, a wolf may was about 300 mi (180 km) from the wolf population. Therefore, the DPS continue its movement for scores or nearest wolf packs in central Wisconsin. encompasses the current range of the even hundreds of miles until it locates North Dakota, South Dakota, and population, which is considered to be suitable habitat, where it may establish Nebraska—Licht and Fritts (1994, p. 77) viable, including the primary range and a territory or join an existing pack. In tabulated seven wolves found dead in the peripheral range. other cases, a wolf is found dead at a North Dakota and South Dakota from The WGL areas that are regularly distance from its original territory, 1981 through 1992 that are believed to occupied by wolf packs are well leaving unanswered the questions of have originated from Minnesota, based documented in Minnesota (Erb and how far it would have gone and whether on skull morphometrics. Although none Benson 2004, p. 12, fig. 3; Erb and Don it eventually would have returned to its of these wolves were marked or radio- Carlos 2009, pp. 57–60), Wisconsin natal area or population. tracked, making it impossible to (Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 33, fig. 1; Minnesota—The current record for a determine the point of initiation of their Wydeven et al. 2009c, pp. 93–98), and documented movement by a wolf in journey, a minimum travel distance for the UP of Michigan (Huntzinger et al. North America is held by a Minnesota the seven can be determined from the 2005, pp. 25–27, figs. 4–6; Beyer et al. wolf that moved a minimum (that is, the nearest wolf breeding range in 2009, pp. 73–75). Wolves have straight-line distance from known Minnesota. For the seven, the average successfully colonized most, perhaps starting point to most distant point) of distance to the nearest wolf breeding all, suitable habitat in Minnesota. at least 550 mi (886 km) northwest into range was 160 mi (257 km) and ranged Minnesota data from the winter of Saskatchewan (Fritts 1983, pp. 166– from 29 to 329 mi (46 to 530 km). One 2007–08 indicate that wolf numbers and 167). Nineteen other primarily of these seven wolves moved west of the density have stabilized since 1997–98, Minnesota movements summarized by Missouri River before it died. and there was no expansion of occupied Mech (in litt. 2005) averaged 154 mi Genetic analysis of a wolf killed in range in the State (Erb 2008, pp. 5–7). (248 km). Their minimum distance of Harding County, in extreme Wisconsin wolves now occupy most travel ranged from 32 to 532 mi (53–886 northwestern South Dakota, in 2001 habitat areas believed to have a high km) with the minimum dispersal indicated that it originated from the probability of wolf occurrence except distance shown by known returning Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf for some areas of northeastern wolves ranging from 54 mi (90 km) to populations (Fain in litt. 2006). The Wisconsin, and the State’s wolf 307 mi (494 km). straight-line travel distance to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81674 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

nearest Minnesota wolf pack is nearly probably severely underestimated. There is evidence that several 400 mi (644 km). Perhaps the longest documented wolf Minnesota-origin wolves have crossed The wolf from the Greater movement is that of a Scandinavian the Missouri River (Licht and Fritts Yellowstone area that was killed by a wolf that covered more than 678 miles 1994, pp. 75, 77, Fig. 1 and Table 1; vehicle on Interstate 90 near Sturgis, (1,092 km) (Wabakken et al. 2007). Anschutz in litt. 2003, 2006) and some South Dakota, in March of 2006 traveled From these extra-territorial movement Midwest wolves have crossed interstate a minimum straight-line distance of records, we conclude that wolf highways (Merrill and Mech 2000, p. about 270 mi (435 km) from the nearest movements of more than 200 mi (320 430). There is also evidence that some known Greater Yellowstone pack before km) straight-line distance have been wolves are hesitant to cross highways it died (USFWS et al. 2006, in USFWS documented on numerous occasions, (Whittington et al. 2004, pp. 7, 9; Program Report, Figure 1). while shorter distance movements are Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 5; but see A large canid was shot by a Boyd more frequent. Movements of 300 mi Blanco et al. 2005, pp. 315–316, 319– County (Nebraska) rancher in late 1994 (480 km) straight-line distance or more 320 and Kohn et al. 2000, p. 22). or early 1995, likely after crossing the are less common, but include one Interstate highways and smaller roads frozen Missouri River from South Minnesota wolf that journeyed a are a known mortality factor for wolves Dakota (Anschutz in litt. 2006, Jobman straight-line distance of 300 mi (480 km) and, therefore, pose a partial barrier to in litt. 1995). It was determined to be a and a known minimum-travel distance wolf movements (Blanco et al. 2005, p. wolf that originated from the Great of 2,640 mi (4,251 km) before it reversed 320). The death of a NRM wolf near Lakes wolf populations (Fain in litt. direction, as determined by its satellite- Sturgis in western South Dakota (Fain in 2006), whose nearest pack would have tracked collar. This wolf ultimately litt. 2006) suggests that the area of the been about 300 mi (480 km) away. A returned to a spot only 24 mi (40 km) Dakotas west of the Missouri River may wolf illegally killed near Spalding, from its natal territory (Merrill and be traversed by a small number of Nebraska, in December of 2002 also Mech 2000, p. 430). Although much wolves coming from both the NRM and originated from the Minnesota- longer movements have been WGL wolf populations, as well as Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population, as documented, including some by wolves from Canada (Licht and Fritts determined by genetic analysis midwestern wolves, return movements 1994, pp. 75–77). Wolves in this area (Anschutz in litt. 2003, Fain in litt. to the vicinity of natal territories have cannot be assumed to belong to the 2006). The nearest Minnesota wolf pack not been documented for extra- WGL wolf population, supporting our is nearly 350 mi (563 km) from this territorial movements beyond 300 mi belief that the boundary should not be location. (480 km). designed to include the locations of all Other notable extra-territorial Based on these extra-territorial known dispersers. movements—The extra-territorial movement data, we conclude that movements of several wolves were affiliation with the midwestern wolf Recovery of Western Great Lakes radio-tracked in sufficient detail to population is diminished and Wolves provide insight into their actual travel essentially lost when dispersal takes a Recovery Criteria routes and total travel distances for each Midwest wolf a distance of 250 to 300 trek, rather than only documenting mi (400 to 480 km) beyond the outer Recovery plans are intended to straight-line distance from beginning to edge of the areas that are continuously provide guidance to the Service, States, end-point. Merrill and Mech (2000, pp. occupied by wolf packs. Although some and other partners on methods of 429–431) reported on four such WGL wolves will move beyond this minimizing threats to listed species and Minnesota wolves with documented distance, available data indicate that on criteria that may be used to travel distances ranging from 305 to longer distance dispersers are unlikely determine when recovery is achieved. 2,640 mi (490 to 4,251 km) and an to return to their natal population. They are not regulatory documents and average travel route length of 988 mi Therefore, they have lost their cannot substitute for the determinations (1,590 km). Wydeven (1994, pp. 20–22) functional connection with, and and promulgation of regulations described a Wisconsin wolf that moved potential conservation value to, the required under section 4(a)(1) of the from northwestern Wisconsin to the WGL wolf population. Act. These documents include, among northern suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota, Wolves moving substantial distances other elements required under section for 2 weeks (apparently not seen or outward from the core areas of 4(f) of the Act, criteria for determining reported to authorities by the local Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan when a species can be delisted. There residents), then moved back to north- will encounter landscape features that are many paths to accomplishing central Wisconsin. The total travel are at least partial barriers to further recovery of a species; in fact, recovery distance was 278 mi (447 km) from her wolf movement and that may, if crossed, of a species is a dynamic process natal pack into Minnesota and on to the impede attempts of wolves to return requiring adaptive management that north-central Wisconsin location where toward the WGL core areas. If such may, or may not, strictly adhere to the she settled down. partial barriers are in a location that has guidance provided in a recovery plan. While investigating the origins of separate utility in delineating the We use recovery criteria in concert Scandinavian wolf populations, Linnell biological extent of a wolf population, with evidence that threats have been et al. (2005, p. 387) compiled wolf they can and should be used to minimized sufficiently and populations dispersal data from 21 published delineate the DPS boundary. Such have achieved long-term viability to studies, including many cited separately landscape features are the Missouri judge when a species can be reclassified here. Twenty-two of 298 compiled River in North Dakota and downstream from endangered to threatened or dispersals (7.4 percent) were more than to Omaha, Nebraska, and Interstate delisted. Recovery plans, including 300 km (186 mi). Eleven dispersals (3.7 Highway 80 from Omaha eastward recovery criteria, are subject to change percent) were more than 500 km (311 through Illinois, Indiana, and into Ohio, based upon new information and are mi). Because of the likelihood that many ending where this highway crosses the revised accordingly and when long-distance dispersers are never Maumee River in Toledo, Ohio. We do practicable. In a similar sense, reported, they conclude that the not believe these are absolute barriers to implementation of planned actions is proportion of long-distance dispersers is wolf movement. subject to changing information and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81675

availability of resources. We have taken component to the resiliency of the necessary to achieve recovery under the these considerations into account in the Minnesota wolf population. Act. following discussion. The second recovery criterion in the In 1998, the Eastern Timber Wolf The 1978 Recovery Plan (hereafter Recovery Plan states that at least one Recovery Team clarified the application Recovery Plan) and the 1992 Revised viable wolf population should be of the recovery criterion for the second Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber reestablished within the historical range population to the wolf population that Wolf (hereafter Revised Recovery Plan) of the eastern timber wolf outside of had developed in northern Wisconsin contain the same two recovery criteria. Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan and the adjacent UP of Michigan. This The first recovery criterion states that (USFWS 1992, pp. 24–26). The second population is less than 100 mi the survival of the wolf in Minnesota reestablished population enhances both (160 km) from the Minnesota wolf must be assured. We, and the Eastern the resiliency and redundancy of the population. The Recovery Team Timber Wolf Recovery Team (Peterson WGL metapopulation. recommended that the numerical in litt. 1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b), have The Recovery Plan provides two recovery criterion for the Wisconsin- concluded that this recovery criterion options for reestablishing this second Michigan population be considered met remains valid. It addresses a need for population. If it is an isolated when consecutive late-winter wolf reasonable assurances that future State, population, that is, located more than surveys document that the population tribal, and Federal wolf management 100 mi (160 km) from the Minnesota equals or exceeds 100 wolves (excluding and protection will maintain a viable wolf population, the second population Isle Royale wolves) for the 5 consecutive recovered population of wolves within should consist of at least 200 wolves for years between the first and last surveys the borders of Minnesota for the at least 5 years, based upon late-winter (Peterson in litt. 1998). foreseeable future. population estimates, to be considered Recovery Trends for Wolves in the Although the recovery criteria viable. Late-winter estimates are made Western Great Lakes Region identified in the Recovery Plan predate at a time when most winter mortality identification of the conservation has already occurred and before the Minnesota Recovery biology principles of representation birth of pups, thus, the count is made During the pre-1965 period of wolf (conserving the genetic diversity of a at the annual low point of the bounties and legal public trapping, taxon), resilience (the ability to population. Alternatively, if the second wolves persisted in the remote withstand demographic and population is located within 100 mi northeastern portion of Minnesota but environmental variation), and (160 km) of a self-sustaining wolf were eliminated from the rest of the redundancy (sufficient populations to population (for example, the Minnesota State. Estimated numbers of Minnesota provide a margin of safety), those wolf population), it should be wolves before their listing under the Act principles were incorporated into the maintained at a minimum of 100 wolves in 1974 include 450 to 700 wolves in recovery criteria. Maintenance of the for at least 5 years, based on late-winter 1950–53 (Fuller et al. 1992, p. 43, based Minnesota wolf population is vital in population estimates, to be considered on data in Stenlund 1955, p. 19), 350 to terms of representation and resilience, viable. A nearby second population 700 wolves in 1963 (Cahalane 1964, p. because the remaining genetic diversity would be considered viable at a smaller 10), 750 wolves in 1970 (Leirfallom of gray wolves in the eastern United size because it would be geographically 1970, p. 11), 736 to 950 wolves in 1971– States was carried by the several close enough to exchange wolves with 72 (Fuller et al. 1992, p. 44), and 500 to hundred wolves that survived in the Minnesota population (that is, they 1,000 wolves in 1973 (Mech and Rausch Minnesota into the early 1970s. The would function as a metapopulation), 1975, p. 85). Although these estimates Recovery Team insisted that the thereby bolstering the smaller second were based on different methodologies remnant Minnesota wolf population be population both genetically and and are not directly comparable, each maintained and protected to achieve numerically. puts the prelisting abundance of wolves wolf recovery in the eastern United The original Recovery Plan did not in Minnesota at 1,000 or less. This was States. The successful growth of the specify where in the eastern United the only significant wolf population in remnant Minnesota population has States the second population should be the United States outside Alaska during maintained and maximized the reestablished. Therefore, the second those time periods. representation of that genetic diversity population could have been established After the gray wolf was listed as among wolves in the WGL. anywhere within the triangular endangered under the Act in 1974, the Although the Revised Recovery Plan Minnesota-Maine-Florida area covered Minnesota population estimates did not establish a specific numerical by the Recovery Plan and the Revised increased (see table 1 below). Mech criterion for the Minnesota wolf Recovery Plan, except on Isle Royale estimated the population to be 1,000 to population, it did identify, for planning (Michigan) or within Minnesota. The 1,200 wolves in 1976 (USFWS 1978, pp. purposes only, a population goal of Revised Recovery Plan identified 4, 50–52), and Berg and Kuehn (1982, p. 1,251–1,400 animals for that Minnesota potential gray wolf reestablishment 11) estimated that there were 1,235 population (USFWS 1992, p. 28). A areas in northern Wisconsin, the UP of wolves in 138 packs in the winter of population of this size would increase Michigan, the Adirondack Forest 1978–79. In 1988–89, the Minnesota the likelihood of maintaining its genetic Preserve of New York, a small area in Department of Natural Resources (MN diversity over the long term. This large eastern Maine, and a larger area of DNR) repeated the 1978–79 survey and Minnesota wolf population also northwestern Maine and adjacent also used a second method to estimate provides resiliency to reduce the northern New Hampshire (USFWS wolf numbers in Minnesota. The adverse impacts of unpredictable 1992, pp. 56–58). Neither the 1978 nor resulting independent estimates were demographic and environmental events. the 1992 recovery criteria suggest that 1,500 and 1,750 wolves in at least 233 Furthermore, the Revised Recovery Plan the restoration of the gray wolf packs; the lower number was derived by specifies a wolf population that is throughout all or most of what was a method comparable to the 1978–79 spread across about 40 percent of thought to be its historical range in the survey (Fuller et al. 1992, pp. 50–51). Minnesota (Zones 1 through 4) (USFWS eastern United States, or to all of these During the winter of 1997–98, the MN 1992, p. 28), adding a geographic potential reestablishment areas, is DNR repeated a statewide wolf

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81676 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

population and distribution survey, identify occupied wolf range in Those figures were then used to using methods similar to those of the Minnesota. Data from 5 concurrent radio calculate a statewide estimate of wolf two previous surveys. Field staff of telemetry studies tracking 36 packs, and pack numbers in the occupied Federal, State, tribal, and county land representative of the entire Minnesota range, with single (nonpack) wolves management agencies and wood wolf range, were used to determine factored into the estimate (Berg and products companies were queried to average pack size and territory area. 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. Minnesota 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 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 ...... 704 557 1,247 2010–11 ...... 782 687 1,469

The 1997–98 survey concluded that Minnesota (90 percent confidence encompassed 14,038 sq mi (36,500 sq approximately 2,445 wolves existed in interval for this estimate is 2,301 to km) during the winter of 1978–79. By about 385 packs in Minnesota during 3,708 wolves) (Erb and Benson 2004, 1982–83, pairs or breeding packs of that winter period (90 percent pp. 7, 9). The MN DNR conducted its wolves were estimated to occupy an confidence interval from 1,995 to 2,905 most recent survey of wolf population area of 22,000 sq mi (57,050 sq km) in wolves) (Berg and Benson 1999, p. 4). and range during the winter of 2007–08. northern Minnesota (Mech et al. 1988, This figure indicated the continued That survey concluded that an p. 86). That study also identified an growth of the Minnesota wolf estimated 2,921 wolves in 503 packs additional 15,577 sq mi (40,500 sq km) population at an average rate of about occurred in Minnesota (90 percent of peripheral range, where habitat 3.7 percent annually from 1970 through confidence interval for this estimate is appeared suitable but no wolves or only 1997–98. Between 1979 and 1989 the 2,192 to 3,525 wolves). The results of lone wolves existed. The 1988–89 study annual growth rate was approximately 3 the past three surveys suggest that the produced an estimate of 23,165 sq mi percent, and it increased to between 4 wolf population has been numerically (60,200 sq km) as the contiguous wolf and 5 percent in the next decade (Berg stable over the past 10 or more years range at that time in Minnesota (Fuller and Benson 1999, p. 5; Fuller et al. (Erb 2008, p. 6). et al. 1992, pp. 48–49; Berg and Benson 1992, p. 51). As of the 1998 survey, the As wolves increased in abundance in 1999, pp. 3, 5), an increase of 65 percent number of Minnesota wolves had Minnesota, they also expanded their over the primary range calculated for reached approximately twice the distribution. During 1948–53, the 1978–79. number specified in the recovery primary wolf range was estimated at The 1997–98 study concluded that the planning goal for Minnesota (USFWS 11,954 sq mi (31,080 sq km) (Stenlund contiguous wolf range had expanded to 1992, p. 28). 1955, p. 19). A 1970 questionnaire 33,971 sq mi (88,325 sq km), a 47 Minnesota DNR conducted another survey in Minnesota resulted in an percent increase in 9 years (Berg and survey of the State’s wolf population estimated wolf range of 14,769 sq mi Benson 1999, p. 5). By that time the and range during the winter of 2003–04, (38,400 sq km) (calculated by Fuller et Minnesota wolf population was using again using methodology similar to the al. 1992, p. 43, from Leirfallom 1970). most of the available primary and previous surveys. That survey Fuller et al. (1992, p. 44), using data peripheral range identified by Mech et concluded that an estimated 3,020 from Berg and Kuehn (1982), estimated al. (1988, p. 86). The wolf population in wolves in 485 packs occurred in that Minnesota primary wolf range Minnesota had increased in abundance

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81677

and distribution to the point that its population monitoring in 1979–80, of northern and central Wisconsin; contiguous range covered approximately estimating a statewide population of 25 therefore, dispersing wolves traveling in 40 percent of the State during 1997–98. wolves at that time (Wydeven and other portions of the State are less likely In contrast, the 2003–04 survey failed to Wiedenhoeft 2000, pp. 151, 159; to be detected, and often such wolves show a continuing expansion of wolf Wydeven et al. 2009c, pp. 93–97). This are only documented after vehicle range in Minnesota, and any actual population remained relatively stable collisions or accidental shootings. increase in wolf numbers since 1997–98 for several years, and then declined to Broader use of trail cameras by members was attributed to increased wolf density approximately 14 to 19 wolves in the of the public is improving the WI DNR’s within a stabilized range (Erb and mid-1980s. In the late 1980s, the ability to detect lone wolves across the Benson 2004, p. 7). The results of the Wisconsin wolf population began an State. 2007–08 survey also indicated that wolf increase that has continued into 2010, As previously stated, population range in Minnesota remained when 690 wolves were counted estimates are made at the low point of ‘‘essentially unchanged’’ since 2004 (Erb (Wydeven et al. 2010, Figure 3). the annual wolf population cycle. Thus, 2008, not paginated). Since 1979, WI DNR has intensively Wisconsin wolf population estimates Although the Minnesota DNR does surveyed its wolf population on an are conservative in two respects. They not conduct a formal wolf population annual basis using a combination of undercount lone wolves, and the count survey annually, it includes the species aerial, ground, and satellite radio is made at the annual low point of the in its annual carnivore track survey. telemetry complemented by snow population. This methodology is This survey, standardized and tracking and wolf sign surveys consistent with the recovery criteria operational since 1994, provides an (Wydeven et al. 2006a, pp. 4–5; established in the Revised Recovery annual index of abundance for several Wydeven et al. 2009c, pp. 90–91). Plan, which established numerical species of large carnivores by counting Wolves are trapped from May through criteria to be measured with data their tracks along 20-mile (32-km) long September and fitted with radio collars, obtained by late-winter surveys. Based standardized survey routes in northern with a goal of having at least one radio- on these considerations, an estimated Minnesota. In 2009, wolves were collared wolf in approximately half of 690 to 733 wolves in 181 packs, detected on 71 percent of the 58 routes the wolf packs in Wisconsin. Aerial including 35 wolves on Native surveyed, and the resulting indices of locations are obtained from each American reservations, were in abundance and distribution were not functioning radio-collar about once per Wisconsin in early 2010, representing appreciably different from recent years week, and pack territories are estimated an 8 percent increase from 2009 (Erb 2009, not paginated). and mapped from the movements of the (Wydeven et al. 2010, pp. 12–13). individuals who exhibit localized In the winter of 1994–95, wolves were Summary for Minnesota patterns. From December through first documented in Jackson County, The Minnesota wolf population has March, the pilots make special efforts to Wisconsin, well to the south of the area increased from an estimated 1,000 visually locate and count the individual occupied by other Wisconsin wolf packs individuals in 1976 to nearly 3,000 wolves in each radio-tracked pack. in the northern part of the State (Thiel today, and the estimated wolf range in Snow tracking is used to supplement et al 2009, pp. 109–110). The number of the State has expanded by the information gained from aerial wolves in this central Wisconsin area approximately 225 percent (from sightings and to provide pack size has dramatically increased since that approximately 15,000 sq mi (38,850 sq 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 (88,060 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 overcounting 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 estimated number of wolves in each occupying Native American reservation Wisconsin Recovery 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81678 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Menominee Reservation and a three- immigration occurring from Wisconsin successive late-winter surveys, as wolf pack occurred on the Stockbridge on the west and possibly from Ontario specified in the Revised Recovery Plan Reservation, both in northeastern on the east. Wolves now are found in (USFWS 1992, pp. 24–26). Wisconsin (Wydeven et al. 2010, Table every county of the UP, with the To date, no wolf packs are known to 6). A pack of four to five wolves spent possible exception of Keweenaw County be primarily using tribal-owned lands in time on portions of the Red Cliff (Huntzinger et al 2005, p. 6; Roell 2009, Michigan (Roell 2011, pers. comm.). Chippewa Reservation along the Lake pers. comm.). Native American tribes in the UP of Superior shoreline. Wolf packs also The MI DNR annually monitors the Michigan own small, scattered parcels used scattered lands of the St. Croix wolf population in the UP by of land relative to the size of wolf pack Chippewa in northwest Wisconsin, the conducting a winter survey. Roads and territories. Thus, no one tribal property Ho Chunk Nation in central Wisconsin, trails are searched intensively and would likely support a wolf pack. and Potawatomi in northeast Wisconsin. extensively for wolf tracks and other However, as wolves occur in all The tribal land of the Ho-Chunk, St. wolf sign using trucks and snowmobiles counties in the UP and are wide- Croix Chippewa, and Potawatomi are (Potvin et al. 2005). Complete surveys ranging, tribal land is likely used composed mostly of scattered parcels of conducted from 1999 to 2006 provided periodically by wolves. land, and are not likely to provide an opportunity to evaluate multiple In October 2004, a coyote trapper significant amounts of wolf habitat. sampling approaches (MI DNR 2008). mistakenly captured and killed a wolf in About 90 percent of packs in northern Based on these evaluations, it was Presque Isle County in the northern Wisconsin Zone 1, and northern determined that a geographically Lower Peninsula (LP) of Michigan. This portions of Zone 3 are located in ceded stratified sampling protocol produced was the first verification of a wolf in the territory where Chippewa Bands have unbiased, precise estimates of wolf northern LP in at least 65 years (Roell retained hunting and gathering rights. abundance (Potvin et al. 2005; et al. 2010, p. 4). This wolf had been In 2002, wolf numbers in Wisconsin Drummer, unpublished data). The trapped and radio-collared by the MI alone surpassed the 1992 Revised sampling protocol implemented in 2007 DNR the previous year (2003) while it Recovery Plan criterion for a second allows trackers to spend more time in was a member of an eastern UP pack. population within 100 miles of the smaller areas (MI DNR 2008). Since 2004, Michigan has surveyed the Minnesota population (100 wolves for a The UP is divided into 21 survey northern LP to determine whether minimum of 5 consecutive years units from which a stratified random wolves had successfully colonized the (USFWS 1992, p. 4)). Furthermore, in sample is drawn, covering roughly 50 area. From 2005 through 2007, the 2004, Wisconsin wolf numbers percent of the UP every year (MI DNR survey had two components: a 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, the UP had 557 wolves in Odawa Indians, and Central Michigan increased from 15 to 690 wolves (see 109 resident packs (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 11 areas with a high density of wolves, in 2008, a targeted search approach was percent annually for the period 2004– ground surveys by four to six surveyors used. The MI DNR issued a press release 2010. The slower rates of increase since with concurrent aerial tracking are used asking citizens to report any wolves or 2000 are an indication that the State’s to accurately delineate territories of wolf sign; again, no wolves were wolf 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 2008, the DNR recognized the Michigan Recovery p. 1661). As with Wisconsin, the likelihood that small numbers of wolves Except for Isle Royale, wolves were Michigan surveys likely miss lone would eventually move into the extirpated from Michigan as a wolves, thus underestimating the actual northern LP and form persistent packs reproducing species long before they population. (Potvin 2003, pp. 29–30; Gehring and were listed as endangered under the Act Based on annual surveys in late Potter 2005, p. 1242; Beyer et al. 2006, in 1974. Prior to 1989, the last known winter, estimates of wolves in the UP p. 35), and revised its Wolf Management breeding population of wild Michigan increased from 57 wolves in 1994 to 557 Plan in part to incorporate provisions wolves outside Isle Royale occurred in in late winter 2009–10 (see table 1 for wolf management in the northern LP the mid-1950s. However, as wolves above). Over the last 10 years, the (MI DNR 2008a, p. 46). In the summer began to reoccupy northern Wisconsin, annualized rate of increase has been of 2009, video images of single wolves the Michigan Department of Natural about 12 percent (MI DNR in litt. 2010, were recorded in two of the three Resources (MI DNR) began noting single table 1). This rate has varied from year northern LP counties nearest to the UP wolves at various locations in the UP of to year, but there appear to be two (Roell et al. 2010, p. 4). The videos, Michigan. Wolf recovery in Michigan distinct phases of population growth, taken in Emmet County in May 19, began with the documentation of three with relatively rapid growth (25.8 2009, and Presque Isle County in July wolves traveling together and making percent average) from 1995 through 27, 2009, may have been of the same territorial marks in the central UP 2000 and slower growth (10.1 percent animal (Roell 2009, pers. comm.). In during the fall of 1988; and the average) from 2001 through 2010. In 2010, USDA Wildlife Services and MI subsequent birth of pups in this territory 2005, the number of wolves in the DNR staff reported a single breeding during spring 1989 (Beyer et al. 2009, p. Michigan population alone surpassed pair with three pups in Cheboygan 73). Since that time, wolf packs have the recovery criterion for an isolated County in the northern LP (MI DNR spread throughout the UP, with wolf population of 200 animals for 6 2010). That 2010 report was based on an

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81679

assessment of the physical features of in these States, however, generally agree Summary of Wolf Recovery in the three pups that were captured and that the wolves found there are Western Great Lakes Region handled, observations of adult wolf- primarily lone dispersers, although Wolves in the WGL DPS greatly sized tracks, and remote camera there were reports of pups being seen in exceed the recovery criteria (USFWS photographs of large wolf-like canids. the Turtle Mountains of North Dakota, 1992, pp. 24–26) for (1) a secure wolf Subsequent DNA analysis indicated the in 1994 (Collins in litt. 1998). population in Minnesota, and (2) a pups were likely siblings and based on Other records include an adult male second population outside Minnesota microsatellite genotyping, all three were shot near Devil’s Lake, North Dakota, in and Isle Royale consisting of 100 wolves classified as eastern coyotes rather than 2002, another adult male shot in for 5 successive years. Based on the some form of Great Lakes wolf. The Richland County in extreme criteria set by the Eastern Wolf Recovery three pups shared an eastern wolf southeastern North Dakota in 2003 (Fain Team in 1992 and reaffirmed in 1997 mtDNA haplotype, which suggests in litt. 2006), and a vehicle-killed adult and 1998 (Peterson in litt. 1997, in litt. maternal introgression from a female 1998), the DPS contains sufficient wolf wolf into their pedigree. Wheeldon male found near Sturgis, South Dakota, numbers and distribution to ensure their (unpublished data) considers a likely in 2006 (Larson in litt. 2006). In contrast long-term survival within the DPS. scenario is that a female wolf bred with to the other South Dakota wolves of the The maintenance and expansion of a male coyote and their female offspring last 25 years, the animal found near the Minnesota wolf population has backcrossed with male coyotes for an Sturgis was genetically identified as maximized the preservation of the undetermined number of generations, having come from the Greater genetic diversity that remained in the culminating in the animals handled. Yellowstone area (Fain in litt. 2006). The wolf population of Isle Royale Most recently, a wolf was shot in WGL DPS when its wolves were first National Park, Michigan, is not Roberts County, South Dakota, in protected in 1974. Furthermore, the considered to be an important factor in January 2009 (reportedly running with Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population the recovery of wolves in the WGL. The two or three other wolves) (Prieksat in has exceeded the numerical recovery Park population is small and isolated litt. 2009), and another wolf was found criterion even for a completely isolated and lacks genetic uniqueness (Wayne et dead in a foothold trap that was set as second population. Therefore, even in al. 1991, pp. 47–49). For genetic reasons part of an ongoing USDA Wildlife the unlikely event that this two-State and constraints on expansion due to the Service’s coyote control operation in population was to become totally island’s small size, this wolf population southeastern Eddy County, North isolated and wolf immigration from does not contribute significantly Dakota (Bicknell in litt. 2009). See Minnesota and Ontario completely towards meeting numerical recovery Delineating the Boundaries of the WGL ceased, it would still remain a viable criteria; however, long-term research on DPS in this rule for a detailed wolf population for the foreseeable this wolf population has added a great discussion of movement of wolves. future, as defined by the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 25– deal to our knowledge of the species. Wolf dispersal is expected to continue 26). Finally, each of the wolf The wolf population on Isle Royale has as wolves travel away from the more populations in Wisconsin and Michigan ranged from 12 to 50 wolves since 1959, saturated habitats in the core range into has exceeded 200 animals for 11 and 10 and was 16 wolves in the winter of peripheral areas where wolves are years, respectively, so if either were 2010–2011 (Vucetich and Peterson extremely sparse or absent. Unless they somehow to become isolated, they 2011, p. 3). return to the primary range and join or would remain viable, and each State has start a pack there, they are unlikely to Summary for Wisconsin and Michigan committed to manage its wolf contribute to long-term maintenance of The two-State wolf population, population at or above viable WGL wolf populations. excluding Isle Royale wolves, has population levels. The wolf’s numeric exceeded 100 wolves since late-winter Although it is possible for these and distributional recovery criteria in 1993–94 and has exceeded 200 wolves dispersers to encounter and mate with the WGL have been met. a mature wolf outside the primary since late-winter 1995–96. Therefore, Have the historical wolves of the the combined wolf population for range, the lack of large expanses of unfragmented habitat make it unlikely western great lakes region been Wisconsin and Michigan has exceeded 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 Western pp. 29–30), albeit dependent on and the admixture (similar to Great Lakes DPS occasional to frequent immigration of hybridization, but does not imply the No surveys have been conducted to UP wolves. Despite the constraints on generation in which the mixing document the number of wolves present further expansion described here, occurred) of what they have identified in North Dakota or South Dakota, but an however, current wolf populations in as coyote and western wolf haplotypes increasing number of wolves has Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP of in the current population. apparently been detected in the eastern Michigan have already greatly exceeded The spatial representativeness of both portions of these States. The eastern the recovery levels defined in the 1992 the historical and recent samples boundaries of North Dakota and South Revised Recovery Plan, and reported by Leonard and Wayne (2008) Dakota are approximately 19 and 81 mi maintenance of these numbers is not has been questioned by Mech (2009). (30 and 130 km), respectively, from contingent on recruitment of wolves For example, 16 recent but no historical occupied habitat in Minnesota. from areas outside the primary range samples from Minnesota were included Biologists who are familiar with wolves that has been established for the WGL. in the study. Leonard and Wayne (2009)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81680 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

responded that they did not believe that al. 2010, p. 12), and show no evidence existing wolves in the WGL are the genetic differences were likely to be that a genetic bottleneck may have descendants of the wolves that were pronounced at the geographic scale influenced genetic diversity (Koblmu¨ ller listed in 1978; the wolves that were the discussed by Mech and Paul (2008) and et al. 2009, p. 1). Schwartz and Vucetich subject of the recovery plans; the wolves Mech (2009). (2009, p. 2) have stated that ‘‘By all that have met recovery goals; and the The current population of wolves in accounts, the return of wolves to the wolves that will be managed by States, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan is Great Lakes region has been successful Tribes, and other Federal agencies after derived from expansion of the remnant * * * they are doing superbly—both in delisting. population in northeastern Minnesota terms of population viability and (Fain et al. 2010, p. 12), supplemented Summary of Comments and ecological function.’’ Cronin and Mech Recommendations by western gray wolves (Mech and (2009, p. 2) state, ‘‘It is generally Frenzel 1971; Mech 2010, p. 135), and acknowledged that the Great Lakes wolf In the proposed rule published on in the case of UP Michigan, with population is fit, with abundant genetic May 5, 2011 (76 FR 26806), we possible contributions from wolves from variation’’ (Cronin and Mech 2009, p. 2). requested that all interested parties southern Ontario (Fain et al. 2010, p. When the Service revised the submit written comments on the 12). endangered species list in 1978 to proposal by July 5, 2011. We also Subsequent studies with larger include the species Canis lupus in the contacted appropriate Federal and State samples of the current wolf population lower 48 States and Mexico, regulatory agencies, scientific experts and find, despite acknowledged influence of protections were applied to all gray organizations, and other interested western gray wolves, the current wolves in the lower 48 States, including parties and invited them to comment on population is generally representative of all subspecies of gray wolves. That rule the proposal. Newspaper notices the historical population (Fain et al. classified the Minnesota gray wolf inviting general public comment were 2010, p. 14; Wheeldon et al. 2010). population as a threatened ‘‘species’’ published in the Bangor Daily News Koblmu¨ ller et al. (2009, pp. 10–11) and gray wolves elsewhere in the lower (Maine), Duluth News-Tribune found ‘‘comparatively slight’’ 48 States and Mexico as another (Minnesota), Lansing State Journal differentiation at autosomal ‘‘species’’ with endangered status. This (Michigan), Marquette Mining Journal microsatellite DNA loci between reclassification was undertaken because (Michigan), Milwaukee Journal Sentinel historical and current Great Lakes of uncertainty about the taxonomic (Wisconsin), Minneapolis Star Tribune wolves. Wheeldon and White (2009, p. validity of some of the previously listed (Minnesota), Portland Press Herald 4) present microsatellite DNA evidence subspecies and because we recognized (Maine), and Wausau Daily Herald that the hybridization processes noted that wolf populations were historically (Wisconsin). We held a public hearing by Leonard and Wayne (2008) were connected, and that subspecies on May 18, 2011, in Ashland, taking place over a century ago, so that boundaries were thus malleable. Wisconsin, and one on June 8, 2011, in the current population is comparable to Augusta, Maine. We also held two the historical population with respect to This listing arrangement [of four public information meetings, one in admixture. They believe hybridization subspecies] has not been satisfactory because Grand Rapids, Minnesota, on June 14, the taxonomy of wolves is out of date, wolves between eastern wolves and western may wander outside of recognized 2011, and the other in Marquette, wolves in the western Great Lakes subspecific boundaries, and some wolves Michigan on June 16, 2011. region occurred prior to significant from unlisted subspecies may occur in On August 25, 2011, we published a human effects on population size or certain parts of the lower 48 States. In any notice in the Federal Register (76 FR habitat (Fain et al. 2010, p. 14). case, the Service wishes to recognize that the 53379) reopening the public comment According to Fain et al. (2010, p. 14), entire species Canis lupus is Endangered or period on the May 5, 2011, proposal. We the current population of wolves in the Threatened to the south of Canada, and reopened the comment period to allow western Great Lakes ‘‘represents an considers that this matter can be handled for additional public review and the ancient component of the northeast most conveniently by listing only the species inclusion of any new information, name.’’ (43 FR 9607). ecosystem and have been established specifically concerning North American throughout the region for thousands of Since then, except for the short wolf taxonomy. That notice also years.’’ periods during which wolves were informed the public that we were The loss of mtDNA haplotypes found delisted, all wolves in the WGL have considering issuing separate final rules in the historical but not the current been protected under that 1978 listing. for our final determinations on the western Great Lakes wolf population The recovery of all wolves in the WGL proposed delisting of the Western Great reported by Leonard and Wayne (2008, was guided first by the 1978 Recovery Lakes DPS and the proposed pp. 2–3), and the loss of allelic diversity Plan and then by the 1992 revised determination regarding all or portions (Fain et al. 2010, p. 11), indicate that a Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber of the 29 States considered to be outside genetic bottleneck occurred when Wolf. The wolves that were the subject the historical range of the gray wolf. The wolves were nearly extirpated from the of those documents are the wolves that second comment period closed on western Great Lakes region and during have been recovered in the WGL. The September 26, 2011. the period of slow recovery that debate regarding the C. lupus During the first comment period for immediately followed. Despite these nomenclature that was identified in the the proposed rule, we received 713 ‘‘founder effects’’ on the genetic 1974 and 1978 listings and in the unique comments directly addressing composition of the western Great Lakes recovery plans continues to date in the the proposed delisting of gray wolves in population, various measures of genetic scientific community. Regardless of this the WGL DPS. During the second diversity remain comparable to other debate regarding nomenclature, those comment period for the proposed rule, wolf populations (Koblmu¨ ller et al. listings allowed the wolf population we received 124 unique comments 2009; Fain et al. 2010, p. 12; Wheeldon that remained in northern Minnesota to directly addressing the proposed et al. 2010), at least partially owing to flourish and reestablish the population delisting of gray wolves in the WGL contributions from western gray wolves. throughout the core range we have DPS. These comments included verbal Wolves in the WGL region display a today in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the and written comments received at the healthy level of heterozygosity (Fain et UP of Michigan. It is clear that the public hearings. Comments were

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81681

submitted by 24 nongovernmental Canis lupus lycaon should be elevated include the species Canis lupus in the organizations representing a variety of to the full species Canis lycaon and that lower 48 States and Mexico, regulatory interest groups including preservation, the population of wolves in the WGL is protections were applied to all gray conservation, animal welfare, a mix of the two full species, Canis wolves in the lower 48 States, including agriculture or livestock, and sportsmen’s lupus and Canis lycaon. While there are all subspecies of gray wolves. The wolf organizations. Two Federal agency varying scientific opinions on the population in Minnesota was listed representatives provided comments, six taxonomic history of North American separately as a threatened species, while State agency representatives provided wolves, Canis lupus is the species that the rest of the lower 48 States and comments, and one elected official has been recognized in the WGL for a Mexico were listed as endangered. The provided a comment. Six comments long time and throughout this technical recovery of all wolves in the WGL was were received from Native American debate, and there is significant guided first by the 1978 Recovery Plan Tribes or tribal government agencies or information indicating that continuing and then by the 1992 revised Recovery organizations. to recognize Canis lupus as the species Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. The In accordance with our peer review in the WGL is appropriate (see Wolf wolves that were the subject of those policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR Taxonomy in the Western Great Lakes documents are the wolves that have 34270), we solicited expert opinion Region). Having reviewed and assessed been recovered in the WGL. The debate from four knowledgeable individuals all of the available scientific regarding the C. lupus nomenclature with scientific expertise that included information, including, in particular, that was identified in the 1974 and 1978 familiarity with wolves and their the comments received on the proposed listings and in the recovery plans habitat, biological needs, and threats. rule and the information that has continues to date in the scientific We received responses from three of the become available since the proposed community. Regardless of this debate peer reviewers. rule was published, we have decided regarding nomenclature, those listings We reviewed all comments received the better conclusion in to retain our allowed the wolf population that from the peer reviewers for substantive previous taxonomic recognition of remained in northern Minnesota to issues and new information regarding wolves in the WGL as gray wolves flourish and reestablish the population delisting wolves in the western Great (Canis lupus). Therefore, in this final throughout the core range we have Lakes. The peer reviewers concurred rule we consider all wolves in the WGL today in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the with our conclusion that delisting DPS to be gray wolves (Canis lupus) and UP of Michigan. The existing wolves in wolves in the WGL DPS is warranted are delisting them as such. the WGL are the descendants of wolves and provided additional information, (2) Comment: We received numerous in the Minnesota C. lupus population clarifications, and suggestions to requests from diverse interest groups that was protected in the 1978 listing; improve the final rule. and individuals asking that we the wolves that were the subject of the Comments received are addressed in subdivide our final determination on recovery plans; the wolves that have the following summary and delisting the WGL DPS from the final met recovery goals; and the wolves that incorporated into the final rule as determination on the rest of the will be managed by States, Tribes, and appropriate. proposed actions for the eastern United other Federal agencies after delisting. States. (4) Comment: The Service must Comments Our Response: We are separating our analyze how hybridization with eastern (1) Comment: We received numerous determination on the delisting of the wolves is affecting the viability of gray comments, including from peer Western Great Lakes DPS from the wolves. reviewers, regarding wolf taxonomy, determination on our proposal regarding Our Response: In light of the ongoing primarily with regards to whether C. all or portions of the 29 eastern States scientific debate, and the lack of clear lycaon should be recognized as a we considered to be outside the resolution concerning the taxonomy of separate species from C. lupus. historical range of the gray wolf. This wolves in the western Great Lakes, we Our Response: The extensive rule finalizes our determination for the are at this time continuing to recognize information submitted during the WGL DPS. A subsequent decision will C. lupus as the only species that occurs comment periods and recent be made for the rest of the eastern in the WGL. The wolves that occupy the publications on the subject and the United States. WGL DPS have long been accepted as widely diverging views expressed in the (3) Comment: We received numerous gray wolves, C. lupus, and until greater pertinent scientific studies underscore comments from diverse interest groups scientific consensus is reached the enduring debate regarding the and individuals stating that the Service regarding whether to revise this taxonomy of North American wolves— should treat wolves in the western Great taxonomic classification, the better a debate that may not be resolved for Lakes area as a single, connected conclusion is to continue to recognize some time (see Wolf Taxonomy in the population and analyze them as such. them as gray wolves. See Wolf Western Great Lakes Region for a full Others commented that the wolves that Taxonomy in the Western Great Lakes discussion). Although there is not a occupy the WGL DPS, regardless of Region for a full discussion. significant number of new publications scientific species classification, were (5) Comment: If two species of wolves that have become available since we and continue to be the same wolves that exist in the WGL, those two species published our proposal in May 2011, were protected under the Act over 30 need to be evaluated separately to the substance of those new publications years ago. The wolves that are in the determine if each has independently and the substantive comments we WGL DPS now are what was listed, been recovered; or the Service must received have led us to reconsider our what met the recovery goals, and what determine whether the gray wolves (C. proposed decision. should be delisted. lupus) in the WGL, independent of C. Based on a reevaluation of the Our Response: In this final rule we lycaon, have met the numerical recovery available scientific information and the consider all wolves in the WGL DPS to criteria in the Eastern Timber Wolf evolving and ongoing scientific debate, be members of a single species, the gray Recovery Plan. Others express that we reconsidered our position, as wolf (Canis lupus) and are delisting because the WGL population is expressed in the proposed rule (76 FR them as such. When the Service revised admixed, the Service cannot determine 26086), that the gray wolf subspecies the endangered species list in 1978 to if the gray wolf (C. lupus) itself has been

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81682 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

recovered. We also received comments wolf carrying capacity and contribute to delisted as this would allow Wisconsin stating that the boundaries of the WGL annual fluctuations in wolf abundance, and Michigan to implement depredation DPS must be based on the gray wolf but at current and foreseeable control programs while maintaining the alone, not on the two species combined. population levels, diseases are not likely Act’s protections for wolves. Our Response: In light of the ongoing to affect viability or put wolves at risk Our Response: We believe the gray scientific debate, and the lack of clear again of becoming endangered or wolf has achieved recovery in the WGL resolution concerning the taxonomy of threatened. DPS and our five-factor analysis wolves in the western Great Lakes, we We conducted a thorough analysis of indicates that it is no longer endangered are at this time continuing to recognize the existing and likely future threats to or threatened. Therefore, it should be C. lupus as the only species that occurs wolves, giving specific consideration to delisted with management returning to in the WGL. The wolves that occupy the the five categories of threats set forth in the States and tribes. WGL DPS have long been accepted as section 4(a)(1) of the Act—(1) habitat (9) Comment: The Service should gray wolves, C. lupus, and until greater destruction or degradation or a encourage North Dakota to revise its scientific consensus is reached reduction in the range of the gray wolf; classification of the wolf and adopt a regarding whether to revise this (2) utilization by humans; (3) disease, wolf management plan for the State. taxonomic classification, it is most parasites, or predatory actions by other Our Response: The core of the range logical to continue to recognize them as animals or humans; (4) State, Tribal, for the western Great Lakes population gray wolves. See Wolf Taxonomy in the and Federal regulatory measures; and of gray wolves is in Minnesota, Western Great Lakes Region for a full (5) other threats (see Summary of Wisconsin, and Michigan. Wolf discussion. Factors Affecting the Species). Based on management plans are only needed for (6) Comment: A few commenters our consideration of these factors these three States for the Service to be stated that wolves have not achieved individually and in combination, we assured that WGL wolves will be recovery because disease, illegal killing, concluded the Western Great Lakes wolf managed in such a manner that they are and other human-caused mortality, or population is neither in danger of not likely to become an endangered inadequate regulatory mechanisms still extinction nor likely to become so in the species in the foreseeable future. If threaten wolves in the WGL. Others foreseeable future, in all or a significant North Dakota or other States within the stated that the Service has not provided portion of the population’s range. WGL DPS wish to develop wolf a complete analysis of threats to wolves (7) Comment: A number of comments management plans, the Service will in the WGL. expressed opposition to delisting, provide technical assistance and Our Response: Our detailed review of making statements such as ‘‘wolves guidance as requested. the past, current, and likely future should always be protected’’ by the Act (10) Comment: A couple of threats to wolves within the WGL DPS and ‘‘why do wolves have to be commenters stated that the Service identified human-caused mortality of all delisted.’’ improperly designated the WGL DPS for forms to constitute the majority of Our Response: The Act provides the the purpose of delisting, further stating documented wolf deaths. However, the Federal Government with authority to that the DPS tool is intended to be used wolf populations in Wisconsin and protect and recover threatened and to protect a population segment without Michigan have continued to expand in endangered species. When a species has having to list the entire species. numbers and the Minnesota wolf been recovered to the extent that it no Our Response: In this rule we population is at least maintaining itself longer meets the definition of recognize that the Minnesota gray wolf at well over the population goal ‘‘threatened’’ or ‘‘endangered,’’ the Act population listed as a species in 1978 recommended in the 1992 Recovery provides that it should be removed from has functioned effectively as a DPS ever Plan and at about twice the minimum the Federal List of Endangered and since the DPS provision was added to level established in the 2001 Minnesota Threatened Wildlife and Plants and its the Act later in 1978. Under the Act, the Wolf Plan. Healthy wolf populations management be returned to the Service is authorized to reevaluate that clearly can withstand a high level of appropriate States and tribes (in cases functional DPS listing and revise it to mortality, from human and other causes, where treaties identify such authorities meet the criteria in the DPS policy and and remain viable. We believe that, for for tribes). The goal of the Act is to to reflect the ‘‘best available biological purposes of this delisting decision, the recover listed species and then to delist data’’ (see Western Great Lakes Distinct numerical growth and range expansion them when they no longer qualify as Population Segment). We are not shown by WGL DPS wolves indicate threatened or endangered, thereby designating a previously unidentified that adequate control of human-caused allowing the Service to focus its efforts DPS, but are revising a preexisting mortality already exists since the on the many other species that do listing of Canis lupus in Minnesota that species is being maintained at healthy qualify as threatened and endangered. functions as a DPS. Our reevaluation of levels. The WGL gray wolf DPS no longer the Minnesota listing demonstrates that With regard to disease, several meets the definition of a threatened or a gray wolf DPS including only diseases have had noticeable impacts on endangered species, as it has achieved Minnesota (per the 1978 listing) would wolf population growth in the Great long-standing recovery criteria by not meet the criteria in the DPS policy, Lakes region in the past. Despite these greatly expanding in numbers and because it would not be discrete ‘‘* * * and other diseases and parasites, the geographic range and threats to its long- in relation to the remainder of the overall trend for wolf populations in the term viability have been reduced or species to which it belongs’’ (61 FR WGL DPS continues to be upward. Wolf eliminated. Therefore, the Act requires 4725, February 7, 1996). The Minnesota management plans for Minnesota, delisting the species, but it also requires wolf population has expanded well Michigan, and Wisconsin include that we continue to monitor the status beyond State boundaries and is disease monitoring components that we of the species for a minimum of 5 years connected to the wolf population in expect will identify future disease and after delisting, and we can list it again Wisconsin and Michigan, as evidenced parasite problems in time to allow if the monitoring results show that to be by frequent movements of wolves corrective action to avoid a significant necessary. among the States (Van Deelen 2009, p. decline in overall population viability. (8) Comment: The WGL DPS should 140; Treves at al. 2009, pp. 192–195) Disease may eventually limit overall be reclassified to threatened instead of and genetic analyses that demonstrate

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81683

the Wisconsin and Michigan wolves are entity from the appropriate list in its the core areas. The areas of potentially mostly from the same genetic mix as entirety, or to reduce the geographic or suitable habitat that are currently Minnesota wolves (Wheeldon and taxonomic scope of a listing to exclude unoccupied are relatively small, and White 2009, p. 4; Fain et al. 2010). a group of organisms previously even if occupied in the future, will not Therefore, we are delineating the included as part of an already-listed make a significant contribution to the boundaries of the expanded Minnesota entity.’’ The complete text of the long-term viability of the gray wolf population segment to meet the criteria Solicitor’s formal opinion can be found population in the DPS or in the United in the DPS policy and to reflect the at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/. States, and thus are not considered to be current geographic location of the Therefore, identification and delisting of a significant portion of the species population. a DPS is permissible. range. Moreover, even if we were identifying (11) Comment: Two commenters A critical component of delineating a new DPS at this time, we interpret the stated that, when drawing the the boundaries of a DPS is gaining an Act to allow DPSs to be used for both boundaries of the DPS, the Service must understanding of the population/ listing and delisting species. Section ensure that all significant portions of the metapopulation that is being designated 4(a)(1) of the Act directs the Secretary range within the DPS support viable as a DPS. Wolf biology clearly shows of the Interior to determine whether wolf populations. The boundaries that temporary and permanent ‘‘any species’’ is endangered or should include, at most, core areas in movements beyond the pack’s territory threatened. Numerous sections of the which a population has fully recovered. are a key element of wolf population Act refer to adding and removing Our Response: We have analyzed dynamics, and as such, these ‘‘species’’ from the list of threatened or whether the species is threatened or movements must be considered when endangered plants and animals. Section endangered in a significant portion of its delineating a boundary for a DPS. 3(16) defines ‘‘species’’ to include any range in the WGL DPS (see Is the Furthermore, a biologically based DPS subspecies ‘‘and any distinct population Species Threatened or Endangered in a boundary cannot follow the edge of the segment of any species of vertebrate fish Significant Portion of Its Range?). We fully occupied core areas, as this or wildlife’’ Therefore, the Act believe all significant portions of the comment seems to advocate. Individual authorizes us to revise the List of species’ range within the DPS support wolves would be constantly moving Endangered and Threatened Wildlife viable wolf populations and that the back and forth across such a boundary, and Plants to list, reclassify, and delist gray wolf has achieved recovery and pack territories may form on both species, subspecies, and DPSs of throughout the WGL DPS and is no sides of the line in some years, and vertebrate species. Furthermore, our longer threatened or endangered. might disappear from one or both sides ‘‘Policy Regarding the Recognition of Therefore, it should be delisted with in subsequent years, depending on a Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments management returning to the States and number of physical, biological, and under the Endangered Species Act’’ tribes. societal factors. We determined that the states that the policy is intended for We have delineated the DPS to be DPS boundary should recognize and ‘‘the purposes of listing, delisting, and closely tied to the biological wolf accommodate the normal behavior of reclassifying species under the population in the area, and to be the metapopulation members. Endangered Species Act * * *.’’ (61 FR consistent with the two relevant court (12) Comment: A few commenters 4722, Feb. 7, 1996), and that it ‘‘guides rulings (Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, suggested specific revisions to the DPS the evaluation of distinct vertebrate 354 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (D. Or. 2005); boundaries, such as including or not population segments for the purposes of National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, including all of the Dakotas or not listing, delisting, and reclassifying 386 F. Supp. 2d 553 (D. Vt. 2005)). Wolf including the northern Lower Peninsula under the Act.’’ (61 FR 4725). biology makes it unreasonable to define of Michigan. On December 12, 2008, the Solicitor a wolf population, and hence a wolf Our Response: We considered the best of the Department of the Interior issued DPS, as solely the area where wolf packs available scientific data on wolf a formal opinion, ‘‘U.S. Fish and are present at viable levels. Any area distributions and movements in Wildlife Service Authority Under that hosts wolf packs also is producing delineating the boundaries of the Section 4(c)(1) of the Endangered a substantial number of dispersing Western Great Lakes DPS. We Species Act to Revise Lists of wolves, some of which return after short considered several options, among them Endangered and Threatened Species to absences, while others travel farther and drawing a tight line around the core ‘Reflect Recent Determinations’ ’’ (U.S. some never return. Delineation of a wolf Great Lakes wolf population or drawing DOI 2008). This opinion represents the population must recognize and account a very large circle that included the core views of the Department of the Interior for this dispersal behavior to some population as well as all areas visited by and fully supports the Department’s degree. We believe our DPS delineation known dispersers. In the end, however, position that it is authorized in a single is appropriately based on the biological we determined that drawing the action to identify a DPS within a larger features of the species and the nature of boundary line to include the core listed entity, determine that the DPS is a wolf population by being centered on recovered wolf population in the Great neither endangered nor threatened, and the areas occupied by the core Lakes Region, plus a wolf movement then revise the List of Endangered and population, but also including a zone around the core population that Threatened Wildlife to reflect those surrounding area that encompasses a includes areas visited by dispersers determinations. The opinion also notes reasonable portion of the areas visited known to contribute to the core that, although the term ‘‘delist’’ is not by core population wolves making population, was the most biologically used in the Act, it is used extensively longer distance movements from their supported alternative. The in the regulations implementing the natal areas. We have included nearby determination was the result of a section 4 listing provisions of the Act, areas that are likely to be visited by thorough review of biological data and such as 50 CFR 424.11(d). As explained wolves that have dispersed from the the regulatory guidance. Additionally, in footnote 8 to the Solicitor’s opinion, core recovery areas because we believe the delineation of the DPS boundary ‘‘As used by FWS, ‘‘delisting’’ applies these wolves should be considered part was supported by the peer-reviewers. broadly to any action that revises the of that biological population while they (13) Comment: Corridors that allow lists either to remove an already-listed are within a reasonable distance from safe movement of wolves among the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81684 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Great Lakes States must be maintained, The MI management plan recognized proposed rule states that ‘‘Tribal and the benefits of these corridors must the importance of continued movement representatives declined to participate’’ not be undermined by escalated lethal of wolves within and among the states in the development of a wolf control of wolves. and Canada to help ensure the long-term management strategy for the lower 48 Our Response: Wolves are effective viability of the wolf population. As a States. In fact, most Tribes in the dispersers (Forbes and Boyd 1997), and component of their management plan, country were given no opportunity to existing habitat linkages among the MI DNR will cooperate with Federal, participate in this process, and the few Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and State and tribal agencies and private intertribal organizations that had any Canada allow long-distance movements. landowners to identify and protect wolf opportunity were invited only after the Long-distance movements of wolves habitat linkage zones (MI DNR 2008, pp. process was already under way. (b) through human-dominated landscapes 39–40). The wolf management plans Many of the references to tribal in Minnesota and Wisconsin suggest currently in place for Minnesota, management perspectives used in the highways and roads are not barriers Wisconsin, and Michigan will be more proposal were 8–13 years old, (Mech et al. 1995, p. 368; Merrill and than sufficient to retain viable wolf disregarding the fact that tribal Mech 2000, pp. 429–431). Wolves are populations in each State. These State perspectives may change over time, capable of traveling through crop and plans provide a very high level of possibly misrepresenting current tribal range land (Licht and Fritts 1994, pp. assurance that wolf populations in these positions. (c) The section that discusses 75, 77; Wydeven et al. 1998, pp. 777) three States will not decline to the Service’s government-to-government and can cross ice-covered lakes and nonviable levels in the foreseeable relationship with the Tribes notes that rivers (Mech 1966, accessed at http:// future. the Service will ‘‘fully consider all of www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/ (14) Comment: Several commenters the comments on the proposed rule that fauna7/fauna2a.htm, not paginated) and stated that the Service must ensure that are submitted by Tribes and Tribal unfrozen rivers during the summer (Van State wolf management strategies members during the public comment Camp and Gluckie 1979, pp. 236–237). accommodate tribal interests within period,’’ reflecting again the Service’s The Minnesota, Wisconsin, and reservation boundaries as well as honor failure to correctly recognize the proper Michigan State management plans all the tribal role and authority in wolf nature of the Service-Tribal include maintaining habitat linkages management in the ceded territories. relationship. and dispersal corridors as a Furthermore, the Federal trust Our Response: As discussed in the management component. In Minnesota, responsibility, as it pertains to wolf proposed rule, the Service embarked on most of the occupied wolf range is management, must be continued after a structured decisionmaking process in contiguous; that is, most packs occur delisting. 2008 as a means of developing a more adjacent to or very near other packs. In Our Response: The Service and the integrated and comprehensive strategy addition, all wolves in Minnesota are Department of the Interior recognize the for gray wolf conservation in the lower connected with the much larger unique status of federally recognized 48 States and Mexico. The overall intent population inhabiting southern Canada tribes, their right to self-governance, and of the process was to identify (MN DNR 2001, p. 27). The dispersal their inherent sovereign powers over appropriate wolf entities (i.e., listing corridor between Minnesota and their members and territory. The units) for full status review, anticipating Wisconsin (within and immediately to Department, the Service, the Bureau of that such review would lead to either the south of management Zone 4) Indian Affairs (BIA), and other Federal confirmation or revision of the existing contains large land areas in public agencies, as appropriate, will take the gray wolf listing. We first conducted ownership (the Nemadji, St. Croix State needed steps to ensure that tribal several iterations of the process in an Forests, Chengwatana State Forest, and authority and sovereignty within internal Service effort to develop a St. Croix State Park) that are contiguous reservation boundaries are respected as viable framework for considering the with large areas of county forest land in the States implement their wolf scientific and policy questions that Wisconsin. Because of the habitat management plans and revise those drive decisionmaking for wolves. security of the public land base that is plans in the future. Furthermore, there Following our development of a adjacent to Wisconsin between the Twin may be tribal activities or interests satisfactory decisionmaking framework, Cities and Duluth, wolf dispersal associated with the wolf encompassed we convened a workshop in August corridors between Minnesota and within the tribes’ retained rights to 2010 to generate and assess alternative Wisconsin are well protected. The MN hunt, fish, and gather in treaty-ceded taxonomic and population units at DNR will work in cooperation with the territories. The Department is available various scales and in various WI DNR on assessments of the effects of to assist in the exercise of those rights. configurations, including the 1978 future development on dispersal in the If biological assistance is needed, the listing as the status quo alternative. The interstate area (MN DNR 2001, p. 2). Service may provide it via our field outcomes from the workshop provided The Wisconsin management plan (WI offices. The Service will remain input to our continuing effort to DNR 1999, p. 23) promotes cooperative involved in the post-delisting formulate a comprehensive vision of habitat management with public land monitoring of the gray wolf, but all wolf conservation, which evolved into management agencies, industrial forests, Service management and protection the proposed national wolf strategy and other private landowners, including authority under the Act will end with discussed in the proposal. This strategy protection of dispersal corridors on this delisting. Legal assistance may be was a broad outline, the components of private, tribal, and public land to provided to the tribes by the Department which are in various stages of execution. promote continued wolf movement to of the Interior, and the BIA will be The process used to develop the and from Michigan and Minnesota, as involved, when needed. proposed national wolf strategy evolved well as among Wisconsin packs. (15) Comment: One commenter stated as we proceeded through our task, and Furthermore, the Plan states that that the delisting process has different parties were engaged at protection of corridor habitat should be highlighted the need for improved different times. a factor in considering acquisition of relationships between Tribes and the Although the Midwest Tribes and public land for other conservation Service on wolf management issues. Inter-Tribal Natural Resource purposes. Several issues were highlighted: (a) The Management Agencies were not

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81685

participants at the August 2010 points and conclusions in the proposed Benson 2004, Table 1). Therefore, we workshop, we worked hard to involve rule (pp. 26112–26114). see no problem with using these them in developing a proposal that was Our Response: We have incorporated Minnesota population estimates. specific to the Midwest area. In doing information from those recent scientific Members of the Recovery Team have so, to make sure that our proposal papers into our analysis of disease as a also expressed confidence in the appropriately reflected the current potential threat (see the discussion population estimates of all three States status of Tribal wolf management under C. Disease or Predation). That (Peterson in litt. 1999a, in litt. 1999b). activities, we contacted each Tribe in information does not alter our The 1992 Federal Recovery Plan the Service’s Midwest Region that we determination that diseases are not describes two scenarios that would knew to be involved in wolf likely to affect the viability of wolves or satisfy its goal for a second viable wolf management activities in order to clarify put wolves in the WGL at risk. population. One scenario deals with the their management efforts to date and the (18) Comment: Several commenters development of an isolated wolf status of any Tribal wolf management expressed concern regarding whether population; such a population must be plans. We hold our government-to- the States would implement a public composed of at least 200 wolves over government relationship with Tribes in harvest or recreational hunting after five successive years. The second very high regard and respect Tribal wolves are federally delisted. Others scenario is a population that is located sovereignty. Accordingly, all of the commented that they support a public within 100 miles of another viable wolf comments received from Tribes and harvest or recreational hunting. A population; such a population must Inter-Tribal Natural Resource number provided suggestions on how or consist of only 100 wolves for five Management Agencies in response to specifically where such a public harvest consecutive years (USFWS 1992, pp. the proposed rule were considered in should be implemented, if it is. 25–26). The Recovery Plan discusses the the final rule. In addition, during the Our Response: Unregulated killing conservation tradeoffs of completely comment period, we met with the was the primary threat to the species separate populations versus adjacent Chippewa Ottawa Resources Authority historically. The State management populations, and it specifically states Board and the Great Lakes Indian Fish plans that will be implemented after that a wolf population larger than 100 and Wildlife Commission’s Voigt Inter- delisting provide protection from wolves ‘‘closely tied to the Minnesota Tribal Task Force to discuss the unregulated killing. It is not the population’’ will be considered a viable proposal. We also offered to meet Service’s position to decide whether a population despite its small size, individually with and discuss the regulated harvest in and of itself is an because of immigration of wolves from proposal with any Tribe that wanted to appropriate management tool. Instead Minnesota (USFWS 1992, pp. 24–25). do so, however none accepted our offer. the Service is concerned with whether Although this Recovery Plan was (16) Comment: Post-delisting the use of that tool might reduce the written prior to the common acceptance monitoring is critical and should extend number of wolves in such a way that and use of the conservation biology term beyond the typical 5-year period. Public they would again be considered a ‘‘metapopulation,’’ this clearly was the harvest will likely take 3–5 years to threatened or endangered species under concept being discussed and advocated implement, and this is the variable most the Act. A regulated harvest of wolves in the Federal Recovery Plan. The likely to affect wolf populations. This can be carried out in a manner that second scenario describes what has variable cannot be adequately evaluated would not threaten their continued occurred in the WGL DPS, and, within the 5-year PDM period. existence. therefore, the wolves in Wisconsin and Our Response: The Service will (19) Comment: A couple of Michigan qualify as a second population implement the PDM plan for at least 5 commenters stated that the recovery (see Recovery Criteria for a full years after delisting the WGL DPS. criteria have not been achieved because discussion). During the monitoring period, if the either the wolf population data are (20) Comment: Delisting in the WGL Service detects a change in wolf wrong, or because the Wisconsin- will prevent wolves from further populations or a significant increase in Michigan wolf population is not a expanding into areas of their previous threats, it can evaluate and change second population as is required by the range. The Service cannot delist wolves monitoring methods or consider recovery criteria found in the 1992 in one portion of their range when the relisting. At the end of the PDM period Recovery Plan. species remains endangered throughout the Service will conduct a final internal Our Response: We are fully satisfied the remainder of its historical range, and review and may request reviews by the that the wolf population estimates where viable habitat for the species former members of the Eastern Gray provided by the Minnesota, Wisconsin, exists such that further recovery within Wolf Recovery Team and other and Michigan DNRs demonstrate that its historical range can be promoted. independent specialists, as appropriate. the numerical recovery criteria have Our Response: Delisting the Western If the final internal review indicates that been achieved for far longer than the 5 Great Lakes DPS does not discourage substantive changes have been made to years recommended in the Federal wolf conservation in other parts of their how wolves are managed, we may Recovery Plan. The methods used by WI range. The Act defines ‘‘conservation’’ extend the monitoring period to and MI DNRs result in a conservative as ‘‘the use of all methods and evaluate potential impacts. Based on count of the wolves that are alive at the procedures which are necessary to bring those final reviews, which will be late-winter annual low point of the wolf any endangered species or threatened posted on the Service’s Internet site, the population. The method used by the species to the point at which the Service will decide whether to relist, Minnesota DNR for its much larger wolf measures provided pursuant to this extend the monitoring period, or end population is less precise, but even the chapter are no longer necessary.’’ 16 monitoring. lower bound of its 90 percent U.S.C. 1532(3). The States, tribes, and (17) Comment: One peer reviewer confidence interval (CI) exceeded the conservation groups have all played a stated that the recent scientific literature Federal Recovery Plan’s Minnesota goal key role in the recovery of the WGL wolf contains a few additional pertinent of 1,250–1,440 wolves back as far as the population and now, because the wolf papers on gray wolf diseases and 1988–89 survey (Fuller et al. 1992, p. population is recovered and healthy, parasites. She noted that those papers 50) and the CI lower bound has been continued conservation efforts under are in agreement with the discussion well above that goal since then (Erb and the Act are no longer necessary within

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81686 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

the DPS. The assertion that delisting the 4(a)(1)) and that we make this will rely on the States to provide WGL DPS is inconsistent with the Act’s determination ‘‘solely on the basis of the sufficient protection to wolves until and conservation requirement is based on an best scientific and commercial data unless it is shown they are unwilling or apparent confusion of the term available.’’ In compliance with the Act, unable to do so. ‘‘conservation’’ with ‘‘restoration.’’ A the other nonscientific considerations (24) Comment: The delisting decision species is conserved when it no longer and factors described above have not is based on the assumption that the meets the Act’s definitions of been used in making this decision. The State wolf management plans will be endangered species or threatened WGL gray wolf DPS no longer meets the fully implemented and funded after species and, at such time, the species definition of a threatened or endangered Federal delisting. should be delisted. This does not species, and has achieved the recovery Our Response: We are required to require the range-wide restoration of the criteria established in the Eastern evaluate the likely future threats that a gray wolf to all areas that it historically Timber Wolf Recovery Plan (Service delisted wolf population will inhabited before it may be delisted in 1992) by greatly expanding in numbers experience. We rely heavily on the State the WGL region—an area that is and geographic range, and threats to its wolf management plans for our inhabited by a healthy, recovered wolf long long-term viability have been assessment of the degree of protection population. reduced or eliminated. and monitoring that will occur after Because this final rule does not alter (22) Comment: Several comments Federal delisting. Because these plans the listing status of wolves under the recommended that specific changes be have received the necessary approvals Act outside of the DPS, it does not made to the three State wolf within the State governments, we hinder the Service’s or States’ ability to management plans or that the State believe it is reasonable to assume the implement reintroduction and recovery management plans are not ‘‘protective plans will be funded and implemented programs in other areas of the country. enough’’ of wolves. largely as written. Wisconsin and The commenters’ focus on the alleged Our Response: We have reviewed the Michigan DNRs have led the efforts to inability of wolves within the DPS to 2001 Minnesota Plan, the 1999 and 2006 restore wolves to their States for several disperse to other areas is misdirected Updated Wisconsin Plan, and the 1997 decades. Based on their proven because it takes an overly narrow view and 2008 revised Michigan Plan. We leadership in Midwest wolf recovery, of wolf recovery possibilities. This final reviewed these plans to determine if we see no reason to doubt the rule in itself does not foreclose further they will provide sufficient protection continuing commitment of these State wolf recovery in other areas of suitable and reduce threats. We are primarily agencies to wolf conservation. habitat via reintroduction programs. concerned with the outcome of the We recognize that State wolf plans Indeed, gray wolf populations in plan’s implementation. Once a species can be changed by the respective DNR Wyoming, central Idaho, and the is delisted, the details of its or State legislature, creating some southwestern United States did not management are a State or tribal uncertainty regarding plan develop from dispersers, but from wolf responsibility; the Federal responsibility implementation. However, given the reintroductions that were planned and is to monitor the plan’s implementation high public visibility of wolf carried out by the Service and partner and the species’ response for at least 5 management, the extent of public agencies and organizations. Continued years to ensure that the plan’s outcome interest and involvement in the wolf recovery in areas outside of the is as expected. We have concluded that development and updating of the States’ Western Great Lakes DPS is not each plan provides adequate protection plans, the vast amount of scientific data prevented by delisting the Western for wolves, and will keep threats at a available regarding wolf management, Great Lakes DPS. sufficiently low level, so that the WGL and the status monitoring that we will (21) Comment: Numerous DPS wolves will not become threatened be maintaining for the next 5 years, we commenters indicated that our delisting or endangered in the foreseeable future. believe it is reasonable and proper to proposal was based on unspecified Suggestions for changes to the State assume that the three State wolf plans political considerations, pressure from wolf management plans should be will not be significantly changed, nor the livestock industry, exaggerated fears directed to the respective State will their implementation be critically for human safety, pressure from deer/ management agency for consideration. underfunded, in a manner that would bear hunters and furbearer trappers, and (23) Comment: Several comments jeopardize the viability of any State’s pressure from States. We were asked by expressed distrust for State wolf wolf population. If this assumption other commenters to consider the value protection, based on past State programs turns out to be incorrect, we have the of wolves for keeping deer numbers in aimed at wolf eradication. ability to extend the monitoring period check, to maintaining healthy ungulate Our Response: We acknowledge the or relist the species, including an populations, for maintaining native past involvement of State and Federal emergency relisting, if necessary. vegetation and other species of wildlife, government agencies in intensive, and (25) Comment: Human-caused and in balancing nature. Others thought largely successful, programs to eradicate mortality poses too high a risk to delist we should consider the economic wolves. However, we believe that public the wolf. The wolf cannot be delisted benefits provided by a large wolf sentiment and agency mandates have ‘‘until this threat has been adequately population. We also received numerous changed dramatically since the 1960s controlled.’’ comments indicating that wolves should and earlier (see Public Attitudes Toward Our Response: Our detailed review of be delisted because of fear for public the Wolf). While wolf eradication might the past, current, and likely future safety, increased wolf-human conflicts, still be the wish of a small number of threats to wolves within the WGL DPS reduced funding to control depredating individuals, we believe there is broad identified human-caused mortality of all wolves, and/or decreasing public support among the public and within forms to constitute the majority of tolerance for wolves. governmental agencies to allow wolves documented wolf deaths. However, the Our Response: The Act requires that to occupy our landscape, with some wolf populations in Wisconsin and listing and delisting decisions be based degree of management imposed to Michigan have continued to expand in entirely on whether a species is maintain control of the level of wolf- numbers and the Minnesota wolf endangered or threatened due to one or human conflicts. Based on existing State population is at least maintaining itself more categories of threats (section laws and State management plans, we at well over the population goal

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81687

recommended in the 1992 Recovery on the recognition of C. lycaon as a about the existence of C. lycaon and Plan and at about twice the minimum separate species. At that time we made therefore about the original range of C. level established in the 2001 Minnesota available to the public a manuscript lupus.’’ Wolf Plan. Healthy wolf populations prepared by Service employees that is The Service also received a number of clearly can withstand a high level of currently undergoing review for comments from conservation groups mortality, from human and other causes, publication (Chambers et al., in prep.). that, while supporting the delisting of and remain viable. Although the The manuscript provides a review of the wolves in the WGL, asserted that the commenters do not provide any available scientific literature to assess Service’s proposal to recognize C. clarification on what is meant by the taxonomic standing of wolves in lycaon as a full species was not ‘‘adequately controlled’’ we believe that, North America. Our recognition of C. supported by the best available science. for purposes of this delisting decision, lycaon as a separate species in the The Natural Resources Defense Council the numerical growth and range proposal was, in part, based on (in litt 2011) cite that ‘‘the Service’s expansion shown by WGL DPS wolves information summarized in that decision to recognize a separate species indicate that ‘‘adequate control’’ already manuscript. During the reopened public of wolf, C. lycaon, in this region is not exists since the species is being comment period, we again received supported by the best available science’’ maintained at healthy levels. numerous comments focused on and ‘‘while the issue of wolf taxonomy taxonomy. has long been debated, the existence of Summary of Changes From Proposed Many of the comments we received an eastern wolf, C. lycaon, as a separate Rule during both comment periods came species is not fully supported by the In this final rule, we make two from leading researchers in the field of scientific community. Additionally, the substantive changes from the proposal. canid biology and genetics, including taxonomy of wolves in this region is the First, we are separating our many of the scientists responsible for subject of current and active research. determination on the delisting of the the research upon which we based the As such, it is premature to declare the Western Great Lakes DPS from the decision in our proposal. Many of the existence of C. lycaon as a distinct determination on our proposal regarding scientists who commented regarding species.’’ Defenders of Wildlife (in litt. all or portions of the 29 States we taxonomy during the first comment 2011) state that ‘‘a definitive conclusion considered to be outside the historical period submitted additional comments cannot be made [regarding the range of the gray wolf. This rule after reviewing the Chambers et al. (in taxonomic status of the eastern wolf] at finalizes our determination for the WGL prep.) manuscript. Several recent this time.’’ The National Wildlife DPS. A subsequent decision will be publications on the subject were also Federation (in litt. 2011) asserts that made for the rest of the eastern United submitted (e.g., Mech 2011, Mech et al. ‘‘given the significant taxonomic debate States. in press, vonHoldt et al. 2011). that is currently underway among In this final rule, we also amend our One particular comment letter was respected scientists’’ and ‘‘because the taxonomic interpretation of wolves in signed by eight leading researchers in scientific community remains unsettled, the WGL. In the proposed rule, we this field (Weeldon et al. in litt. 2011), the taxonomic revision proposed in this presented and proposed to recognize many of whom also submitted rule is premature.’’ recent taxonomic information indicating individual comments on the proposal. The State natural resource agencies in that the gray wolf subspecies Canis In that letter they acknowledge their the WGL also expressed that the debate lupus lycaon should be elevated to the differing views on wolf taxonomy, yet regarding wolf taxonomy is unsettled. full species C. lycaon. We believed the express that they all disagree with the The MN DNR (in litt. 2011) states best available scientific information Service’s conclusion in the proposal ‘‘several competing theories exist supported recognition of the eastern that two separate species of wolves surrounding the ongoing controversy wolf, C. lycaon, as a species and that inhabit the WGL. Those scientists state over wolf taxonomy in the Great Lakes this species had intercrossed with C. that research and data collection region. There is no general consensus lupus in the western Great Lakes region regarding whether two separate species regarding these theories, and * * * it to constitute a population composed of of wolves inhabit the WGL and whether will continue to be of great debate in the C. lupus, C. lycaon, and their hybrids. gray wolves (Canis lupus) historically scientific community.’’ They further During the public comment period on occupied portions of the eastern United contend that vonHoldt et al. (2011) the proposal, we received comments States is ongoing, and that such research ‘‘which contradicts other recent reports, from diverse interest groups and will continue to elucidate the taxonomic exemplifies the limitations of drawing individuals (including scientific history of wolves in North America. final conclusions from the relatively researchers, State natural resource L. David Mech, preeminent wolf new, rapidly evolving, and competing agencies, sportsmen’s groups, researcher and peer reviewer for the theories from the science of molecular cattlemen’s groups, and conservation proposal, submitted comments stating genetics. We recognize the ongoing groups) highlighting the ongoing debate that the proposal to delist wolves in the controversy over wolf taxonomy in the regarding the taxonomy of North WGL is well supported by the data, western Great Lakes region and suggest American wolves. Some of those except for the data regarding taxonomy that the Service has prematurely commenters questioned the position (Mech in litt. 2011). He states: accepted only one of several competing that C. lycaon be recognized as a species ‘‘Although it is true that at the writing alternatives to the taxonomic (rather than a subspecies); others stated of the proposed rule, it seemed like classification of wolves.’’ The WI DNR that, in light of ongoing research and considerable evidence had accumulated (Stepp in litt. 2011) asserts that recent papers that present varying supporting the existence of the separate ‘‘scientists continue to disagree whether taxonomic alternatives, it is premature species, Canis lycaon, or the eastern the eastern wolf is a separate species to accept C. lycaon as a separate species. wolf, the vonHoldt et al. (2011) article from gray wolves’’ while the MI DNR (in To allow for further consideration of the published since adds enough doubt as litt. 2011) states ‘‘we recognize that the taxonomy issue, on August 26, 2011, we to question that proposition. At the science regarding which species of reopened the public comment period on least, the vonHoldt et al. (2011) article wolves occur in the Western Great Lakes the proposal to allow for additional evinces that there is not consensus by is not settled, but we also recognize that public review and comment specifically the pertinent scientific community wolf conservation cannot be put on hold

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81688 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

until every scientific question has a to the full species Canis lycaon and that potentially affect the species once the consensus answer.’’ the population of wolves in the WGL is protections of the Act are removed. Numerous other groups also a mix of the two full species, Canis In the context of the Act, the term commented on the issue of recognizing lupus and Canis lycaon. While there are ‘‘threatened species’’ means any species C. lycaon as a separate species. Safari varying scientific opinions on the or subspecies or, for vertebrates, Distinct Club International (in litt. 2011) states taxonomic history of North American Population Segment (DPS) that is likely ‘‘as is evidenced by the myriad wolves, for a long time and throughout to become an endangered species within comments offered by experts in wolf this technical debate, Canis lupus is the the foreseeable future throughout all or biology and taxonomy that are either species that has been recognized in the a significant portion of its range. The published in the scientific literature or WGL, and there is significant term ‘‘endangered species’’ means any were submitted in response to the information indicating that continuing species that is in danger of extinction previous comment opportunity, the to recognize C. lupus as the species in throughout all or a significant portion of question of a separate taxonomic species the WGL is appropriate (see Wolf its range. The Act does not define the classification for a new species of Taxonomy in the Western Great Lakes term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ For the wolves in the Western Great Lakes Region). Having reviewed and assessed purpose of this rule, we define the (WGL) is highly disputed and all of the available scientific ‘‘foreseeable future’’ to be the extent to controversial at best.’’ Both the Sierra information, including, in particular, which, given the amount and substance Club (in litt. 2011) and the Michigan the comments received on the proposed of available data, we can anticipate Environmental Council (in litt. 2011) rule and the information that has events or effects, or reliably extrapolate declare that ‘‘there is still a significant become available since the proposed threat trends that relate to the status of lack of clarity within the scientific rule was published, we have decided the WGL DPS. community regarding the existence of the better conclusion to draw at this It took a considerable length of time Canis lycaon’’ while the Center for time is our previous taxonomic for public attitudes and regulations to Biological Diversity (in litt. 2011) states recognition that all wolves in the WGL result in a social climate that promoted ‘‘the evidence shows that declaring the area are gray wolves (Canis lupus). and allowed for wolf recovery in the eastern wolf a distinct species is not Therefore, in this final rule we consider WGL DPS. The length of time over supported by the best available all wolves in the WGL DPS to be gray which this shift occurred, and the science.’’ The Society for Conservation wolves (Canis lupus) and are delisting ensuing stability in those attitudes, Biology (in litt. 2011) contends that ‘‘the them as such. gives us confidence that this social proposed rule’s use of Canis lycaon to climate will persist. Also, the States designate wolves in the northeastern Summary of Factors Affecting the have had a solid history of cooperating United States is inconsistent with Species and assisting in wolf recovery and have made a commitment, through legislative currently recognized scientific Section 4 of the Act and its actions, to continue these activities. We nomenclature’’ and ‘‘given this implementing regulations (50 CFR part continued scientific controversy.* * *’’ believe this commitment will continue. 424) set forth the procedures for listing The Humane Society of the United When evaluating the available species, reclassifying species, or States (in litt. 2011) asserts that the information, with respect to foreseeable removing species from listed status. Service’s proposal ‘‘is based on future, we take into account reduced ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as unsettled science with respect to the confidence as we forecast further into including any species or subspecies of recognition of a new species of wolf, the the future. fish or wildlife or plants, and any eastern wolf’’ and the Service’s distinct vertebrate population segment A. The Present or Threatened conclusion regarding the eastern wolf of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when Destruction, Modification, or ‘‘is a matter of continuing scientific mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the Curtailment of its Habitat or Range debate.’’ The extensive information submitted ‘‘species’’ is identified, we then evaluate A common misconception is that during the comment periods and recent whether that species may be endangered wolves inhabit only remote pristine publications on the subject and the or threatened because of one or more of forests or mountainous areas, where widely diverging views expressed in the the five factors described in section human developments and other pertinent scientific studies underscore 4(a)(1) of the Act. We must consider activities have produced negligible the enduring debate regarding the these same five factors in delisting a change to the natural landscape. Their taxonomy of North American wolves— species. We may delist a species extirpation south of Canada and Alaska, a debate that may not be resolved for according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best except for the heavily forested portions some time (see Wolf Taxonomy in the available scientific and commercial data of northeastern Minnesota, reinforced Western Great Lakes Region for a full indicate that the species is neither this popular belief. However, the discussion). Although there is not a endangered nor threatened because (1) primary reason wolves survived in those significant number of new publications the species is extinct, (2) the species has areas was not because of habitat that have become available since we recovered and is no longer endangered conditions, but, rather, because remote published our proposal in May 2011, or threatened, or (3) the original areas were sufficiently free of the the substance of those new publications scientific data used at the time the human persecution that elsewhere and the substantive comments we species was classified were in error. killed wolves faster than the species received have led us to reconsider our A recovered species is one that no could reproduce (Mech 1995a, p. 271). proposed decision. longer meets the Act’s definition of In the western Great Lakes region, Based on a reevaluation of the threatened or endangered. The analysis wolves in the densely forested available scientific information and the for a delisting due to recovery must be northeastern corner of Minnesota have evolving and ongoing scientific debate, based on the five factors outlined in expanded into the more agricultural we reconsidered our position, as section 4(a)(1) of the Act. This analysis portions of central and northwestern expressed in the proposed rule (76 FR must include an evaluation of threats Minnesota, northern and central 26086), that the gray wolf subspecies that existed at the time of listing, those Wisconsin, and the entire UP of Canis lupus lycaon should be elevated that currently exist, and those that could Michigan. Habitats currently being used

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81689

by wolves span the broad range from the some areas with low road densities, low Mladenoff et al. 1999, pp. 40–41). mixed hardwood-coniferous forest deer density appears to limit wolf Wisconsin researchers view areas with wilderness area of northern Minnesota, occupancy (Potvin et al. 2005, pp. greater than 50 percent probability as through sparsely settled but similar 1667–1668) and may prevent ‘‘primary wolf habitat,’’ areas with 10 to habitats in Michigan’s UP and northern recolonization of portions of the UP. In 50 percent probability as ‘‘secondary Wisconsin, and into more intensively Minnesota, a combination of road wolf habitat,’’ and areas with less than cultivated and livestock-producing density and human density is used by 10 percent probability as unsuitable portions of central and northwestern MN DNR to model suitable habitat. habitat (WI DNR 1997, pp. 47–48). Minnesota and central Wisconsin. Areas with a human density up to 8 The territories of packs that do occur Wolf research and the expansion of people per sq km are suitable if they in areas of high road density, and hence wolf range over the last three decades also have a road density less than 0.5 with low expected probabilities of have shown that wolves can km per sq km. Areas with a human occupancy, are generally near broad successfully occupy a wide range of density of less than 4 people per sq km areas of more suitable habitat that are habitats, and they are not dependent on are suitable if they have road densities likely serving as a source of wolves, wilderness areas for their survival. In up to 0.7 km per sq km (Erb and Benson thereby assisting in maintaining wolf the past, for instance, wolf populations 2004, Table 1). presence in the higher road density and, occupied nearly every type of habitat Road density is a useful parameter therefore, less-suitable areas (Mech north of mid-Mexico that contained because it is easily measured and 1989, pp. 387–388; Wydeven et al. large ungulate prey species, including mapped, and because it correlates 2001a, p.112). The predictive ability of bison, elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, directly and indirectly with various this model was questioned (Mech moose, and woodland caribou; thus, forms of other human-related wolf 2006a, 2006b) and responded to wolves historically occupied the entire mortality factors. A rural area with more (Mladenoff et al. 2006), and an updated Midwest. Inadequate prey density or roads generally has a greater human analysis of Wisconsin pack locations high levels of human-caused mortality density, more vehicular traffic, greater and habitat has been completed appear to be the only factors that limit access by hunters and trappers, more (Mladenoff et al. 2009). This new model wolf distribution (Mech 1995a, p 271; farms and residences, and more maintains that road density is still an 1995b, p. 544). domestic animals. As a result, there is important indicator of suitable wolf a greater likelihood that wolves in such habitat; however, lack of agricultural Suitable Habitat Within the Western an area will encounter humans, land is also a strong predictor of habitat Great Lakes DPS domestic animals, and various human wolves occupy. Various researchers have investigated activities. These encounters may result It appears that essentially all suitable habitat suitability for wolves in the in wolves being hit by motor vehicles, habitat in Minnesota is now occupied, central and eastern portions of the being controlled by government agents range expansion has slowed or possibly United States. In recent years, most of after becoming involved in depredations ceased, and the wolf population within these efforts have focused on using a on domestic animals, being shot the State has stabilized (Erb and Benson combination of human density, density intentionally by unauthorized 2004, p. 7; Erb and Don Carlos 2009, pp. of agricultural lands, deer density or individuals, being trapped or shot 57, 60). This suitable habitat closely deer biomass, and road density, or have accidentally, or contracting diseases matches the areas designated as Wolf used road density alone to identify areas from domestic dogs (Mech et al. 1988, Management Zones 1 through 4 in the where wolf populations are likely to pp. 86–87; Mech and Goyal 1993, p. Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, p. persist or become established 332; Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. 282, 72), which are identical in area to (Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. 284–285; 291). Based on mortality data from Minnesota Wolf Management Zone A 1997, pp. 23–27; 1998, pp. 1–8, 1999; radio-collared Wisconsin wolves from (see Figure 2, below; MN DNR 2001, pp. 39–43; Harrison and Chapin 1997, p. 1979 to 1999, natural causes of death Appendix III). 3; 1998, p. 769–770; Wydeven et al. predominate (57 percent of mortalities) Recent surveys for Wisconsin wolves 2001a, pp. 110–113; Erb and Benson in areas with road densities below 1.35 and wolf packs show that wolves have 2004, p. 2; Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 1661– mi per sq mi (0.84 km per sq km), but now recolonized the areas predicted by 1668; Mladenoff et al. 2009, pp. 132– human-related factors produced 71 habitat models to have low, moderate, 135). percent of the wolf deaths in areas with and high probability of occupancy To a large extent, road density has higher road densities (Wydeven et al. (primary and secondary wolf habitat). been adopted as the best predictor of 2001a, pp. 112–113). The late-winter 2008–09 Wisconsin wolf habitat suitability in the Midwest due to Some researchers have used a road survey identified packs occurring the connection between roads and density of 1 mi per sq mi (0.6 km per throughout the central Wisconsin forest human-related wolf mortality. Several sq km) of land area as an upper area (Wolf Management Zone 2, Figure studies demonstrated that wolves threshold for suitable wolf habitat. 3) and across the northern forest zone generally did not maintain breeding However, the common practice in more (Zone 1, Figure 3), with highest pack packs in areas with a road density recent studies is to use road density to densities in the northwest and north- greater than about 0.9 to 1.1 linear miles predict probabilities of persistent wolf central forest; pack densities are lower, per sq mi (0.6 to 0.7 km per sq km) pack presence in an area. Areas with but increasing, in the northeastern (Thiel 1985, pp. 404–406; Jensen et al. road densities less than 0.7 mi per sq mi corner of the State (Wydeven and 1986, pp. 364–366; Mech et al. 1988, pp. (0.45 km per sq km) are estimated to Wiedenhoeft 2009, Figure 1). 85–87; Fuller et al. 1992, pp. 48–51). have a greater than 50 percent Michigan wolf surveys in winter Work by Mladenoff and associates probability of wolf pack colonization 2009–2010 continue to show wolf pairs indicated that colonizing wolves in and persistent presence, and areas or packs (defined by Michigan DNR as Wisconsin preferred areas where road where road density exceeded 1 mi per two or more wolves traveling together) densities were less than 0.7 mi per sq mi sq mi (0.6 km per sq km) have less than in every UP county except Keweenaw (0.45 km per sq km) (Mladenoff et al. a 10 percent probability of occupancy County (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6; 1995, p. 289). However, recent work in (Mladenoff et al. 1995. pp. 288–289; Roell 2011, pers. comm.), which the UP of Michigan indicates that, in Mladenoff and Sickley 1998, p. 5; probably lacks a suitable ungulate prey

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81690 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

base during winter months (Potvin et al. deer density in addition to road density, been important to wolf conservation and 2005, p. 1665). believes there are about 3,090 sq mi recovery in the core areas of the WGL Habitat suitability studies in the (8,000 sq km) of suitable habitat in the DPS. There are five national forests in Upper Midwest indicate that the only northern LP. Gehring and Potter (2005, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan large areas of suitable or potentially p. 1239) exclude from their calculations (Superior, Chippewa, Chequamegon- suitable habitat areas that are currently those northern LP low-road-density Nicolet, Ottawa, and Hiawatha National unoccupied by wolves are located in the patches that are less than 19 sq mi (50 Forests) with wolf packs that northern LP of Michigan (Mladenoff et sq km), while Potvin (2003, pp. 10–15) exclusively or partially reside on them. al. 1997, p. 23; Mladenoff et al. 1999, p. does not limit habitat patch size in his Their wolf populations range from 39; Potvin 2003, pp. 44–45; Gehring and calculations. Both of these area approximately 484 on the Superior Potter 2005, p. 1239). One published estimates are well below the minimum National Forest in northeastern Michigan study (Gehring and Potter area described in the Revised Recovery Minnesota, to an estimated 182 on the 2005, p. 1239) estimates that these areas Plan, which states that 10,000 sq mi UP’s Ottawa National Forest, 164 on the could host 46 to 89 wolves; a graduate (25,600 sq km) of contiguous suitable Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest thesis estimates that 110–480 wolves habitat is needed for a viable isolated in northeastern Wisconsin, and another could exist in the northern LP (Potvin gray wolf population, and half that area estimated 49 on the Hiawatha National 2003, p. 39). The northern LP is (5,000 sq mi or 12,800 sq km) is needed Forest in the eastern UP (Delphey 2009, separated from the UP by the Straits of to maintain a viable wolf population pers. comm.; Eklund 2009, pers. comm.; Mackinac, whose 4-mile (6.4-km) width that is subject to wolf immigration from Roell 2011, pers. comm., Wydeven freezes during mid- and late-winter in a nearby population (USFWS 1992, pp. 2011, pers. comm.). some years. In recent years there have 25–26). Voyageurs National Park, along been several documented occurrences of Based on the above-described studies Minnesota’s northern border, has a land wolves in the northern LP, but until and the guidance of the 1992 Revised base of nearly 340 sq mi (882 sq km). 2010, there had been no indication of Recovery Plan, the Service has As of the last survey in 2008, there were persistence beyond several months. concluded that suitable habitat for 31 to 46 wolves within 7 to 9 packs that Prior to those occurrences, the last wolves in the WGL DPS can be exclusively or partially reside within recorded wolf in the LP was in 1910. determined by considering four factors: the park, and at least 5 packs are located In the first instance a radio-collared road density, human density, prey base, wholly inside the Park boundaries female wolf from the eastern UP was and size. An adequate prey base is an (Ethier et al. 2008, p. 5). The 2008 trapped and killed by a coyote trapper absolute requirement, but in much of estimates fall within the range of wolf in Presque Isle County in late October the WGL DPS the white-tailed deer estimates for the Park from the 1990s 2004. In late November 2004, tracks density is well above adequate levels, (Gogan et al. 2004) and early 2000s (Fox from two wolves were verified in the causing the other factors to become the et al. 2001, pp. 6–7). same northern LP county. Follow-up determinants of suitable habitat. Prey Within the boundaries of the WGL winter surveys by the DNR in early 2005 base is primarily of concern in the UP DPS, we currently manage seven units failed to find additional wolf tracks in where severe winter conditions cause within the National Wildlife Refuge the northern LP (Huntzinger et al. 2005, deer to move away from some lakeshore System with significant wolf activity. p. 7); additional surveys conducted in areas, making otherwise suitable areas Primary among these are Agassiz 2006–10 also failed to find evidence of locally and seasonally unsuitable. Road National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), continued northern LP wolf presence density and human density frequently Tamarac NWR, and Rice Lake NWR in (Roell et al. 2009, p. 5; Roell 2010, pers. are highly correlated; therefore, road Minnesota; Seney NWR in the UP of comm.). A video of a single wolf was density is the best single predictor of Michigan; and Necedah NWR in central taken near Mackinac City in Cheboygan habitat suitability. However, areas with Wisconsin. Agassiz NWR has had as County in May 2009, and another trail- higher road density may still be suitable many as 20 wolves in 2 to 3 packs in camera video-recorded a wolf in if the human density is very low, so a recent years. Although in 1999 mange Presque Isle County in July 2009. These consideration of both factors is and illegal shootings reduced them to a two sightings may have been the same sometimes useful (Erb and Benson 2004, single pack of 5 wolves and a separate animal (Roell 2009, pers. comm.). In p. 2). Finally, although the territory of lone wolf, since 2001, two packs with a 2010, USDA Wildlife Services and MI individual wolf packs can be relatively total of 10 to 12 wolves have been using DNR staff confirmed a single breeding small, packs are not likely to persist as the Refuge. About 60 percent of the pair with pups in Cheboygan County in a viable population if they occupy a packs’ territories are located on the the northern LP (MI DNR 2010). small isolated island of otherwise Refuge or on an adjacent State-owned These northern LP patches of unsuitable habitat. wildlife management area (Huschle in potentially suitable habitat contain a Based on the information discussed litt. 2005). great deal of private land, are small in above, we conclude that Minnesota Data collected by Agassiz NWR staff comparison to the occupied habitat on Wolf Management Zone A (Federal Wolf during winter wolf sign surveys the UP and in Minnesota and Management Zones 1–4, Figure 2), conducted in cooperation with the MN Wisconsin, and are intermixed with Wisconsin Wolf Zones 1 and 2 (Figure DNR during both the winters of 2007– agricultural and higher road density 3), and the UP of Michigan contain a 08 and 2008–09 support the above wolf areas (Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1240). sufficient amount of suitable wolf totals. Winter track data from 2007–08 Therefore, continuing wolf immigration habitat. The other areas within the DPS suggest that one pack on Agassiz had a from the UP may be necessary to are unsuitable habitat, or are potentially minimum size of five and one had a maintain a future northern LP habitat that is too small or too minimum size of six. The following population. The Gehring and Potter fragmented to be suitable for winter’s survey information suggested a study (2005, p. 1239) predicted 850 sq maintaining a viable wolf population. minimum pack size of five for both mi (2,198 sq km) of suitable habitat packs (Knutson 2009, pers. comm.). (areas with greater than a 50 percent Wolf Populations on Federal Lands Two packs of wolves that currently probability of wolf occupancy) in the National forests, and the prey species include about eight and five members, northern LP. Potvin (2003, p. 21), using found in their various habitats, have respectively, use Tamarac NWR and the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81691

territory of a third occurs partly on the populations and dispersal in the County’s mission for its forest lands Refuge (Brininger 2009, pers. comm.). interstate area’’ (MN DNR 2001, p. 27). includes the commitment to ‘‘sustain a The size of the one pack using Rice Lake The MN DNR Divisions of Forestry healthy, diverse, and productive forest NWR, in Minnesota, has been reported and Wildlife directly administer for future generations to come.’’ In at six to nine in previous years; in 2009 approximately 5,330 sq mi (13,805 sq addition, at least four counties in a maximum of three wolves was km) of land in Minnesota’s wolf range. Minnesota’s wolf range—Beltrami, confirmed on the Refuge (McDowell The DNR has set goals of enlarging and Carlton, Koochiching, and St. Louis— 2009, pers. comm.), although total pack protecting its forested land base by, in are certified by SFI, and four others size may be greater. part, ‘‘minimizing the loss and (Aitkin, Cass, Itasca, and Lake) have Other single or paired wolves pass fragmentation of private forest lands’’ been certified by FSC. About ten private through the Refuge frequently (Stefanski (MN DNR 2000, p. 20) and by companies with industrial forest lands 2004, pers. comm.; McDowell in litt. connecting forest habitats with natural in Minnesota’s wolf range have also 2005). Seney NWR has 3 packs, corridors (MN DNR 2000, p. 21). It plans been certified by FSC. representing 8–10 wolves, which to achieve these goals and objectives via There are no legal or regulatory partially reside on the Refuge (Roell several strategies, including the requirements for the protection of wolf 2010, pers. comm.). In 2010, two packs development of (Ecological) Subsection habitat, per se, on private lands in of six wolves each and at least one loner Forest Resource Management Plans Minnesota. Land management activities were detected on Necedah NWR (SFRMP) and to expand its focus on such as timber harvest and prescribed (Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 41). Over the corridor management and planning. burning carried out by public agencies past 10 years, Sherburne and Crane In 2005, the Forest Stewardship and by private land owners in Meadows NWR Complex in central Council (FSC) certified that 4.84 million Minnesota’s wolf range incidentally and Minnesota have had intermittent, but acres (1.96 million hectares) of State- significantly improves habitat for deer, reliable, observations and signs of administered forest land are ‘‘well the primary prey for wolves in the State. individual wolves each year. To date, no managed’’ (FSC 2005); the Sustainable The impact of these measures is established packs have been Forestry Initiative (SFI) also certified apparent from the continuing high deer documented on either of those Refuges. that MN DNR was managing these lands densities in Minnesota’s wolf range. The The closest established packs are within to meet its standards. For the FSC State’s second largest deer harvest 15 mi (24 km) of Crane Meadows NWR certification, independent certifiers occurred in 2006, and approximately at Camp Ripley Military Installation and assessed forest management against one-half of the Minnesota deer harvest 30 mi (48 km) north of Sherburne NWR FSC’s Lakes States Regional Standard, is in the Forest Zone, which at Mille Lacs State Wildlife Management which includes a requirement to encompasses most of the occupied wolf Area (Berkley 2009, pers. comm.). maximize habitat connectivity to the range in the State (MN DNR 2009, Table extent possible at the landscape level 1). Suitable Habitat Ownership and (FSC 2005, p. 22). Given the extensive public ownership Protection Efforts to maximize habitat and management of land within In Minnesota, public lands, including connectivity in the range of wolves Minnesota’s wolf range, as well as the national forests, a national park, would complement measures the MN beneficial habitat management expected national wildlife refuges, tax-forfeit DNR described in its State wolf plan from tribal lands, we believe suitable lands (managed mostly by counties), (MN DNR 2001, pp. 26–27). The Service habitat, and especially an adequate wild State forests, State wildlife management will review certification evaluation prey base, will remain available to the areas, and State parks, encompass reports issued by FSC to assess MN State’s wolf population for the approximately 42 percent of current DNR’s ongoing efforts in this area as foreseeable future. Management of wolf range. American Indians and part of its post-delisting monitoring. private lands for timber production will Tribes own 3 percent, an additional Counties manage approximately 3,860 provide additional habitat suitable for 1,535 sq mi (2,470 sq km), in sq mi (9,997 sq km) of tax forfeit land wolves and white-tailed deer. Minnesota’s wolf range (see Erb and in Minnesota’s wolf range (MN DNR Similarly, current lands in northern Benson 2004, Table 1). In its 2001 unpublished data). We are aware of no and central Wisconsin that are judged to Minnesota Wolf Management Plan, MN specific measures that any county in be primary and secondary wolf habitat DNR states that it ‘‘will continue to Minnesota takes to conserve wolves. If are well protected from significant identify and manage currently occupied most of the tax-forfeit lands are adverse development and habitat and potential wolf habitat areas to maintained for use as timber lands or degradation due to public ownership or benefit wolves and their prey on public natural areas, however, and if regional protective management that preserves and private land, in cooperation with prey levels are maintained, management the habitat and wolf prey base. Primary landowners and other management specifically for wolves on these lands habitat (that is, areas with greater than agencies’’ (MN DNR 2001, p. 25). MN will not be necessary. MN DNR manages 50 percent probability of wolf pack DNR will monitor deer and moose ungulate populations ‘‘on a regional occupancy; Wydeven et al. 1999, pp. habitat and, when necessary and basis to ensure sustainable harvests for 47–48) totals 5,812 sq mi (15,053 sq appropriate, improve habitat for these hunters, sufficient numbers for aesthetic km). The 1999 Wisconsin wolf plan species. MN DNR maintains that several and nonconsumptive use, and to listed land ownership of primary and large public land units of State parks minimize damage to natural secondary wolf habitat (Wydeven et al. and State forests along the Wisconsin communities and conflicts with humans 1999, p. 48). In 2006, Sickley (2006, border will likely ensure that the such as depredation of agricultural pers. comm.) provided an update of the connection between the two States’ wolf crops’’ (MN DNR 2001, p. 17). data with more accurate land ownership populations will remain open to wolf Moreover, although counties may sell data. That data show that about 55 movements. Nevertheless, MN DNR tax-forfeit lands subject to Minnesota percent of primary habitat was in public stated that it would cooperate with State law, they generally manage these land including, Federal, State, or county Wisconsin DNR to incorporate the lands to ensure that they will retain ownership, and 7 percent was on tribal effects of future development ‘‘into their productivity as forests into the land. County lands, mostly county long-term viability analyses of wolf future. For example, Crow Wing forests, comprised 29 percent of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81692 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

primary habitat, and Federal lands, with wolf packs until recently, but are land that is being managed, largely mostly the Chequamegon–Nicolet filling in lately (Wydeven et al. 2010, under the incentives of the CFA, in a National Forest, included another 17 Fig. 2, p. 66), although still allowing for way that provides suitable habitat and percent. some continuing wolf population prey for wolf populations. Therefore, a Most tribal land (7 percent of primary expansion. In general, we believe this minimum of nearly three-quarters of the habitat), while not public land, will degree of habitat protection is more than UP should continue to be suitable for likely remain as suitable deer and wolf adequate to support a viable wolf wolf conservation, and we do not habitat for the foreseeable future. State population in Wisconsin for the envision UP habitat loss or degradation forest ownership protects 10 percent. foreseeable future. as a problem for wolf population Private industrial forest lands In the UP of Michigan, State and viability in the foreseeable future. comprised another 10 percent of the Federal ownership comprises 2.0 and Hearne et al. (2003), determined that primary habitat, although some of these 2.1 million acres respectively, a viable wolf population (one having lands have been subdivided for second representing 19.3 percent and 20.1 less than 10 percent chance of or vacation home sites, reducing this percent of the land surface of the UP. extinction over 100 years), should acreage in recent years. The remaining The Federal ownership is composed of consist of at least 175 to 225 wolves (p. 29 percent is in other forms of private 87 percent national forest, 8 percent 170), and they modeled various likely ownership and is vulnerable to loss national park, and 5 percent national scenarios of habitat conditions in the UP from the primary habitat category to an wildlife refuge. The management of of Michigan and northern Wisconsin unknown extent (Sickley in litt. 2006, these three categories of Federal land is through the year 2020 to determine unpublished data updating Table C2 of discussed elsewhere, but clearly will whether future conditions would WI DNR 1999, p. 48). benefit wolves and their prey. support a wolf population of that size. Areas judged to be secondary wolf State lands on the UP are 94 percent Most scenarios of future habitat habitat by WI DNR (10 to 50 percent State forest land, 6 percent State park, conditions resulted in viable wolf probability of occupancy by wolf packs; and less than 1 percent in fishing and populations in each State through 2020. Wydeven et al. 1999, pp. 47–48) were boating access areas and State game When the model analyzed the future somewhat more developed or areas. Part 525, Sustainable Forestry on conditions in the two States combined, fragmented habitats and were less well State Forestlands, of the Michigan all scenarios produced a viable wolf protected overall, because only 43 Natural Resources and Environmental population through 2020. Their percent were in public ownership and 5 Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as scenarios included increases in human percent were in Native American amended, directs State forestland population density, changes in land reservations. Public land that management in Michigan. It requires the ownership that may result in decreased maintained secure habitat included MI DNR to manage the State forests in habitat suitability, and increased road county (17 percent) and national (18 a manner consistent with sustainable density (pp. 101–151). percent) forests ownership protecting forestry, to prepare and implement a The large areas of unsuitable habitat the largest segments, and State land management plan, and to seek and in the eastern Dakotas; the northern protected 7 percent. Private industrial maintain a third party certification that portions of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and forest ownership provided protection to the lands are managed in a sustainable Ohio; and the southern areas of 5 percent, and the remaining 47 percent fashion (MI DNR 2005c, p. 1). Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; as was in other forms of private ownership Much of the private land on the UP well as the relatively small areas of (Sickley in litt. 2006). is managed or protected in a manner unoccupied potentially suitable habitat, County forest lands represent the that will maintain forest cover and will not contribute to the viability of single largest category of primary wolf provide suitable habitat for wolves and wolves in the WGL DPS. Therefore, we habitat in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Statute white-tailed deer. Nearly 1.9 million have determined that the existing and 28.11 guides the administration of acres (0.8 million hectares) of large-tract likely future threats to wolves outside county forests, and directs management industrial forest lands and another 1.9 the currently occupied areas, and for production of forest products million acres (0.8 million hectares) of especially to wolves outside of together with recreational opportunities, smaller private forest land are enrolled Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP, do wildlife, watershed protection, and in the Commercial Forest Act (CFA). not rise to the level that they threaten stabilization of stream flow. This Statute These 3.7 million acres (1.5 million the long-term viability of wolf also provides a significant disincentive hectares) are managed for long-term populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, to conversion for other uses. Any sustainable timber production under and the UP of Michigan. proposed withdrawal of county forest forest management plans written by In summary, wolves currently occupy lands for other uses must meet a certified foresters; in return, the the vast majority of the suitable habitat standard of a higher and better use for landowners benefit from a reduction in in the WGL DPS, and that habitat is the citizens of Wisconsin, and be property taxes. In addition, nearly adequately protected for the foreseeable approved by two-thirds of the County 37,000 acres on the UP are owned by future. Unoccupied areas that have the Board. As a result of this requirement, The Nature Conservancy, and continue characteristics of suitable habitat exist withdrawals are infrequent, and the to be managed to restore and preserve in small and fragmented parcels and are county forest land base is actually native plant and animal communities. not likely to develop viable wolf increasing. Therefore, these private land populations. Threats to those habitat This analysis shows that nearly three- management practices currently are areas will not adversely impact the quarters of the primary habitat in preserving an additional 36 percent of recovered wolf metapopulation in the Wisconsin receives substantial the UP as suitable habitat for wolves DPS. protection due to ownership or and their prey species. management for sustainable timber In total, 39 percent of the UP is Prey production. Over half of the secondary federally and State-owned land whose Wolf density is heavily dependent on habitat is similarly protected. Portions management will benefit wolf prey availability (for example, expressed of the primary habitat in northeastern conservation for the foreseeable future, as ungulate biomass, Fuller et al. 2003, Wisconsin remained sparsely populated and another 36 percent is private forest pp. 170–171), but prey availability is not

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81693

likely to threaten wolves in the WGL per sq mi (11.2–19.3 deer per sq km) pelts and other parts, but illegal DPS. Conservation of primary wolf prey from 2001 to 2007, and was 35 deer per commercial trafficking in wolf pelts or in the WGL DPS, white-tailed deer and sq mi (13.5 deer per sq km) in 2009, and parts and illegal capture of wolves for moose, is clearly a high priority for State 26 deer per sq mi (10.0 deer per sq km) commercial breeding purposes happens conservation agencies. As Minnesota in 2010 (WI DNR data). rarely. State wolf management plans for DNR points out in its wolf management Michigan’s 2009 October forecast for Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan plan (MN DNR 2001, p. 25), it manages the deer population was approximately help ensure that wolves will not be ungulates to ensure a harvestable 1.8 million deer, with about 312,800 killed for commercial or recreational surplus for hunters, nonconsumptive residing in the UP; the 2010 estimates purposes for many years following users, and to minimize conflicts with projected a slightly higher UP deer Federal delisting, so these forms of humans. To ensure a harvestable population (Doepker 2010, pers. comm.; mortality will not likely emerge as new surplus for hunters, MN DNR must Rudolph 2010, pers. comm.). Because of threats upon delisting. See Factor D for account for all sources of natural severe winter conditions (persistent, a detailed discussion of State wolf mortality, including loss to wolves, and deep snow) in the UP, deer populations management plans, and for applicable adjust hunter harvest levels when can change dramatically from year to regulations in States without wolf necessary. For example, after severe year. Recently (2010) the MI DNR management plans. winters in the 1990’s, MN DNR finalized a new deer management plan, We do not expect the use of wolves modified hunter harvest levels to allow to address ecological, social, and for scientific purposes to increase in for the recovery of the local deer regulatory shifts. An objective of this proportion to total wolf numbers in the population (MN DNR 2001, p. 25). In plan is to manage deer at the WGL DPS after delisting. While listed, addition to regulation of human harvest appropriate scale, considering impacts the intentional or incidental killing, or of deer and moose, MN DNR also plans of deer on the landscape and on other capture and permanent confinement, of to continue to monitor and improve species, in addition to population size endangered or threatened wolves for habitat for these species. (MI DNR 2010, p. 20). Additionally, the scientific purposes has only legally Land management carried out by Michigan wolf management plan occurred under permits or subpermits other public agencies and by private addresses maintaining a sustainable issued by the Service (under section land owners in Minnesota’s wolf range, population of wolf prey (MI DNR 2008, 10(a)(1)(A)) or by a State agency including timber harvest and prescribed p. 36). Short of a major, and unlikely, operating under a cooperative fire, incidentally and significantly shift in deer management and harvest agreement with the Service pursuant to improves habitat for deer, the primary strategies, there will be no shortage of section 6 of the Act (50 CFR 17.21(c)(5) prey for wolves in the State. The success prey for Wisconsin and Michigan and 17.31(b)). Although exact figures are of these measures is apparent from the wolves for the foreseeable future. not available, throughout the continuing high deer densities in the conterminous 48 States, such permanent Summary of Factor A Forest Zone of Minnesota, and the fact removals of wolves from the wild have that the State’s five largest deer harvests The wolf population in the WGL DPS been very limited and probably have occurred in the last 6 years, with currently occupies all the suitable comprise an average of not more than a deer harvest averaging 241,000 deer habitat area identified for recovery in two animals per year since the species over the last 5 years. Approximately the Midwest in the 1978 Recovery Plan was first listed as endangered. In the one-half of the Minnesota deer harvest and 1992 Revised Recovery Plan and WGL DPS, these animals were either is in the Forest Zone, which most of the potentially suitable habitat taken from the Minnesota wolf encompasses most of the occupied wolf in the WGL DPS. As discussed above population during long-term research range in the State (Cornicelli 2008, pp. under Suitable Habitat Ownership and activities (about 15 wolves) or were 208–209). There is no indication that Protection, much of the important wolf accidental takings as a result of research harvest of deer and moose or habitat in the DPS is in public activities in Wisconsin (5 to 6 management of their habitat will ownership, and the suitable habitat in mortalities and 1 long-term significantly depress abundance of these the DPS is adequately protected for the confinement) and in Michigan (4 species in Minnesota’s core wolf range. foreseeable future. We therefore mortalities) (Berg in litt. 1998; Mech in Therefore, lack of prey availability is not conclude that destruction, modification, litt. 1998; Roell in litt. 2004; Roell in likely to pose a threat to wolves in the or curtailment of the species’ habitat or litt. 2005a; Roell 2011, pers. comm.; foreseeable future in the State. range does not pose a significant threat Wydeven 2009, pers. comm.). The deer populations in Wisconsin to wolves within this DPS. The Minnesota DNR plans to and the UP of Michigan declined encourage the study of wolves with B. Overutilization for Commercial, somewhat from historically high levels radio-telemetry after delisting, with an Recreational, Scientific, or Educational in recent years. Wisconsin’s preseason emphasis on areas where they expect deer population has exceeded 1 million Purposes wolf–human conflicts and where wolves animals since 1984 (WI DNR undated a; Threats to wolves resulting from uses are expanding their range (MN DNR Rolley 2007, p. 6; Rolley 2008, p. 6), and for scientific or educational purposes 2001, p. 19). Similarly, Wisconsin and hunter harvest has exceeded 400,000 are not likely to increase substantially Michigan DNRs plan to continue to trap deer in 10 of the last 12 years (WI DNR following delisting of the WGL DPS, and wolves for radio-collaring, examination, 2010, p. 57). Across northern Wisconsin any increased use for these purposes and health monitoring for the wolf range (Zone 1), winter deer density will be regulated and monitored by the foreseeable future (WI DNR 1999, pp. in northern deer management units States and Tribes in the core recovery 19–21; MI DNR 2008a, pp. 31–32; WI averaged from 22–30 deer per sq mi areas. Since their listing under the Act, DNR 2006a, p. 14). The continued (8.5–11.6 deer per sq km) between no wolves have been legally killed or handling of wild wolves for research, 2001–07, but declined to 17–18 deer per removed from the wild in any of the including the administration of drugs, sq mi (6.6–6.9 deer per sq km) in 2009 nine States included in the WGL DPS may result in some accidental deaths of and 2010. In Central Forest wolf range for either commercial or recreational wolves. We believe that capture and (Zone 2), winter deer density in deer purposes. Some wolves may have been radio-telemetry-related injuries or management units averaged 29–50 deer illegally killed for commercial use of the mortalities will not increase

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81694 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

significantly above the level observed to to effectively respond to significant conclusions are based on an inverse date in proportion to wolf abundance; outbreaks. relationship between pup numbers in adverse effects to wolves associated Canine parvovirus (CPV) is a summer captures and seroprevalence of with such activities have been minimal relatively new disease that infects CPV antibodies in summer-captured and would not constitute a threat to wolves, domestic dogs, foxes, coyotes, adult wolves (Mech et al. 2008, pp. 827– wolves in the WGL DPS. skunks, and raccoons. Recognized in the 830). No wolves have been legally removed United States in 1977 in domestic dogs, In a more recent study, Mech and from the wild for educational purposes it appeared in Minnesota wolves (based Goyal (2011) looked more specifically at in recent years. Wolves that have been upon retrospective serologic evidence) CPV influence on the Superior National used for such purposes are the captive- live-trapped as early as 1977 (Mech et Forest population by evaluating five 7- reared offspring of wolves that were al. 1986, p. 105). Minnesota wolves, year periods to determine when CPV already in captivity for other reasons, however, may have been exposed to the had its greatest effects. They found the and this is not likely to change as a virus as early as 1973 (Mech and Goyal strongest effect on wolf pup survival result of Federal delisting. We do not 1995, p. 568). Serologic evidence of wolf was from 1981 to 1993, and that after expect taking for educational purposes exposure to CPV peaked at 95 percent that time, little effect was seen despite to constitute any threat to Midwest wolf for a group of Minnesota wolves live- the continued seroprevalence of CPV populations in the DPS for the trapped in 1989 (Mech and Goyal 1993, antibodies (Mech and Goyal 2011, pp. foreseeable future. p. 331). In a captive colony of 28–29). They conclude that, after CPV See Factor E for a discussion of Minnesota wolves, pup and yearling became endemic in the population, the Taking of Wolves by Native Americans mortality from CPV was 92 percent of population developed immunity and for Certain Purposes. See the the animals that showed indications of was able to withstand severe effects Depredation Control sections under active CPV infections in 1983 (Mech from the disease (Mech and Goyal 2011, Factor D for discussion of other past, and Fritts 1987, p. 6), demonstrating the pp. 28–29). The observed population current, and potential future forms of substantial impacts this disease can effects in the Superior National Forest intentional and accidental take by have on young wolves. It is believed population are consistent with results humans, including depredation control, that the population impacts of CPV for studies in smaller, isolated public safety, and under public harvest. occur via diarrhea-induced dehydration populations in Wisconsin and on Isle While public harvest may include leading to abnormally high pup Royale, Michigan (Wydeven et al. 1995; recreational harvest, it is likely that mortality (WI DNR 1999, p. 61). CPV has Peterson et al. 1998), but indicate that public harvest will also serve as a been detected in nearly every wolf CPV also had only a temporary management tool, so it is discussed in population in North America including population effect in a larger population. Factor D. Alaska (Bailey et al. 1995, p. 443), and The WI DNR and the WI DNR Wildlife exposure in wolves is now believed to Health, in conjunction with the U.S. Summary of Factor B be almost universal. Geological Survey National Wildlife Taking wolves for scientific or There is no evidence that CPV has Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin, educational purposes in the other States caused a population decline or has had (formerly the National Wildlife Health in the WGL DPS may not be regulated a significant impact on the recovery of Laboratory) have an extensive dataset on or closely monitored in the future, but the Minnesota wolf population. Mech the incidence of wolf diseases, the threat to wolves in those States will and Goyal (1995, p. 566, Table 1, p. 568, beginning in 1981. Canine parvovirus not be significant to the long-term Fig. 3), however, found that high CPV exposure was evident in 5 of 6 wolves viability of the wolf population in the prevalence in the wolves of the Superior tested in 1981, and probably stalled WGL DPS. The potential limited National Forest in Minnesota occurred wolf population growth in Wisconsin commercial and recreational harvest during the same years in which wolf during the early and mid-1980s when that may occur in the DPS will be pup numbers were low. Because the numbers there declined or were static; regulated by State and/or Tribal wolf population did not decline during at that time 75 percent of the 32 wolves conservation agencies and is discussed the study period, they concluded that tested were positive for CPV. During the under Factor D. Therefore, we conclude CPV-caused pup mortality was following years of population increase that overutilization for commercial, compensatory, that is, it replaced deaths (1988–96), only 35 percent of the 63 recreational, scientific, or educational that would have occurred from other wolves tested were positive for CPV (WI causes, especially starvation of pups. DNR 1999, p. 62). More recent exposure purposes will not pose a significant They theorized that CPV prevalence rates for CPV continue to be high in threat to wolves in the WGL DPS. affects the amount of population Wisconsin wolves, with annual rates 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,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81695

pp. 19–21). While the difficulty of died from other causes. During that population increase has slowed in discovering CPV-killed pups must be period, mange was the third largest recent years, the wolf population considered, and it is possible that CPV- cause of death in Wisconsin wolves, continues to increase despite the caused pup mortality is being behind trauma (usually vehicle continued prevalence of mange in underestimated, the continuing increase collisions) and shooting (Thomas in litt. Wisconsin wolves. Although mange of the Wisconsin wolf population 1998). Largely as a result of mange, pup mortality may not be the primary indicates that CPV mortality is no longer survival was only 16 percent in 1993, limiting factor for wolf population impeding wolf population growth in the compared to a normal 30 percent growth in the State, the impacts of State. It may be that many Wisconsin survival rate from birth to 1 year of age mange in Wisconsin need to be closely wolves have developed some degree of (WI DNR 1999, p. 61). monitored, as identified and addressed resistance to CPV, and this disease is no Mange continues to occur on wolves in the Wisconsin wolf management plan longer a significant threat in the State. in Wisconsin. From 2003 through 2007, (WI DNR 1999, p. 21; 2006a, p. 14). Similar to Wisconsin wolves, researchers reported that 25 percent of Disease monitoring in Wisconsin has serological testing of Michigan wolves live-trapped wolves showed signs of identified a second form of mange in the captured from 1992 through 2001 (most mange, but that figure declined to 11 wild wolf population—demodectic recent available data) shows that the percent of wolves handled in 2009 and mange (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft majority of UP wolves have been 2010. Mortality data from closely 2008, p. 8). Demodectic mange mites are exposed to CPV. Fifty-six percent of 16 monitored radio-collared wolves relatively common in domestic dogs, wolves captured from 1992 to 1999 and provides a relatively unbiased estimate where symptoms are often minor. The 83 percent of 23 wolves captured in of mortality factors, especially those WI DNR is closely monitoring wolf pups 2001 showed antibody titers at levels linked to disease or illegal actions, and examining all dead wolves to established as indicative of previous because nearly all carcasses are located determine if this becomes a significant CPV exposure that may provide within a few days of deaths. Diseased new cause of wolf mortality. protection from future infection from wolves suffering from hypothermia or Wisconsin wolves had been treated CPV (Beheler in litt. undated, in litt. nearing death generally crawl into dense with Ivermectin and vaccinated for CPV 2004). There are no data showing any cover and may go undiscovered if they and canine distemper virus (CDV) when CPV-caused wolf mortality or are not radio-tracked (Wydeven et al. captured, but the practice was stopped population impacts to the wolf 2001b, p. 14). Data from those closely in 1995 to allow the wolf population to population on the UP, but few wolf monitored radio-collared wolves show experience more natural biotic pups are handled in the UP (Hammill in that mange mortality ranged from 22 conditions. Since that time, Ivermectin litt. 2002, Beyer in litt. 2006a), so low percent of deaths in 2006 and 12 has been administered only to captured levels of CPV-caused pup mortality may percent in 2007 to 21 percent of deaths wolves with severe cases of mange. In go undetected there. Mortality data are in 2008 (Wydeven in litt. 2009), 15 the future, Ivermectin and vaccines will primarily collected from collared percent in 2009 (Wydeven et al. 2010, be used sparingly on Wisconsin wolves, wolves, which until 2004 received CPV p. 13), and 6 percent in 2010 (Wydeven but will be used to counter significant inoculations. Therefore, mortality data et al. 2011, p. 2). disease outbreaks (Wydeven in litt. for the UP should be interpreted Mange mortality does appear to be 1998). cautiously. stabilizing or perhaps declining in Seven Michigan wolves died from Sarcoptic mange is caused by a mite Wisconsin. Not all mangy wolves mange during 1993–1997, making it (Sarcoptes scabiei) infection of the skin. succumb; other observations showed responsible for 21 percent of all The irritation caused by the feeding and that some mangy wolves are able to mortalities, and constituted all of the burrowing mites results in scratching survive the winter (Wydeven et al. disease-caused deaths, during that and then severe fur loss, which in turn 2001b, p. 14). Mange has been detected period (MI DNR 1997, p. 39). During can lead to mortality from exposure in Wisconsin wolves every year since bioyears (mid-April to mid-April) 1999– during severe winter weather. The mites 1991 when only 45 to 52 wolves 2009, mange-induced hypothermia are spread from wolf to wolf by direct occurred in the State, and may have killed 18 radio-collared Michigan body contact or by common use of slowed the growth of the wolf wolves, representing 15 percent of the ‘‘rubs’’ by infested and uninfested population in the early 1990s (Wydeven total mortality during those years. From animals. Thus, mange is frequently et al. 2009c), but despite its constant 2004 through 2010, researchers found passed from infested females to their presence as an occasional mortality that 11 radio-collared wolves died from young pups, and from older pack factor, the wolf population grew to its mange in the State (Roell 2010, pers. members to their pack mates. In a long- present (2011) level of 782 or more comm.). Before 2004, MI DNR treated all term Alberta, Canada, wolf study, higher wolves. captured wolves with Ivermectin if they wolf densities were correlated with The survival of pups during their first showed signs of mange. In addition, MI increased incidence of mange, and pup winter is believed to be strongly affected DNR vaccinated all captured wolves survival decreased as the incidence of by mange. The highest to date wolf against CPV and CDV. These mange increased (Brand et al. 1995, p. mortality (30 percent of radio-collared inoculations were discontinued in 2004 428). wolves; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft to provide more natural biotic From 1991 to 1996, 27 percent of live- 2004a, p. 12) from mange in Wisconsin conditions and to provide biologists trapped Wisconsin wolves exhibited occurred in 2003 and may have had with an unbiased estimate of disease- symptoms of mange. During the winter more severe effects on pup survival than caused mortality rates in the population of 1992–93, 58 percent showed in previous years. The prevalence of the (Roell in litt. 2005b). symptoms, and a concurrent decline in disease may have contributed to the Among Minnesota wolves, mange the Wisconsin wolf population was relatively small population increase in may always have been present at low attributed to mange-induced mortality 2003 (2.4 percent in 2003 as compared levels and may currently infect less than (WI DNR 1999, p. 61). Seven Wisconsin to the average 18 percent to that point 10 percent of the State’s wolves. Of the wolves died from mange from 1993 since 1985). However, mange has not 407 wolves trapped by Wildlife Services through October 15, 1998, and severe caused a decline in the State’s wolf during 2006–2008 in response to fur loss affected five other wolves that population, and even though the rate of depredation complaints, 52 (13 percent)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

exhibited signs of mange (Hart 2009, 1992–97 and was back up to 56 percent high wolf pup mortality in Yellowstone pers. comm.); the proportion of wolves (32 of 57 tested) in 2002–04 (Wydeven National Park in 1999 and 2005 with with signs of mange decreased from 17 and Wiedenhoeft 2004b, pp. 23–24 serologic evidence of high CDV percent in 2006 to 10 percent in 2008. Table 7; 2005, pp. 23–24 Table 7). exposure in wolves as well as other During the previous 3-year period Clinical symptoms have not been canids. They detected CDV in three wolf (2003–2005), the proportion of trapped reported in wolves, but infected dogs carcasses in 2008, indicating that wolves with signs of mange was also can experience debilitating conditions, distemper deaths also may have about 13 percent, suggesting that mange and abortion and fetal mortality have occurred during that year. In this and a has not increased in prevalence among been reported in infected humans and related paper (Almberg et al. 2010, p. wolves in Minnesota since 2003. The horses. It is possible that individual 2072), the authors predict periodic incidence of mange among wolves wolves may be debilitated by Lyme short-term declines from CDV, but no targeted by Wildlife Services is likely disease, perhaps contributing to their long-term threat to the wolf population not representative of the prevalence of mortality; however, Lyme disease is not from maintenance of this virus among the disease in the statewide wolf believed to be a significant factor multiple hosts in the Yellowstone population; wolves targeted for affecting wolf populations (Kreeger ecosystem. depredation control appear to be more 2003, p. 212). Serological evidence indicates that likely to carry the disease (Hart 2009, The dog louse (Trichodectes canis) exposure to CDV is high among some pers. comm.). has been detected in wolves in Ontario, Midwest wolves—29 percent in In a separate study, mortality data Saskatchewan, Alaska, Minnesota, and northern Wisconsin wolves and 79 from 12 years (1994–2005) of Wisconsin (Mech et al 1985, pp. 404– percent in central Wisconsin wolves in monitoring radio-collared wolves in 7 to 405; Kreeger 2003, p. 208; Paul in litt. 2002–04 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 9 packs in north-central Minnesota 2005). Dogs are probably the source of 2004b, pp. 23–24 Table 7; 2005, pp. 23– show that 11 percent died from mange the initial infections, and subsequently 24 Table 7). However, the continued (DelGiudice in litt. 2005). However, the wild canids transfer lice by direct strong recruitment in Wisconsin and sample size (17 total mortalities, 2 from contact with other wolves, particularly elsewhere in North American wolf mange in 1998 and 2004) is far too small between females and pups. Severe populations indicates that distemper is to deduce trends in mange mortality infestations result in irritated and raw not likely a significant cause of over time. Furthermore, these data are skin, substantial hair loss, particularly mortality (Brand et al. 1995, p. 421). from mange mortalities, while the in the groin. However, in contrast to Other diseases and parasites, Wildlife Services’ data are based on mange, lice infestations generally result including rabies, canine heartworm, mange symptoms, not mortalities. Other in loss of guard hairs but not the blastomycosis, bacterial myocarditis, data show that from 1998 to 2010 in the insulating under fur, thus, hypothermia granulomatous pneumonia, brucellosis, Superior National Forest, 7 of is less likely to occur and much less leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, approximately 163 radio-collared likely to be fatal (Brand et al. 1995, p. hookworm, coccidiosis, and canine wolves were known to have died of 426). Even though observed in nearly 4 hepatitis have been documented in wild mange (Mech unpublished). percent in a sample of 391 Minnesota wolves, but their impacts on future wild It is hypothesized that the current wolves in 2003–05 (Paul in litt. 2005), wolf populations are not likely to be incidence of mange is more widespread dog lice infestations have not been significant (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 419– than it would have otherwise been, confirmed as a cause of wolf mortality, 429; Hassett in litt. 2003; Johnson 1995, because the WGL wolf range and are not expected to have a pp. 431, 436–438; Mech and Kurtz 1999, experienced a series of mild winters significant impact even at a local scale. pp. 305–306; Thomas in litt. 1998, beginning with the winter of 1997–1998 Canine distemper virus (CDV) is an Thomas in litt. 2006, WI DNR 1999, p. (Van Deelen 2005, Fig. 2). Mange- acute disease of carnivores that has been 61; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202–214). induced mortality is chiefly a result of known in Europe since the sixteenth Continuing wolf range expansion, winter hypothermia, thus the less severe century and is now infecting dogs however, likely will provide new winters resulted in higher survival of worldwide (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). CDV avenues for exposure to several of these mangy wolves, and increased spread of generally infects dog pups when they diseases, especially canine heartworm, mange to additional wolves during the are only a few months old, so mortality raccoon rabies, and bovine tuberculosis following spring and summer. The high in wild wolf populations might be (Thomas in litt. 2000, in litt. 2006), wolf population, and especially higher difficult to detect (Brand et al 1995, pp. further emphasizing the need for disease wolf density on the landscape, may also 420–421). CDV mortality among wild monitoring programs. be contributing to the increasing wolves has been documented in two In addition, the possibility of new occurrence of mange in the WGL wolf littermate pups and an adult male in diseases developing and existing population. Manitoba (Carbyn 1982, pp. 111–112; diseases, such as chronic wasting Lyme disease, caused by the Stronen et al. 2011, p. 224), in two disease (CWD), West Nile Virus (WNV) spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi, is Alaskan yearling wolves (Peterson et al. and canine influenza (Crawford et al. another relatively recently recognized 1984, p. 31), and in two Wisconsin 2005, 482–485), moving across species disease, first documented in New wolves (an adult in 1985 and a pup in barriers or spreading from domestic England in 1975, although it may have 2002) (Thomas in litt. 2006; Wydeven dogs to wolves must all be taken into occurred in Wisconsin as early as 1969. and Wiedenhoeft 2003b, p. 20). Carbyn account, and monitoring programs will It is spread by ticks that pass the (1982, pp. 113–116) concluded that CDV need to address such threats. Currently infection to their hosts when feeding. was a contributor to a 50 percent there is no evidence that CWD can Host species include humans, horses, decline of the wolf population in Riding directly affect canids (Thomas in litt. dogs, white-tailed deer, white-footed Mountain National Park (Manitoba, 2006; Wild et al. 2010, p. 87). Wisconsin mice, eastern chipmunks, coyotes, and Canada) in the mid-1970s; current wolves have been tested for WNV at wolves. The prevalence of Lyme disease prevalence of CDV in that population is necropsy since the first spread of the exposure in Wisconsin wolves averaged similar to that reported in the past virus across the State: To date, all 70 percent of live-trapped animals in (Stronen et al. 2011, pp. 223–226). results have been negative. Although 1988–91, dropped to 37 percent during Almberg et al. (2009, pp. 8–9) correlate experimental infection of dogs produced

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81697

no ill effects, WNV is reported to have and that all live wolves that are handled wolves that will be assessed for disease killed two captive wolf pups, so young will be examined, with blood, skin, and nor does it plan to treat any wolves, wolves may be at some risk (Thomas in fecal samples taken to provide disease although it does not rule out these litt. 2006). information. The Michigan Plan states measures. Minnesota’s less intensive In aggregate, diseases and parasites that the Michigan DNR will continue to approach to disease monitoring and were the cause of 21 percent of the monitor the prevalence and impact of management seems warranted in light of diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared disease on wolf health following Federal its much greater abundance of wolves wolves in Michigan from 1999 through delisting (MI DNR 2008, pp. 32, 40–42). than in the other two States. 2004 (Beyer 2005, unpublished data) Similarly, the Wisconsin Wolf In areas within the WGL DPS, but and 27 percent of the diagnosed Management Plan states that as long as outside Minnesota, Wisconsin, and mortalities of radio-collared wolves in the wolf is State-listed as a threatened Michigan, we lack data on the incidence Wisconsin from October 1979 through or endangered species, the WI DNR will of diseases or parasites in transient December 2009 (Wydeven et al. 2010, p. conduct necropsies of dead wolves and wolves. However, the boundary of the 45). In recent years (2006–10), disease test a sample of live-captured wolves for WGL DPS is laid out in a manner such has been the cause of death for 14 diseases and parasites, with a goal of that the vast majority of, and perhaps percent (10 of 70 dead wolves) of the screening 10 percent of the State wolf all, wolves that will occur in the DPS in diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared population for diseases annually. the foreseeable future will have wolves in Wisconsin and 3 to 7 percent However, the plan anticipates that originated from the Minnesota– of all wolves (radio-collared and not following State delisting (which Wisconsin–Michigan wolf collared) found dead in the State (72 to occurred on August 1, 2004), disease metapopulation. Therefore, they will be 94 wolves). During that time period, monitoring will be scaled back because carrying the ‘‘normal’’ complement of disease was the cause of death of 12 the percentage of the wolf population Midwestern wolf parasites, diseases, percent (5 of 43) of the diagnosed that is live-trapped each year will and disease resistance with them. For mortalities of radio-collared wolves in decline. Disease monitoring of captured this reason, any new pairs, packs, or Michigan, and of 3 percent (6 of 199) of wolves currently is focusing on diseases populations that develop within the the total known wolf mortalities in known to be causing noteworthy DPS are likely to experience the same Minnesota. mortality, such as mange, and other low to moderate adverse impacts from Many of the diseases and parasites are diseases for which data are judged to be pathogens that have been occurring in known to be spread by wolf-to-wolf sparse, such as Lyme disease and the core recovery areas. contact. Therefore, the incidence of ehrlichiosis (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft The most likely exceptions to this mange, CPV, CDV, and canine 2006, p. 8). The State will continue to generalization would arise from heartworm may increase as wolf test for disease and parasite loads exposure to sources of novel diseases or densities increase in the more recently through periodic necropsy and scat more virulent forms that are being colonized areas (Thomas in litt. 2006). analyses. The 2006 update to the 1999 spread by other canid species that might Because wolf densities generally are plan also recommends that all wolves be encountered by wolves dispersing relatively stable following the first few live-trapped for other studies should into currently unoccupied areas of the years of colonization, wolf-to-wolf have their health monitored and DPS. To increase the likelihood of contacts will not likely lead to a reported to the WI DNR wildlife health detecting such novel or more virulent continuing increase in disease specialists (WI DNR 1999, p.21; 2006c, diseases and thereby reduce the risk that prevalence in areas that have been p. 14). Furthermore, the 2006 update they might pose to the core of the occupied for several years or more and identifies a need for ‘‘continued health metapopulation after delisting, we will are largely saturated with wolf packs monitoring to document significant encourage these States and Tribes to (Mech in litt. 1998). disease events that may impact the wolf provide wolf carcasses or suitable Disease and parasite impacts may population and to identify new diseases tissue, as appropriate, to the USGS increase because several wolf diseases in the population….’’ (WI DNR 2006a, p. National Wildlife Health Center or the and parasites are carried and spread by 24). Service’s National Wildlife Forensics domestic dogs. This transfer of The Minnesota Wolf Management Laboratory for necropsy. This practice pathogens from domestic dogs to wild Plan states that MN DNR ‘‘will should provide an early indication of wolves may increase as wolves continue collaborate with other investigators and new or increasing pathogen threats to colonize non-wilderness areas (Mech continue monitoring disease incidence, before they reach the core of the in litt. 1998). Heartworm, CPV, and where necessary, by examination of metapopulation or impact future rabies are the main concerns (Thomas in wolf carcasses obtained through transient wolves to those areas. litt. 1998), but dogs may become depredation control programs, and also Disease Summary significant vectors for other diseases through blood or tissue physiology work with potentially serious impacts on conducted by the MN DNR and the U.S. We believe that several diseases have wolves in the future (Crawford et al. Geological Survey. The DNR will also had noticeable impacts on wolf 2005, pp. 482–485). However, to date keep records of documented and population growth in the Great Lakes wolf populations in Wisconsin and suspected incidence of sarcoptic mange region in the past. These impacts have Michigan have continued their (MN DNR 2001, p. 32).’’ In addition, it been both direct, resulting in mortality expansion into areas with increased will initiate ‘‘(R)egular collection of of individual wolves, and indirect, by contacts with dogs and have shown no pertinent tissues of live captured or reducing longevity and fecundity of adverse pathogen impacts since the dead wolves’’ and periodically assess individuals or entire packs or mid-1980s impacts from CPV. wolf health ‘‘when circumstances populations. Canine parvovirus stalled Disease and parasite impacts are a indicate that diseases or parasites may wolf population growth in Wisconsin in recognized concern of the Minnesota, be adversely affecting portions of the the early and mid-1980s and has been Michigan, and Wisconsin DNRs. The wolf population (MN DNR 2001, p. 19).’’ implicated in the decline in the mid- Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and Unlike Michigan and Wisconsin, 1980s of the isolated Isle Royale wolf Management Plan states that necropsies Minnesota has not established population in Michigan, and in will be conducted on all dead wolves, minimum goals for the proportion of its attenuating wolf population growth in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81698 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Minnesota (Mech in litt. 2006). percent) of the mortalities of radio- Act and State endangered species Sarcoptic mange has affected wolf collared Wisconsin wolves resulted statutes prohibited the killing of wolves recovery in Michigan’s UP and in from wolves killing wolves, and 8 of 73 except under very limited Wisconsin over the last 12 years, and it (11 percent) mortalities were from this circumstances, such as in defense of is recognized as a continuing issue. cause during 2000–05 (Wydeven 1998, human life, for scientific or Despite these and other diseases and p. 16 Table 4; Wydeven and conservation purposes, or under special parasites, the overall trend for wolf Wiedenhoeft 2001, p. 8 Table 5; 2002, regulations intended to reduce wolf populations in the WGL DPS continues pp. 8–9 Table 4; 2003a, pp. 11–12 Table depredations of livestock or other to be upward. Wolf management plans 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 Table 5, 2005, p. 21 domestic animals. The resultant for Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin Table 5). reduction in human-caused wolf include disease monitoring components Among radio-collared wolves dying mortality is the main cause of the wolf’s that we expect will identify future from known causes between October reestablishment in large parts of its disease and parasite problems in time to 1979 and December 2009, overall rate of historical range. It is clear, however, allow corrective action to avoid a intraspecific strife was 17 of 151 that illegal killing of wolves has significant decline in overall population mortalities or 11 percent (Wydeven et continued in the form of intentional viability. We conclude that diseases and al. 2010, p. 45). Gogan et al. (2004, p. mortality and incidental deaths. parasites will not prevent continued 7) studied 31 radio-collared wolves in Illegal killing of wolves occurs for a population growth or the maintenance northern Minnesota from 1987 to 1991 number of reasons. Some of these of viable wolf populations in the DPS. and found that 4 (13 percent) were killings are accidental (for example, Delisting of wolves in the WGL DPS will killed by other wolves, representing 29 wolves are hit by vehicles, mistaken for not significantly change the incidence percent of the total mortality of radio- coyotes and shot, or caught in traps set or impacts of disease and parasites on collared wolves. Intra-specific strife for other animals); some of these these wolves. Disease may eventually caused 50 percent of mortality within accidental killings are reported to State, limit overall wolf carrying capacity and Voyageurs National Park and 20 percent Tribal, and Federal authorities. It is contribute to annual fluctuations in wolf of the mortality of wolves adjacent to likely that most illegal killings, abundance, but at current and the Park (Gogan et al. 2004, p. 22). The however, are intentional and are never foreseeable population levels, diseases DelGiudice data (in litt. 2005) show a 17 reported to government authorities. are not likely to affect viability or place percent mortality rate from other wolves Because they generally occur in remote wolves at risk of again becoming in another study area in north-central locations and the evidence is easily endangered or threatened. Therefore, we Minnesota from 1994 to 2005. This concealed, we lack reliable estimates of conclude that diseases and parasites do behavior is normal in healthy wolf annual rates of intentional illegal not pose a significant threat to wolves populations and is an expected outcome killings. in the WGL DPS of dispersal conflicts and territorial In Wisconsin, all forms of human- defense, as well as occasional intra-pack caused mortality accounted for 56 Natural Predation strife. This form of mortality is percent of the diagnosed deaths of No wild animals habitually prey on something with which the species has radio-collared wolves from October wolves. Large prey such as deer, elk, or evolved, and it should not pose a threat 1979 through December 2009 (Wydeven moose (Mech and Nelson 1989, pp. 207– to wolf populations in the WGL DPS et al. 2010, p. 45). Thirty-four percent of 208; Smith et al. 2001, p. 3), or other once delisted. the diagnosed mortalities, and 62 predators, such as mountain lions percent of the human-caused (Puma concolor), grizzly bears (Ursus Human-Caused Mortality mortalities, were from illegal killing arctos horribilis), or black bears (Ursus Because our concern about human- (mainly shootings). Another 9 percent of americanus) where they are extant caused mortality is its overall effect on all the diagnosed mortalities (15 percent (USFWS 2005, p. 3; Ballard et al. 2003, wolf mortality, the following discussion of the human-caused mortalities) pp. 260–264), occasionally kill wolves, addresses the major human causes of resulted from vehicle collisions. (These but such events have rarely been wolf mortality, including illegal killing, percentages and those in the following documented. Coyotes have also depredation control, and vehicle paragraphs exclude seven radio-collared attempted to attack wolf pups (Ballard collisions. Wisconsin wolves that were killed in et al. 2003, p. 267), and along with bears Humans have functioned as highly depredation control actions by USDA— and various medium-sized predators effective predators of the wolf in North APHIS—Wildlife Services. The wolf could pose a risk to wolf pups if adult America for several hundred years. depredation control programs in the wolves are not present. Predation and European settlers in the Midwest Midwest are discussed separately under death by prey species are small attempted to eliminate the wolf entirely Depredation Control, below.) Data from components of wolf mortality and will in earlier times, and the U.S. Congress 2006 through 2010 (68 diagnosed not likely increase with delisting. passed a wolf bounty that covered the mortalities of radio-collared wolves) Wolves frequently are killed by other Northwest Territories in 1817. Bounties show the mortality percentages for wolves, most commonly when packs on wolves subsequently became the illegal kills to be similar, with 35 encounter and attack a dispersing wolf norm for States across the species’ percent of the diagnosed mortalities as an intruder or when two packs range. In Michigan, an 1838 wolf bounty being illegally killed. The mortality encounter each other along a territorial became the ninth law passed by the percentage for vehicle collisions during boundary (Mech 1994, p. 201). This First Michigan Legislature; this bounty this time period remained constant (13 form of mortality is likely to increase as remained in place until 1960. A percent) (Wydeven et al. 2007, p. 10; more of the available wolf habitat Wisconsin bounty was instituted in and Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2008, becomes saturated with wolf pack 1865 and was repealed about the time Summary). In 2010, mortality data from territories, as is the case in northeastern wolves were extirpated from the State in actively monitored wolves show that, of Minnesota, but such a trend is not yet 1957. Minnesota maintained a wolf wolves that died, 38 percent were killed evident from Wisconsin or Michigan bounty until 1965. illegally (all shootings); 12 percent were data. From October 1979 through June Subsequent to the gray wolf’s listing euthanized for human safety concerns; 6 1998, researchers found that 7 (12 as a federally endangered species, the percent of the deaths were disease

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81699

related; 6 percent died from apparent again federally listed for most of the professional responses to wolf conflicts old age, 6 percent, from intraspecific year, 20 of the 72 dead wolves found in have been important for wolf recovery strife, and 12 percent, from vehicle Wisconsin were illegally killed, and 8 (Ruid et al. 2009, p. 280). In most cases, collisions; and the causes for 19 percent (62 percent) of 13 radio-collared wolves people can take simple, sensible of the deaths were unknown (Wydeven found dead were illegal kills. In 2010, measures to avoid those situations and et al. 2011, p. 2). when wolves continued to be federally protect themselves against harm. Other During the periods that wolves were listed, 15 of 72 dead wolves were cases may warrant higher levels of federally delisted (from March 2007 illegally killed, and 7 (44 percent) of 16 concern and professional assistance. through September 2008 and from April radio-collared wolves were illegally Michigan DNR solved most wolf-human through early July 2009), 92 wolves killed. conflicts using nonlethal methods (Roell were killed for depredation control, Thus the number of known illegally 2010, pers. comm.). However, in a few including 8 legally shot by private killed wolves declined slightly from 17 incidents lethal control was warranted landowners (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft in 2006, to 10 in 2007 and 14 in 2008, and carried out under Federal 2008, p. 8; Wydeven et al. 2009b, p. 6; increased to 20 in 2009, and declined to regulations (50 CFR 17.21, which allows Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 13). 15 in 2010. Among radio-collared the take of an endangered species when As the Wisconsin population has wolves found dead, illegal killing there is a ‘‘demonstrable but increased in numbers and range, vehicle represented 67 percent of all mortality nonimmediate threat’’ to protect human collisions have increased as a in 2006, 19 percent in 2007, 23 percent safety, or to euthanize a sick or injured percentage of radio-collared wolf in 2008, 62 percent in 2009, and 44 wolf, but only if it is not reasonably mortalities. During the October 1979 percent in 2010 (Wydeven et al. 2010, possible to translocate the animal alive), through June 1992 period, only 1 of 27 p. 13; Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 2). or while wolves were not federally (4 percent) known mortalities was from In the UP of Michigan, human-caused protected (Roell 2010 et al., p. 9). Since that cause; but from July 1992 through mortalities accounted for 75 percent of 2004 the Michigan DNR and USDA– June 1998, vehicle collisions caused 5 of the diagnosed mortalities, based upon Wildlife Services have killed 13 animals the 26 (19 percent) known mortalities 34 wolves recovered from 1960 to 1997, (12 involving human safety and 1 sick (Wydeven 1998, p. 6). From 2002 including mostly non-radio-collared wolf) under the authority of this through 2004, of 45 known mortalities, wolves. Twenty-eight percent of all the regulation (Roell 2010 et al., p. 9). Two 7 (16 percent) were from that cause diagnosed mortalities and 38 percent of others were killed for human safety (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003a, pp. the human-caused mortalities were from concerns while wolves were federally 11–12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 Table shooting. In the UP during that period, delisted (Roell 2010, pers. comm.). 5; 2005, pp. 19–20 Table 4); and from about one-third of all the known North-central Minnesota data from 16 2005 through 2009, of 459 known mortalities were from vehicle collisions diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared mortalities, 126 (27 percent) were from (MI DNR 1997, pp. 5–6). During the wolves over a 12-year period (1994– that cause (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 1998 Michigan deer hunting season, 2005) show that human-causes resulted 2005, p. 20; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft three radio-collared wolves were shot in 69 percent of the diagnosed 2006, p. 20; Wydeven et al. 2007a, p.7; and killed, resulting in one arrest and mortalities. This includes 1 wolf Wydeven et al. 2007b, p.10; Wydeven conviction (Hammill in litt. 1999, accidentally snared, 2 vehicle collisions, and Wiedenhoeft 2008, p. 7; Wydeven et Michigan DNR 1999). During the and 8 (50 percent of all diagnosed al. 2009a, pp. 19–21; Wydeven and subsequent 3 years, eight additional mortalities) that were shot (DelGiudice Wiedenhoeft 2009, Table 3; Wydeven et wolves were killed in Michigan by in litt. 2005). However, this data set of al. 2010, Table 7). gunshot, and the cut-off radio-collar only 16 mortalities over 12 years is too A comparison over time for diagnosed from a ninth animal was located, but the small for reliable comparison to mortalities of radio-collared Wisconsin animal was never found. These Wisconsin and Michigan data. wolves shows that 18 of 57 (32 percent) incidents resulted in six guilty pleas, A smaller mortality dataset is were illegally killed from October 1979 with three cases remaining open to date. available from a 1987–91 study of through 1998, while 12 of 42 (29 Data collected from radio-collared wolves in, and adjacent to, Minnesota’s percent) were illegally killed from 2002 wolves from the 1999 to 2009 bioyears Voyageurs National Park, along the through 2004, and 24 of 72 (33 percent) (mid-April to mid-April) show that Canadian border. Of 10 diagnosed were illegally killed from 2005 to March human-caused mortalities still account mortalities, illegal killing outside the 2007 (WI DNR 1999, p. 63; Wydeven for the majority of the wolf mortalities Park was responsible for a minimum of and Wiedenhoeft 2003a, pp. 11–12 (66 percent) in Michigan. Deaths from 60 percent of the deaths (Gogan et al. Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 Table 4; 2005. vehicular collisions were about 18 2004, p. 22). Furthermore, in the pp. 19–20 Table 4; Wydeven et al. percent of total mortality (27 percent of Superior National Forest from 1998 to 2006a, p. 6; 2006b, p. 8; 2007, pp. 6–7; the human-caused mortality) and 2010, of approximately 163 radio- 2008a, p. 10). In 2006, prior to the showed no trend over this 11-year collared wolves, 6 were known to have Federal delisting the following year, 17 period. Deaths from illegal killing been killed illegally by humans (Mech of 72 wolves found dead in the State constituted 39 percent of all mortalities unpublished). were killed illegally. Among nine radio- (60 percent of the human-caused Two Minnesota studies provide some collared wolves that had died in 2006, mortality) over the period. From 1999 limited insight into the extent of six (67 percent) were illegally killed. In through 2001, illegal killings were 31 human-caused wolf mortality before and 2007, after Federal delisting, 10 of 90 percent of the mortalities, but this after the species’ listing. On the basis of dead wolves found in the State were increased to 42 percent during the 2002 bounty data from a period that predated illegally killed, and 3 (19 percent) of the through 2004 bioyears and to 40 percent wolf protection under the Act by 20 radio-collared wolves found dead were during bioyears 2005 through 2010 years, Stenlund (1955, p. 33) found an illegally killed. In 2008, 14 of 94 dead (Roell 2010, pers. comm.). annual human-caused mortality rate of wolves found in Wisconsin were Most Michigan residents place a high 41 percent. Fuller (1989, pp. 23–24) illegally killed, and 4 (28 percent) of 14 priority on wolf management actions provided 1980–86 data from a north- radio-collared wolves found dead were that address public concerns for human central Minnesota study area and found illegal kills. In 2009, when wolves were safety (Beyer et al. 2006). Quick and an annual human-caused mortality rate

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

of 29 percent, a figure that includes 2 In and around the core recovery areas a portion of it. Thus, the addition of percent mortality from legal depredation in the Midwest, a continuing increase in intentional killing of wolves to a wolf control actions. Drawing conclusions wolf mortalities from vehicle collisions, population was thought to reduce the from comparisons of these two studies, both in actual numbers and as a percent mortality rates from other causes on the however, is difficult due to the of total diagnosed mortalities, is population (for example, Fuller et al. confounding effects of habitat quality, expected as wolves continue their 2003). Creel and Rotella (2010) exposure to humans, prey density, colonization of areas with more human reexamined this concept with regards to differing time periods, and vast developments and a denser network of wolves. They found that, contrary to the differences in study design. Although roads and vehicle traffic. In addition, previously held belief, wolf population these figures provide support for the the growing wolf populations in growth declined as human-caused contention that human-caused mortality Wisconsin and Michigan are producing mortality increased (Creel and Rotella decreased after the wolf became greater numbers of dispersing 2010, p. 3). Their study concludes that protected under the Act, it is not individuals each year, and this also will wolves can be harvested within limits, possible at this time to determine if contribute to increasing numbers of but that human-caused mortality was human-caused mortality (apart from wolf–vehicle collisions. This increase in strongly additive in total mortality mortalities from depredation control) accidental deaths would be unaffected (Creel and Rotella 2010, p. 6). has significantly changed over the by a removal of wolves in the WGL DPS Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, nearly 35-year period that the gray wolf from the protections of the Act. however, have committed to continue to has been listed as threatened or In those areas of the WGL DPS that regulate human-caused mortality so that endangered. are beyond the areas currently occupied it does not reduce the WGL wolf Wolves were largely eliminated from by wolf packs in Minnesota, Wisconsin, population below recovery levels. The the Dakotas in the 1920s and 1930s and and Michigan, we expect that human- wolf populations in Minnesota, were rarely reported from the mid-1940s caused wolf mortality in the form of Wisconsin, and Michigan will stop through the late 1970s. Ten wolves were vehicle collisions, shooting, and growing when they have saturated the killed in these two States from 1981 to trapping have been removing all, or suitable habitat and are curtailed in less 1992 (Licht and Fritts 1994, pp. 76–77). nearly all, the wolves that disperse into suitable areas by natural mortality Seven more were killed in North Dakota these areas. We expect this to continue (disease, starvation, and intraspecific since 1992, with four of these after Federal delisting. Road densities aggression), depredation management, mortalities occurring in 2002 and 2003; are high in these areas, with numerous incidental mortality (for example, road in 2001, one wolf was killed in Harding interstate highways and other freeways kill), illegal killing, and other means. At County in extreme northwestern South and high-speed thoroughfares that are that time, we should expect to see Dakota. The number of reported extremely hazardous to wolves population declines in some years sightings of wolves in North Dakota is attempting to move across them. followed by short-term increases in increasing. From 1993 to 1998, six wolf Shooting and trapping of wolves also is other years, resulting from fluctuations depredation reports were investigated in likely to continue as a threat to wolves in birth and mortality rates. Adequate North Dakota, and adequate signs were in these areas for several reasons. wolf monitoring programs, as described found to verify the presence of wolves Especially outside of Minnesota, in the Michigan, Wisconsin, and in two of the cases. A den with pups Wisconsin, and Michigan, hunters will Minnesota wolf management plans, are was also documented in extreme north- not expect to encounter wolves, and likely to identify high mortality rates or central North Dakota near the Canadian may easily mistake them for coyotes low birth rates that warrant corrective border in 1994. From 1999 to 2003, from a distance, resulting in action by the management agencies (see residents of North Dakota reported 16 unintentional shootings. Regulatory Mechanisms in Minnesota, wolf sightings or depredation incidents It is important to note that, despite the Wisconsin, and Michigan, below). The to USDA–APHIS–Wildlife Services, and difficulty in measuring the extent of goals of all three State wolf management 9 of these incidents were verified. illegal killing of wolves, all sources of plans are to maintain wolf populations Additionally, one North Dakota wolf wolf mortality, including legal (for well above the numbers recommended sighting was confirmed in early 2004, example, depredation control) and in the Recovery Plan for the Eastern two wolf depredation incidents were illegal human-caused mortality, have Timber Wolf to ensure long-term viable verified north of Garrison in late 2005, not been of sufficient magnitude to stop wolf populations. The State and one wolf was found dead in Eddy the continuing growth of the wolf management plans recommend a County in 2009. USDA–APHIS–Wildlife population in Wisconsin and Michigan, minimum wolf population of 1,600 in Services also confirmed a wolf sighting nor to cause a wolf population decline Minnesota, 250 in Wisconsin (with a along the Minnesota border near Gary, in Minnesota. This indicates that total management goal of 350), and 200 in South Dakota, in 1996, and a trapper wolf mortality does not threaten the Michigan. with the South Dakota Game, Fish, and continued viability of the wolf Despite human-caused mortalities of Parks Department sighted a lone wolf in population in these three States, or in wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the western Black Hills in 2002. the WGL DPS. Michigan, these wolf populations have Several other unconfirmed sightings continued to increase in both numbers have been reported from these States, Human-caused Mortality Summary and range. As long as other mortality including two reports in South Dakota The high reproductive potential of factors do not increase significantly and in 2003. Wolves killed in North and wolves allows wolf populations to monitoring is adequate to document, South Dakota were most often shot by withstand relatively high mortality and if necessary counteract (see Post- hunters after being mistaken for coyotes, rates, including human-caused Delisting Monitoring, below), the effects or were killed by vehicles. The 2001 mortality. The principle of of excessive human-caused mortality mortality in South Dakota and one of compensatory mortality was previously should that occur, the Minnesota- the 2003 mortalities in North Dakota believed to occur in wolf populations. Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population were caused by M–44 devices that had This means that human-caused will not decline to nonviable levels in been legally set in response to mortality is not simply added to the foreseeable future as a result of complaints about coyotes. ‘‘natural’’ mortality, but rather replaces human-caused killing or other forms of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81701

predation. Therefore, we conclude that Regulatory Mechanisms in Minnesota, DNR in November (Michigan Wolf predation, including all forms of Wisconsin, and Michigan Management Roundtable 2006. p. 2). Based on those Roundtable human-caused mortality, does not pose State Wolf Management Planning a significant threat to wolves in the recommendations, a revised Michigan WGL DPS. During the 2000 legislative session, Wolf Management Plan was completed the Minnesota Legislature passed wolf in July 2008 (MI DNR 2008a). The D. The Inadequacy of Existing management provisions addressing wolf complete text of the Wisconsin, Regulatory Mechanisms protection, taking of wolves, and Michigan, and Minnesota wolf plans directing MN DNR to prepare a wolf can be found on our Web site (see FOR The inadequacy of existing regulatory management plan. The MN DNR revised FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). mechanisms is one of five factors that, a 1999 draft wolf management plan to under the Endangered Species Act (Act), reflect the legislative action of 2000, and The Minnesota Wolf Management Plan may result in a determination as to completed the Minnesota Wolf The Minnesota Plan is based, in part, whether a species should be listed or Management Plan (MN Plan) in early on the recommendations of a State wolf not. In analyzing whether the existing 2001 (MN DNR 2001, pp. 8–9). management roundtable (MN DNR 2001, regulatory mechanisms are adequate, The Wisconsin Natural Resources Appendix V) and on a State wolf the Service reviews relevant Federal, Board (NRB) approved the Wisconsin management law enacted in 2000 (MN State, and tribal laws, plans, regulations, Wolf Management Plan in October 1999 DNR 2001, Appendix I). This law and memoranda of understanding, (WI Plan). In 2004 and 2005 the the Minnesota Game and Fish Laws cooperative agreements and other such Wisconsin Wolf Science Advisory constitute the basis of the State’s factors that influence conservation of Committee and the Wisconsin Wolf authority to manage wolves. The Plan’s the species in question, including Stakeholders group reviewed the 1999 stated goal is ‘‘to ensure the long-term analyzing the extent to which those Plan, and the Science Advisory survival of wolves in Minnesota while mechanisms can be relied upon. Other Committee subsequently developed addressing wolf-human conflicts that examples include State governmental updates and recommended inevitably result when wolves and actions enforced under a State statute or modifications to the 1999 Plan. The WI people live in the same vicinity’’ (MN constitution, or Federal action under DNR presented the Plan updates and DNR 2001, p. 2). It establishes a statute. modifications to the Wisconsin NRB on minimum goal of 1,600 wolves in the June 28, 2006, and the NRB approved State. Key components of the plan are Strongest weight is given to statutes them at that time, with the population monitoring and and their implementing regulations, and understanding that some numbers management, management of wolf management direction that stems from would be updated and an additional depredation of domestic animals, those laws and regulations. Some other reference document would be added management of wolf prey, enforcement agreements are more voluntary in (Holtz in litt. 2006). The updates were of laws regulating take of wolves, public nature; in those cases we analyze the completed and received final NRB education, and increased staffing to specific facts to determine the extent to approval on November 28, 2006 (WI accomplish these actions. Following which it can be relied on in the future, DNR 2006a, p. 1). Federal delisting, Minnesota DNR’s including how it addresses threats to the In late 1997, the Michigan Wolf management of wolves would differ species. We consider all pertinent Recovery and Management Plan (MI from their current management while information, including the efforts and Plan) was completed and received the wolves were listed as threatened under conservation practices of State necessary State approvals. It primarily the Act. Most of these differences deal governments, whether or not these are focused on wolf recovery, rather than with the control of wolves that attack or enforceable by law. Regulatory long-term management of a large wolf threaten domestic animals. mechanisms, if they exist, may preclude population and the conflicts that result The Minnesota Plan divides the State the need for listing if such mechanisms as a consequence of successful wolf into two wolf management zones— are judged to adequately address the restoration. In 2006 the MI DNR Zones A and B (see Figure 2 below). threat to the species such that listing is convened a Michigan Wolf Management Zone A corresponds to Federal Wolf not warranted. Conversely, threats on Roundtable committee (Roundtable) to Management Zones 1 through 4 the landscape are exacerbated when not provide guiding principles to the DNR (approximately 30,000 sq mi (77,700 sq addressed by existing regulatory on changes and revisions to the 1997 km) in northeastern Minnesota) in the mechanisms, or when the existing Plan and to guide management of Service’s Recovery Plan for the Eastern mechanisms are not adequate (or not Michigan wolves and wolf-related Timber Wolf, whereas Zone B adequately implemented or enforced). issues following Federal delisting of the constitutes Zone 5 in that recovery plan species. The MI DNR relied heavily on (MN DNR 2001, pp. 19–20 and The following sections discuss the those guiding principles as it drafted a Appendix III; USFWS 1992, p. 72). adequacy of regulatory mechanisms that new wolf management plan. The Within Zone A, wolves would receive would be implemented if the WGL DPS Roundtable was composed of strong protection by the State, unless were delisted, that is, removed from the representatives from 20 Michigan they were involved in attacks on List of Endangered and Threatened stakeholder interests in wolf recovery domestic animals. The rules governing Wildlife. For the reasons described in and management, and its membership is the take of wolves to protect domestic the following section, the Service has roughly equal in numbers from the UP animals in Zone B would be less determined that regulatory mechanisms and the LP. During 2006, the protective than in Zone A (see Post- that will be in place following delisting Roundtable provided its delisting Depredation Control in will be adequate to ensure that this DPS ‘‘Recommended Guiding Principles for Minnesota below). of wolves remains robust. Wolf Management in Michigan’’ to the BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81702 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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 after Federal incident frequency and locations and support education of the public delisting. 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 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER28DE11.001 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81703

changing attitudes towards wolves may 1992, p. 28), therefore, implementing This level of wolf removal for allow them to survive in areas where such management measures under that depredation control has not interfered road and human densities were requirement would ensure the wolf’s with wolf recovery in Minnesota, previously thought to be too high (Fuller continued survival in Minnesota. although it may have slowed the et al. 2003, p. 181). The MN DNR does Depredation Control in Minnesota— increase in wolf numbers in the State, not plan to reduce current levels of road Although federally protected as a especially since the late-1980s, and may access, but would encourage managers threatened species in Minnesota (since be contributing to the possibly of land areas large enough to sustain one their 1978 reclassification), wolves that stabilized Minnesota wolf population or more wolf packs to ‘‘be cautious have attacked domestic animals have suggested by the 2003–2004 and 2007– about adding new road access that could been killed by designated government 2008 estimates (see additional exceed a density of one mile of road per employees under the authority of a information in Minnesota Recovery). square mile of land, without considering special regulation (50 CFR 17.40(d)) Minnesota wolf numbers grew at an the potential effect on wolves’’ (MN under section 4(d) of the Act. However, average annual rate of nearly 4 percent DNR 2001, pp. 27–28). no control of depredating wolves was between 1989 and 1998 while the Under Minnesota law, the illegal allowed in Federal Wolf Management depredation control program was taking killing of a wolf is a gross misdemeanor Zone 1, comprising about 4,500 sq mi its highest percentages of wolves (Paul and is punishable by a maximum fine of (7,200 sq km) in extreme northeastern 2004, pp. 2–7). $3,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 Minnesota (USFWS 1992, p. 72). In Under a Minnesota statute, the year. The restitution value of an illegally Federal Wolf Management Zones 2 Minnesota Department of Agriculture killed wolf is $2,000 (MN DNR 2001, p. through 5, employees or agents of the (MDA) compensates livestock owners 29). The MN DNR acknowledges that Service (including USDA–APHIS– for full market value of livestock that increased enforcement of the State’s Wildlife Services) have taken wolves in wolves have killed or severely injured. wolf laws and regulations would be response to depredations of domestic An authorized investigator must dependent on increases in staff and animals within one-half mile of the confirm that wolves were responsible resources, additional cross-deputization depredation site. Young-of-the-year for the depredation. The Minnesota of tribal law enforcement officers, and captured on or before August 1 must be statute also requires MDA to continued cooperation with Federal law released. The regulations that allow for periodically update its Best enforcement officers. Minnesota DNR this take (50 CFR 17.40(d)(2)(i)(B)(4)) do Management Practices (BMPs) to incorporate new practices that it finds has designated three conservation not specify a maximum duration for officers who are stationed in the State’s would reduce wolf depredation depredation control, but Wildlife wolf range as the lead officers for (Minnesota Statutes 2010, Section 3.737, Services personnel have followed implementing the wolf management subdivision 5). internal guidelines under which they plan (MN DNR 2001, pp. 29, 32; Stark Post-delisting Depredation Control in trap for no more than 10–15 days, 2009a, pers. comm.). Minnesota—When the WGL DPS is Minnesota DNR will consider wolf except at sites with repeated or chronic delisted, depredation control will be population management measures, depredation, where they may trap for up authorized under Minnesota State law including public hunting and trapping to 30 days (Paul 2004, pers. comm.). and conducted in conformance with the seasons and other methods, in the During the period 1980–2010, the Minnesota Wolf Management Plan (MN future. In 2011, the State law was Federal Minnesota wolf depredation DNR 2001). The Minnesota Plan divides changed to allow the MN DNR to control program euthanized from 20 (in the State into Wolf Management Zones consider a public harvest season when 1982) to 216 (in 1997) wolves annually. A and B. Zone A is composed of Federal wolves are federally delisted, rather Annual averages (and percentage of Wolf Management Zones 1–4, covering than requiring that such consideration statewide population) were 30 (2.2 30,728 sq mi (79,586 sq km), occur no sooner than 5 years after percent) wolves killed from 1980 to approximately the northeastern third of Federal delisting (Minnesota Statutes 1984; 49 (3.0 percent), from 1985 to the State. Zone B is identical to the 97B.645 Subd. 9). With this change, the 1989; 115 (6.0 percent), from 1990 to current Federal Wolf Management Zone DNR is allowed to begin the process of 1994; 152 (6.7 percent), from 1995 to 5, and contains the 54,603 sq mi determining whether Minnesotans want 1999; and 128 wolves (4.2 percent), (141,422 sq km.) that make up the rest a wolf harvest season. After wolves are from 2000 to 2005. During 2006–2010 of the State (MN DNR 2001, pp. 19–20 federally delisted, the MN DNR may an average of 157 wolves were killed and Appendix III; USFWS 1992, p. 72). prescribe open seasons and restrictions each year—approximately 5.4 percent of The statewide survey conducted during for taking gray wolves, but must seek wolves in the State (Erb 2008; USDA– the winter of 2003–04 estimated that authorization from the legislature and Wildlife Services 2010, p. 3). Since there were approximately 2,570 wolves provide opportunity for public 1980, the lowest annual percentage of in Zone A and 450 in Zone B (Erb in litt. comment. The legislation does not Minnesota wolves killed under this 2005). As discussed in Recovery Criteria change the way the DNR will determine program was 1.5 percent in 1982; the above, the Federal planning goal is if Minnesota should have a wolf harvest highest percentage was 9.4 in 1997 (Paul 1,251–1,400 wolves for Zones 1–4 and or how such a harvest would be 2004, pp. 2–7; 2006, p. 1). Following the no wolves in Zone 5 (USFWS 1992, p. implemented, it only allows them to return of wolves in Minnesota to the list 28). begin the decision-making process of threatened species in 2009, 195 and In Zone A wolf depredation control is earlier. The Minnesota management 192 wolves were killed in 2009 and limited to situations of (1) immediate plan requires that population 2010, respectively, in response to threat and (2) following verified loss of management measures be implemented depredation of domestic animals in domestic animals. In this zone, if the in such a way to maintain a statewide Minnesota. This is the highest 2-year DNR verifies that a wolf destroyed any late-winter wolf population of at least consecutive total since authorization to livestock, domestic animal, or pet, and 1,600 animals (MN DNR 2001, pp. 19– control depredating wolves was allowed if the owner requests wolf control be 20), well above the planning goal of by special regulation under section 4(d) implemented, trained and certified 1,251 to 1,400 wolves for the State in of the Act while wolves were federally predator controllers may take wolves the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS listed. (specific number to be determined on a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81704 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

case-by-case basis) within a 1-mile livestock depredation complaint in Timber Wolf envisioned that the radius of the depredation site Zone 1 in 2008 (Hart pers. comm. 2009), Minnesota numerical planning goal (depredation control area) for up to 60 and some dog kills in this zone probably would be achieved solely in Zone A days. In contrast, in Zone B, predator go unreported. In 2009, there was one (Federal Zones 1–4) (USFWS 1992, p. controllers may take wolves (specific probable and one verified depredation 28), and that has occurred. Wolves number to be determined on a case-by- of a dog near Ely, Minnesota, and in outside of Zone A are not necessary to case basis) for up to 214 days after MN 2010 Wildlife Services confirmed three the establishment and long-term DNR opens a depredation control area, dogs killed by wolves in Zone 1 (USDA– viability of a self-sustaining wolf depending on the time of year. Under Wildlife Services 2009, p. 3; USDA– population in the State, and, therefore, State law, the DNR may open a control Wildlife Services 2010, p. 3). There are there is no need to establish or maintain area in Zone B anytime within 5 years few livestock in Zone 1; therefore, the a wolf population in Zone B. of a verified depredation loss upon number of verified future depredation Accordingly, there is no need to request of the landowner, thereby incidents in that Zone is expected to be maintain significant protection for providing more of a preventative low, resulting in a correspondingly low wolves in Zone B in order to maintain approach than is allowed in Zone A, in number of depredating wolves being a Minnesota wolf population that order to head off repeat depredation killed there after delisting. continues to satisfy the Federal recovery incidents (MN DNR 2001, p. 22). The final change in Zone A is the criteria after Federal delisting. State law and the Minnesota Plan will ability for owners or lessees to respond This expansion of depredation control also allow for private wolf depredation to situations of immediate threat by activities will not threaten the control throughout the State. Persons shooting wolves in the act of stalking, continued survival of wolves in the may shoot or destroy a wolf that poses attacking, or killing livestock or other State or the long-term viability of the ‘‘an immediate threat’’ to their livestock, domestic animals. We believe this is not wolf population in Zone A, the large guard animals, or domestic animals on likely to result in the killing of many part of wolf range in Minnesota. lands that they own, lease, or occupy. additional wolves, as opportunities to Significant changes in wolf depredation Immediate threat is defined as ‘‘in the shoot wolves ‘‘in the act’’ will likely be control under State management will act of stalking, attacking, or killing.’’ few and difficult to successfully primarily be restricted to Zone B, which This does not include trapping because accomplish, a belief shared by the most is outside of the area necessary for wolf traps cannot be placed in a manner such experienced wolf depredation agent in recovery (USFWS 1992, pp. 20, 28). that they trap only wolves in the act of the lower 48 States (Paul in litt. 2006, Furthermore, wolves may still persist in stalking, attacking, or killing. Owners of p. 5). It is also possible that illegal Zone B despite the likely increased take domestic pets may also kill wolves killing of wolves in Minnesota will there. The Eastern Timber Wolf posing an immediate threat to pets decrease, because the expanded options Recovery Team concluded that the under their supervision on lands that for legal control of problem wolves may changes in wolf management in the they do not own or lease, although such lead to an increase in public tolerance State’s Zone A would be ‘‘minor’’ and actions are subject to local ordinances, for wolves (Paul in litt. 2006, p. 5). would not likely result in ‘‘significant trespass law, and other applicable Within Zone B, State law and the change in overall wolf numbers in Zone restrictions. The MN DNR will Minnesota Plan provide broad authority A.’’ They found that, despite an investigate any private taking of wolves to landowners and land managers to expansion of the individual depredation in Zone A (MN DNR 2001, p. 23). shoot wolves at any time to protect their To protect their domestic animals in livestock, pets, or other domestic control areas and an extension of the Zone B, individuals do not have to wait animals on land owned, leased, or control period to 60 days, depredation for an immediate threat or a depredation managed by the individual. Such control will remain ‘‘very localized’’ in incident in order to take wolves. At any takings can occur in the absence of wolf Zone A. The requirement that such time in Zone B, persons who own, lease, attacks on the domestic animals. Thus, depredation control activities be or manage lands may shoot wolves on the estimated 450 wolves in Zone B conducted only in response to verified those lands to protect livestock, could be subject to substantial reduction wolf depredation in Zone A played a domestic animals, or pets. They may in numbers, and at the extreme, wolves key role in the team’s evaluation also employ a predator controller to trap could be eliminated from Zone B. (Peterson in litt. 2001). While wolves a wolf on their land or within 1 mile of However, there is no way to reasonably were under State management in 2007 their land (with permission of the evaluate in advance the extent to which and 2008, the number of wolves killed landowner) to protect their livestock, residents of Zone B will use this new for depredation control (133 wolves in domestic animals, or pets (MN DNR authority, nor how vulnerable Zone B 2007 and 143 wolves in 2008) remained 2001, p. 23–24). wolves will be. While wolves were consistent with those killed under the The Minnesota Plan will also allow under State management in 2007–08, special regulation under section 4(d) of persons to harass wolves anywhere in landowners in Zone B shot six wolves the Act while wolves were federally the State within 500 yards of ‘‘people, under this authority. One additional listed (105, in 2004; 134, in 2005; and buildings, dogs, livestock, or other wolf was trapped and euthanized in 122, in 2006). domestic pets or animals.’’ Harassment Zone B by a State certified predator Minnesota will continue to monitor may not include physical injury to a controller in 2009 (Stark 2009b, pers. wolf populations throughout the State wolf. comm.). and will also monitor all depredation Depredation control will be allowed The limitation of this broad take control activities in Zone A (MN DNR throughout Zone A, which includes an authority to Zone B is fully consistent 2001, p. 18). These and other activities area (Federal Wolf Management Zone 1) with the Recovery Plan for the Eastern contained in their plan will be essential where such control has not been Timber Wolf’s advice that wolves in meeting their population goal of a permitted under the Act’s protection. should be restored to the rest of minimum statewide winter population Depredation in Zone 1, however, has Minnesota but not to Zone B (Federal of 1,600 wolves, well above the been limited to 2 to 4 reported incidents Zone 5) because that area ‘‘is not planning goal of 1,251 to 1,400 wolves per year, mostly of wolves killing dogs, suitable for wolves’’ (USFWS 1992, p. that the Revised Recovery Plan although Wildlife Services received one 20). The Recovery Plan for the Eastern identifies as sufficient to ensure the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81705

wolf’s continued survival in Minnesota delisted by the State once the updated Plan states that rendezvous (USFWS 1992, p. 28). population reaches 250 animals outside sites may need protection in areas of reservations. The species was where wolf colonization is still The Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan proposed for State delisting in late 2003, underway or where pup survival is Both the Wisconsin and Michigan and the State delisting process was extremely poor, such as in northeastern Wolf Management Plans are designed to completed in 2004. Upon State Wisconsin (WI DNR 2006a, p. 17). The manage and ensure the existence of wolf delisting, the species was classified as a guidelines for the wolf depredation populations in the States as if they are ‘‘protected nongame species,’’ a control program did not undergo isolated populations and are not designation that continues State significant alteration during the update dependent upon immigration of wolves prohibitions on sport hunting and process. The only substantive change to from an adjacent State or Canada, while trapping of the species (Wydeven and depredation control practices is to still maintaining connections to those Jurewicz 2005, p. 1; WI DNR 2006b, p. expand the area of depredation control other populations. We support this 71). The Wisconsin Plan includes trapping in Zones 1 and 2 to 1 mi (1.6 approach and believe it provides strong criteria that would trigger State relisting km) outward from the depredation site, assurances that the wolf in both States to threatened (a decline to fewer than replacing the previous 0.5 mi (0.8 km) will remain a viable component of the 250 wolves for 3 years) or endangered radius trapping zone (WI DNR 2006a, WGL DPS for the foreseeable future. status (a decline to fewer than 80 wolves pp. 3–4). The WI Plan allows for differing for 1 year). The Wisconsin Plan will be An important component of the WI levels of protection and management reviewed annually by the Wisconsin Plan is the annual monitoring of wolf within four separate management zones Wolf Advisory Committee and will be populations by radio collars and winter (see figure 3). The Northern Forest Zone reviewed by the public every 5 years. track surveys in order to provide (Zone 1) and the Central Forest Zone Recently the WI DNR began work on comparable annual data to assess (Zone 2) now contain most of the State’s updating the State’s wolf management population size and growth for at least wolf population, with approximately 6 plan, which may include increasing the 5 years after Federal delisting. This percent of the Wisconsin wolves in State management goal (Wydeven and monitoring will include health Zones 3 and 4 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2009, p. 3). monitoring of captured wolves and Wiedenhoeft 2009, Table 1). Zones 1 The WI Plan was updated during necropsies of dead wolves that are and 2 contain all the larger 2004–06 to reflect current wolf found. Wolf scat will be collected and unfragmented areas of suitable habitat numbers, additional knowledge, and analyzed to monitor for canine viruses (see Wolf Range Ownership and issues that have arisen since its 1999 and parasites. Health monitoring will be Protection, above), so most of the State’s completion. This update is in the form part of the capture protocol for all wolf packs will continue to inhabit of text changes, revisions to two studies that involve the live capture of those parts of Wisconsin for the appendices, and the addition of a new Wisconsin wolves (WI DNR 2006a, p. foreseeable future. At the time the appendix to the 1999 plan, rather than 14). Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan was as a major revision to the plan. Several Cooperative habitat management will completed, it recommended immediate components of the plan that are key to be promoted with public and private reclassification from State-endangered our delisting evaluation are unchanged. landowners to maintain existing road to State-threatened status, because The State wolf management goal of 350 densities in Zones 1 and 2, protect wolf Wisconsin’s wolf population had animals and the boundaries of the four dispersal corridors, and manage forests already exceeded its reclassification wolf management zones remain the for deer and beaver (WI DNR 1999, pp. criterion of 80 wolves for 3 years. That same as in the 1999 Plan. The updated 4, 22–23; 2006a, pp. 15–17). State reclassification occurred in 1999, 2006 Plan continues access management Furthermore, in Zone 1, a year-round after the population exceeded that level on public lands and the protection of prohibition on tree harvest within 330 for 5 years. active den sites. Protection of pack feet (100 m) of den sites, and seasonal The Wisconsin Plan further rendezvous sites, however, is no longer restrictions to reduce disturbance recommends that the State manage for a considered to be needed in areas where within one-half mile of dens, will be WI wolf population of 350 wolves outside wolves have become well established, DNR policy on public lands and will be of Native American reservations, and due to the transient nature of these sites encouraged on private lands (WI DNR specifies that the species should be and the larger wolf population. The 1999, p. 23; 2006a, p. 17).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81706 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

The 1999 WI Plan contains, and the wolves. The Plan continues the State independent field testing of the 2006 update retains, other reimbursement for depredation losses Minnesota method several years ago and recommendations that will provide (including dogs and missing calves), found that method to be unsuitable for protection to assist in maintenance of a citizen stakeholder involvement in the both States’ lower wolf population viable wolf population in the State: (1) wolf management program, and density and uneven pack distribution. Continue the protection of the species as coordination with the Tribes in wolf In both States the application of that a ‘‘protected wild animal’’ with management and investigation of illegal method resulted in an overestimate of penalties similar to those for unlawfully killings (WI DNR 1999, pp. 24, 28–29; wolf abundance, possibly due to the killing large game species (fines of 2006a, pp. 22–23). more patchy distribution of wolves and $1,000–$2,000, loss of hunting Given the decline and ultimate packs in these States and the difficulty privileges for 3–5 years, and a possible termination in Federal funding for wolf in accurately delineating occupied wolf 6-month jail sentence), (2) maintain monitoring that would occur upon range in areas where wolf pack density closure zones where coyotes cannot be delisting, Wisconsin and Michigan is relatively low in comparison to shot during deer hunting season in Zone DNRs are seeking an effective, yet cost- Minnesota and where agricultural lands 1, (3) legally protect wolf dens under the efficient, method for detecting wolf are interspersed with forested areas Wisconsin Administrative Code, (4) population changes to replace the (Wiedenhoeft 2005, pp. 11–12; Beyer in require State permits to possess a wolf current labor-intensive and expensive litt. 2006b). 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 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER28DE11.002 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81707

WI DNR’s commitment to annual wolf in 2007 and 2008 through State Wisconsin will be carried out according population monitoring in a manner that management following a temporary to the 2006 Updated Wisconsin Wolf ensures accurate and comparable data period of Federal delisting appear to Management Plan (WI DNR 2006a, pp. (WI DNR 1999, pp. 19–20), and we are have started to stabilize levels of 19–23), Guidelines for Conducting confident that adequate annual livestock depredation in 2007–09, but Depredation Control on Wolves in monitoring will continue for the loss of those control methods allowed Wisconsin Following Federal Delisting foreseeable future. major increases in levels of depredation (WI DNR 2008), and any Tribal wolf Depredation Control in Wisconsin— in 2010. management plans or guidelines that The rapidly expanding Wisconsin wolf A significant portion of depredation may be developed for reservations in population has resulted in an increased incidents in Wisconsin involve attacks occupied wolf range. The 2006 updates need for depredation control. From 1979 on dogs, primarily those engaged in bear have not significantly changed the 1999 through 1989, there were only five cases hunting activities or dogs being trained 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, wolves in Wisconsin killed options include technical assistance, 3; Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 7; Wydeven 206 dogs and injured 80 (WI DNR data loss compensation to landowners, et al. 2006b, p. 7). From 2005 to 2008, files and summary of wolf survey translocating or euthanizing problem depredation incidents continued to reports). Generally about 90 percent of wolves, and private landowner control increase, with 52 cases (92 domestic dogs killed were hunting hounds, and of problem wolves in some animals killed (includes 50 chickens) about 50 percent of dogs injured were circumstances (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 3–4, and 16 injured) in 2006, 60 cases (51 pet dogs attacked near homes (Ruid et 20–22). domestic animals killed, 18 injured, and 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 Federal through December 24, 2010, the WI DNR More aggressive lethal controls possible delisting, wolf depredation control in had spent $1,083,162.62 on

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81708 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81709

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81710 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

if the wolf population fell below this the 2008 Michigan Wolf Management Peninsula. As discussed previously, the goal (WI DNR 1999, pp. 15, 16). Any Plan (MI Plan) (MI DNR 2008a). size of the wolf population in Michigan harvest would consist of limited permits The 2008 MI Plan describes the wolf is determined by extensive radio and on limited portions of the wolf range to recovery goals and management actions snow tracking surveys. Recently the MI reduce wolf-human conflict, and needed to maintain a viable wolf DNR also conducted a field evaluation extensive areas in wolf range would be population in the UP of Michigan, while of a less expensive ‘‘Minnesota-type’’ closed to harvest of wolves (WI DNR facilitating wolf-related benefits and wolf survey. However, similar to WI 1999, p. 21). Also, the fact that the minimizing conflicts. The four principal DNR’s experience, the evaluation Wisconsin Plan calls for State relisting goals are to ‘‘1) maintain a viable concluded that the method of the wolf as a threatened species if the Michigan wolf population above a level overestimated wolf numbers, and is not population falls to fewer than 250 for 3 that would warrant its classification as suitable for use on the State’s wolf years provides a strong assurance that threatened or endangered; 2) facilitate population as it currently is distributed any future public harvest is not likely to wolf-related benefits; 3) minimize wolf- (Beyer in litt. 2006b). threaten the persistence of the related conflicts; and 4) conduct From 1989 through 2006, the MI DNR population (WI DNR 1999, pp. 15–17). science-based wolf management with attempted to count wolves throughout Based on wolf population data, the socially acceptable methods’’ (MI DNR the entire UP. As the wolf population current Wisconsin Plan and the 2006 2008a, p. 22). The Michigan Plan details increased, this method became more updates, we believe that any public wolf management actions, including difficult. In the winter of 2006–07, the harvest plan would continue to public education and outreach MI DNR implemented a new sampling maintain the State wolf population well activities, annual wolf population and approach based on an analysis by Potvin above the recovery goal of 200 wolves health monitoring, research, et al. (2005, p. 1668) to increase the in late winter. depredation control, ensuring adequate efficiency of the State survey. The new legal protection for wolves, and prey The Michigan Wolf Management Plan approach is based on a geographically and habitat management. It does not based stratified random sample and In 1997, the Michigan DNR finalized address the potential need for wolf produces an unbiased, regional estimate the Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and recovery or management in the Lower of wolf abundance. The UP was Management Plan (MI DNR 1997). That Peninsula, nor wolf management within stratified into three sampling areas, and plan was developed when the number Isle Royale National Park (where the within each stratum the DNR of wolves in the State was relatively wolf population is fully protected by the intensively surveys roughly 40 to 50 National Park Service). small, and focused on recovery. In 2001, percent of the wolf habitat area As with the WI Plan, the MI DNR has the MI DNR began reevaluating the 1997 annually. Computer simulations have chosen to manage the State’s wolves as Plan and appointed a committee to though they are an isolated population shown that such a geographically evaluate wolf recovery and management that receives no genetic or demographic stratified monitoring program will in the State. As a result of that benefits from immigrating wolves, even produce unbiased and precise estimates evaluation, MI DNR concluded that the though their population will continue to of the total wolf population, which can 1997 Plan needed revising, which be connected with populations in be statistically compared to estimates prompted a more formal review, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Canada. The derived from the previous method to including extensive stakeholder input. Michigan wolf population must exceed detect significant changes in the UP Recognizing that wolf recovery had been 200 wolves in order to achieve the wolf population (Beyer in litt 2006b, see achieved in Michigan, additional Plan’s first goal of maintaining a viable attachment by Drummer; Lederle in litt. scientific knowledge had been gained, wolf population in the UP. This number 2006; Roell et al. 2009, p. 3). and new social issues had arisen since is consistent with the Federal Recovery Another component of wolf the 1997 Plan was drafted, the focus of Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf’s population monitoring is monitoring the revised plan shifted from a recovery definition of a viable, isolated wolf wolf health. The MI DNR will continue plan to a wolf management plan. To population (USFWS 1992, p. 25). The to monitor the impact of parasites and assist in this endeavor, the DNR MI Plan, however, clearly states that 200 disease on the viability of wolf convened a Michigan Wolf Management wolves is not the target population size, populations in the State through Roundtable, composed of a diverse and that a larger population may be necropsies of dead wolves and group of citizens spanning the spectrum necessary to meet the other goals of the analyzing biological samples from of those interested in, and impacted by, Plan. Therefore, the State will maintain captured live wolves. Prior to 2004, MI wolf recovery and management in a wolf population that will ‘‘provide all DNR vaccinated all captured wolves for Michigan, including Tribal entities and of the ecological and social benefits canine distemper and parvovirus and organizations focused on agriculture, valued by the public’’ while treated them for mange. These hunting and trapping, the environment, ‘‘minimizing and resolving conflicts inoculations were discontinued to animal protection, law enforcement and where they occur’’ (MI DNR 2008a, pp. provide more natural biotic conditions public safety, and tourism. 22–23). We strongly support this and to provide biologists with an The Roundtable was asked to review approach, as it provides assurance that unbiased estimate of disease-caused the 1997 wolf management goal, to set a viable wolf population will remain in mortality rates in the population (Roell priorities for management issues, and to the UP regardless of the future fate of in litt. 2005b). Since diseases and recommend strategic goals or policies wolves in Wisconsin or Ontario. parasites are not currently a significant the DNR should use in addressing the The 2008 Michigan Plan identifies threat to the Michigan wolf population, management issues. The Roundtable wolf population monitoring as a priority the MI DNR is continuing the practice provided ‘‘guiding principles’’ for activity, and specifically states that the of not actively managing disease. If managing wolves and wolf-related MI DNR will monitor wolf abundance monitoring indicates that diseases or issues following Federal delisting annually for at least 5 years post- parasites may pose a threat to the wolf (Michigan Wolf Management delisting (MI DNR 2008a, pp. 31–32). population, the MI DNR will again Roundtable 2006, pp. 6–7). Those This includes monitoring to assess wolf consider more active management guiding principles strongly influenced presence in the northern Lower similar to that conducted prior to 2004.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81711

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81712 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

USDA–Wildlife Services in response to lights, noise makers, temporary fencing, ineffective. Based on these components depredation events during the time and fladry. of the revised MI Plan and the stated period when permits or special rules Trapping and translocating goal for maintaining wolf populations at were in effect or while wolves were not depredating wolves has been used in the or above recovery goals, the Service on the Federal list of threatened and past, resulting in the translocation of 23 believes any wolf management changes endangered species (Roell et al. 2010, p. UP wolves during 1998–2003 (Beyer et implemented following delisting would 8). Wolves were euthanized as follows: al. 2006, p. 88), but as with Wisconsin, not be implemented in a manner that 4 (2003), 5 (2004), 2 (2005), 7 (2006), 14 suitable relocation sites are becoming results in significant reductions in rarer, and there is local opposition to (2007), 8 (2008), and 1 (during 2 months Michigan wolf populations. The MI in 2009) (Beyer et al. 2006, p. 88; Roell the release of translocated depredators. DNR remains committed to ensuring a in litt. 2006, p. 1; Roell et al. 2010, p. Furthermore, none of the past viable wolf population above a level 19; Roell 2010, pers. comm.). This translocated depredators have remained represents 1.2 percent, 1.7 percent, 0.5 near their release sites, making this a that would trigger relisting as either percent, 1.6 percent, 2.7 percent, 2.5 questionable method to end the threatened or endangered in the future percent, and 0.2 percent, respectively, of depredation behaviors of these wolves (MI DNR 2008a, p. 9). the UP’s late-winter population of (MI DNR 2005a, pp. 3–4). Therefore, Similar to Wisconsin, Michigan wolves during the previous winter. reducing depredation problems by livestock owners are compensated when Following this level of lethal relocation is no longer recommended as they lose livestock as a result of a depredation control, the UP wolf a management tool in Michigan (MI confirmed wolf depredation. Currently population increased 12 percent from DNR 2008a, p. 57). there are two complementary 2003 to 2004, 13 percent from 2004 to Lethal control of depredating wolves compensation programs in Michigan, 2005, 7 percent from 2005 to 2006, 17 is likely to be the most common future one funded by the MI DNR and response in situations when improved percent from 2006 to 2007, 2 percent implemented by Michigan Department livestock husbandry and wolf behavior from 2007 to 2008, and 11 percent from of Agriculture (MI DA) and another set modification techniques (for example, 2008 to 2009, demonstrating that the up through donations (from Defenders wolf population continues to increase at flashing lights, noise-making devices) of Wildlife and private citizens) and a healthy rate (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. are judged to be inadequate. As wolf 6; MI DNR 2006a, Roell et al. 2009, p. numbers continue to increase on the UP, administered by the International Wolf 4). Lethal control of wolves during the number of verified depredations will Center (IWC), a nonprofit organization. livestock depredation was not available also increase, and will probably do so at From the inception of the program to in 2010 or 2011. a rate that exceeds the rate of wolf 2000, MI DA has paid 90 percent of full Post-delisting Depredation Control in population increase. This will occur as market value of depredated livestock at Michigan—Following Federal delisting, wolves increasingly disperse into and the time of loss. The IWC account was wolf depredation control in Michigan occupy areas of the UP with more used to pay the remaining 10 percent would be carried out according to the livestock and more human residences, from 2000 to 2002 when MI DA began 2008 Michigan Wolf Recovery and leading to additional exposure to paying 100 percent of the full market Management Plan (MI DNR 2008) and domestic animals. In a previous value of depredated livestock. The IWC any Tribal wolf management plans that application for a lethal take permit account continues to be used to pay the may be developed in the future for under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, MI difference between value at time of loss reservations in occupied wolf range. DNR requested authority to euthanize and the full fall market value for To provide depredation control up to 10 percent of the late-winter wolf depredated young-of-the-year livestock, guidance when lethal control is an population annually (MI DNR 2005b, p. and together the two funds have option, MI DNR has developed detailed 1). However, based on 2003–05 and provided nearly $38,000 in livestock instructions for incident investigation 2007–09 depredation data, it is likely loss compensation through 2008 (Roell and response (MI DNR 2005a). that significantly less than 10 percent Verification of wolf depredation lethal control will be needed over the et al., p. 15). Neither of these programs incidents will be conducted by MI DNR next several years. provides compensation for pets or for or USDA–APHIS–Wildlife Services The MI Plan provides veterinary costs to treat wolf-inflicted personnel (working under a cooperative recommendations to guide management livestock injuries. The MI DNR plans to agreement with MI DNR or at the of various conflicts caused by wolf continue cooperating with MI DA and request of a Tribe, depending on the recovery, including depredation on other organizations to maintain the wolf location) who have been trained in livestock and pets, human safety, and depredation compensation program (MI depredation investigation techniques. public concerns regarding wolf impacts DNR 2008a, pp. 59–60). The MI DNR specifies that the on other wildlife. We view the MI Plan’s In 2008, Michigan passed two House verification process will use the depredation and conflict control Bills that would become effective after investigative techniques that have been strategies to be conservative, in that they Federal delisting. Those bills authorized commit to nonlethal depredation developed and successfully used in a livestock or dog owner (or a management whenever possible, oppose Minnesota by Wildlife Services (MI designated agent) to ‘‘remove, capture, DNR 2005a, Append. B, pp. 9–10). preventative wolf removal where or use lethal means to destroy a wolf Following verification, one or more of problems have not yet occurred, several options will be implemented to encourage incentives for best that is in the act of preying upon’’ the address the depredation problem. management practices that decrease owner’s livestock or dog. During the 2 Technical assistance, consisting of wolf-livestock conflicts without months that wolves were federally and advice or recommendations to reduce impacting wolves, and support closely State delisted in 2009, no wolves were wolf conflicts, will be provided. monitored and enforced take by killed under these authorizations. We Technical assistance may also include landowners of wolves ‘‘in the act of are confident that the limited number of providing to the landowner various livestock depredation’’ or under limited wolves expected to be taken under these forms of noninjurious behavior permits if depredation is confirmed and bills would not affect the viability of the modification materials, such as flashing nonlethal methods are determined to be Michigan wolf population.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81713

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81714 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

may be interested in killing small members if the harvest is done in a Wildlife Services. Tribal natural numbers of wolves for spiritual or other respectful manner and would not resources staff participated in the soft purposes, this would be carried out in negatively affect the wolf population. release of the wolves on the Reservation a manner that would not impact Over the last several years, the Council and helped with the subsequent radio- reservation or ceded territory wolf has been working to revise the tracking of the wolves. Although by populations. Reservation Conservation Code to allow early 2005 the last of these wolves died The Red Lake Band of Chippewa Tribal members to harvest some wolves on the reservation, the tribal Indians (Minnesota) completed a wolf after Federal delisting (Googgleye, Jr. in conservation department continued to management plan in 2010 (Red Lake litt. 2004; Johnson 2011, pers. comm.). monitor another pair that had moved Band of Chippewa Indians 2010). A Until this revision occurs, it is unknown onto the Reservation, as well as other primary goal of the management plan is whether harvest will be allowed and wolves near the reservation (Wydeven to maintain wolf numbers at a level that how a harvest might be implemented. in litt. 2006a). When that pair produced will ensure the long-term survival of The Tribe is currently developing a wolf pups in 2006, but the adult female was wolves on Red Lake lands. Key management plan (Mortensen 2011, killed, Reservation biologists and staff components of the plan are habitat pers. comm.) In 2005, the Leech Lake worked diligently with the WI DNR and management, public education, and law Reservation was home to an estimated the Wildlife Science Center (Forest enforcement. To address human-wolf 75 wolves, the largest population of Lake, Minnesota) to raise the pups in interactions, the plan outlines how wolves on a Native American captivity in the hope that they could wolves may be taken on Red Lake lands. reservation in the 48 conterminous later be released to the care of the adult Wolves thought to be a threat to public States (Mortensen 2006, pers. comm.; male. However, the adult male died safety may be harassed at any time, and White in litt. 2003). Although no recent prior to pup release, and they were if they must be killed, the incident must surveys have been conducted, the moved back to the Wildlife Science be reported to tribal law enforcement. number of wolves on the reservation Center (Pioneer Press 2006). Agricultural livestock are not common likely remains about the same The Menominee Tribe continues to on Red Lake lands, and wolf-related (Mortensen 2009, pers. comm.; Johnson support wolf conservation and depredation on livestock or pets is 2011, pers. comm.). monitoring activity in Wisconsin. In unlikely to be a significant management The Fond du Lac Band (Minnesota) recent years the Menominee Tribe has issue. If such events do occur, tribal believes that the ‘‘well being of the wolf assisted the WI DNR in radio-telemetry members may protect their livestock or is intimately connected to the well wolf flights, allowing more regular pets by lethal means, but ‘‘* * * all being of the Chippewa People’’ (Schrage flights to occur across all of northern reasonable efforts should be made to in litt. 2003). In 1998, the Band passed Wisconsin. deter wolves using non-lethal means’’ a resolution opposing Federal delisting The Keweenaw Bay Indian (Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians and any other measure that would Community (Michigan) will continue to 2010, p. 15). Hunting or trapping of permit trapping, hunting, or poisoning list the wolf as a protected animal under wolves on tribal lands will be of the wolf (Schrage in litt. 1998b; in the Tribal Code following any Federal prohibited. The Reservation currently litt. 2003; 2009, pers. comm.). If this delisting, with hunting and trapping has 7 or 8 packs with an estimated 40– prohibition is rescinded, the Band’s prohibited (Mike Donofrio 1998, pers. 48 wolves within its boundaries (Red Resource Management Division will comm.). Furthermore, the Keweenaw Lake Band of Chippewa Indians 2010, p. coordinate with State and Federal Bay Community plans to develop a 12). agencies to ensure that any wolf hunting management plan that will address In 2009, the Little Traverse Bay Bands or trapping would be ‘‘conducted in a wolves (Donofrio in litt. 2003; Warner of Odawa Indians (LTBB) finalized a biologically sustainable manner’’ 20010, pers. comm.). At least four other management plan for the 1855 (Schrage in litt. 2003). Tribes (Stock-bridge Munsee Reservation and portions of the 1836 The Red Cliff Band (Wisconsin) has Community, Lac Courte Oreilles Band of ceded territory in the northern LP of strongly opposed State and Federal Ojibwe, the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Michigan (Little Traverse Bay Bands of delisting of the gray wolf. Current Tribal and Grand Portage Band of Lake Odawa Indians Natural Resource law protects wolves from harvest, Superior Chippewa) have indicated that Department 2009). The plan provides although harvest for ceremonial they are currently developing Tribal the framework for managing wolves on purposes would likely be permitted wolf management plans. the LTBB Reservation with the goal of after Federal delisting (Symbal in litt. Several Midwestern Tribes (for maintaining a viable wolf presence on 2003). example, the Bad River Band of Lake the LTBB Reservation or within the The Menominee Indian Tribe of Superior Chippewa Indians and the northern LP should a population Wisconsin is committed to establishing LTBB) have expressed concern that become established by (1) prescribing a self-sustaining wolf population, Federal delisting will result in increased scientifically sound biological wolf continuing restoration efforts, ensuring mortality of wolves on reservation management, research, and monitoring the long-term survival of the wolf in lands, in the areas immediately strategies; (2) addressing wolf-related Menominee, placing emphasis on the surrounding the reservations, and in conflicts; (3) facilitating wolf-related cultural significance of the wolf as a lands ceded by treaty to the Federal benefits; and (4) developing and clan member, and resolving conflicts Government by the Tribes (Kiogama and implementing wolf-related education between wolves and humans. They are Chingwa in litt. 2000). In 2006, a and public information. currently working on developing a cooperative effort among tribal natural The Tribal Council of the Leech Lake Menominee Wolf Management Plan resource departments of several tribes in Band of Minnesota Ojibwe (Council) (Cox 2011, pers. comm.). Wisconsin, WI DNR, the Service, and approved a resolution that describes the The Tribe has shown a great deal of USDA Wildlife Services led to a wolf sport and recreational harvest of wolves interest in wolf recovery and protection. management agreement for lands as an inappropriate use of the animal. In 2002, the Tribe offered their adjacent to several reservations in That resolution supports limited harvest Reservation lands as a site for Wisconsin. The goal is to reduce the of wolves to be used for traditional or translocating seven depredating wolves threats to reservation wolf packs when spiritual uses by enrolled Tribal that had been trapped by WI DNR and they are temporarily off the reservation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81715

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81716 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81717

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81718 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

agencies will work with these parties to Llewellyn (1978) reported the results perceptions of the wolf. The general help determine if a harvestable surplus of a content analysis of 1,083 public public expressed more affection and exists, and if so, to assist in devising comment letters received by the Service ethical concern for wolves than did reasonable and appropriate methods regarding the proposed reclassification farmers, although there was not a and levels of harvest for delisted wolves of the timber wolf in Minnesota from significant difference between groups in for traditional cultural purposes. endangered to threatened. Of the 700 level of dislike of wolves. Over 70 We conclude that the small number of letters from Minnesota residents (the percent of respondents believed wolves wolves that may be taken by Native other letters were from out-of-state), 23 symbolize the beauty in nature and a Americans will not be a significant percent favored retention of endangered large portion of the sample perceived threat to wolves in the WGL DPS. status, 7 percent supported other values of wolves, including reclassification, and 70 percent were in ecological, scientific, and moral. Public Attitudes Toward the Wolf favor of delisting and return to State Suburban and urban residents, the Human behavior has had a management. Of note were differences college educated, and younger tremendous effect on wolf populations between urban and rural residents, with respondents were more likely to have around the world. Theory and social a large majority (78 percent) of urban positive attitudes. Farmers were more science research have identified residents and a minority (16 percent) of knowledgeable about the wolf and more attitudes, and the beliefs on which they rural residents in favor of continued likely to support delisting. Of note was are based, as important drivers of Federal protection of wolves. Support a substantial increase in the number of behavior. Therefore, understanding for delisting was largely based on northern Minnesota residents who public attitudes toward wolves is a key concern for livestock and fear of wolves. reported either killing a wolf themselves component of wolf management. The Kellert (1985) conducted a statewide or knowing someone who did. success of the United States wolf- phone survey of Minnesota residents’ Chavez et al. (2005) assessed attitudes eradication programs of the late- knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of residents of northwestern Minnesota. nineteenth and early twentieth centuries toward the wolves. The study sample The sample of 600 rural residents was are often accepted as evidence of comprised the general public stratified by location: inside wolf range negative public attitudes that were (Minneapolis-St. Paul residents and and outside but adjacent to wolf range. based on perceptions and beliefs mostly rural, northern county residents), The study did not find large differences brought by European settlers that deer hunters, trappers, and livestock between geographic groups or farmers producers. Most respondents held and non-farmers, with all groups portrayed the wolf as an evil, menacing favorable attitudes toward wolves indicating slightly unfavorable attitudes threat (Browne-Nunez and Taylor 2002, (except farmers), supported protection toward wolves. The authors suggest this p. 1; Fogleman 1988; Kellert 1986; of wolves and their habitat as long as it could be attributable to shared rural Schanning 2009, pp. 252–253) and were did not interfere with human needs, and cultural values and utilitarian attitudes. perpetuated by exaggerated accounts of supported control of problem wolves. They also consider the possible marauding wolves preying on livestock Urban residents expressed more influence of immigrant roots in Europe (Schanning 2009, p. 253). protectionist attitudes, while rural where folklore and early conflicts with When the wolf populations were in residents’ attitudes were more wolves fostered negative attitudes. Both significant decline, there was a shift in utilitarian in nature. There was geographic groups agreed that wolves management and a parallel shift in ‘‘somewhat-limited’’ factual knowledge cause unacceptable levels of damage to attitudes (Kellert et al. 1996; Schanning among the general public, but a higher northwestern Minnesota’s livestock 2009, pp. 253–254; Williams et al. 2002, knowledge level among trappers and, to industry, although predators were p. 581). In the Great Lakes region, a lesser degree, hunters and individuals perceived as less of an agricultural bounty systems were repealed with a higher income. Fear of wolves threat than other threats (e.g., livestock (Wisconsin in 1957, Michigan in 1960, was expressed by some respondents, diseases, crop pests). and Minnesota in 1965) and, in 1972, although most did not feel that wolves Using a random sample of 909 the first of many attitudinal studies are a threat to people. Rather large respondents (18 percent response rate), regarding wolves was carried out in percentages of farmers (12 percent) and Schanning (2005) reported ‘‘pragmatic/ Minnesota (Johnson 1974). In the last trappers (17 percent) reported capturing utilitarian’’ beliefs regarding wolves three decades, investigations of attitudes or killing a wolf, and a majority of among Minnesota residents. Most toward wolves and wolf management farmer, hunter, trapper, and northern respondents supported compensation to have burgeoned. county respondents reported knowing livestock owners and having problem Minnesota someone who captured or killed a wolf. wolves shot by the DNR. Counter to Additionally, almost one-third of Kellert’s earlier findings, there was a The first empirical examination of farmers, hunters, and trappers and a significant level of fear of wolves among attitudes toward wolves was conducted quarter of northern county respondents Schanning’s sample, including fear for using a convenience sample of 1,692 indicated that, given the opportunity, personal safety (31 percent), the safety attendees of the Minnesota State Fair they might shoot a wolf while deer of children (64 percent), and pets (70 (Johnson 1974). It was based on the hunting. percent). premise that children’s stories, which In 1999, a second statewide phone typically cast the wolf as a villainous survey of Minnesota residents was Michigan creature, shape attitudes from an early conducted, similar to the 1985 study, In Michigan, Hook and Robinson age. Although it found children to be using a stratified random sample of (1982, pp. 388–391) found that only a more negative toward the wolf, a vast northern residents, southern residents, small percentage of respondents scored majority of adults held positive beliefs farmers, hunters, and trappers (Kellert high on their anti-predator scale and and attitudes. Most respondents felt that 1999). During this study period, most respondents were in favor of wolf wolves were not a danger to humans, Minnesota wolves were being restoration. Hunters were more positive should not be exterminated, had value considered for Federal delisting. toward predators than nonhunters. Fear for Minnesota, and are good for the deer Compared to the 1985 survey, this study of the wolf was the most important and moose populations. found an overall increase in positive factor related to an anti-predator

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81719

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 counties. A series of agree-disagree residents to express fear and dislike of and Michigan, Schanning (2003) belief statements were used to gauge wolves. A majority of respondents in surveyed 644 Wisconsin residents’ (13 attitudes toward wolves. Non-farmers each group, except livestock producers, percent response rate) attitudes toward were more positive than farmers, and a supported restoration (64 percent of UP wolves. He found a majority of majority agreed that the wolf residents, 57 percent of LP residents, 76 respondents held pro-wolf attitudes ‘‘symbolizes the beauty and wonder in percent of hunters, 66 percent of based on their agreement with three nature’’ and ‘‘it would be wonderful to trappers, and 37 percent of livestock belief statements: ‘‘the wolf is a symbol hear the wolf howl in the wild’’ (64 producers). Support was primarily of the beauty and wonder in nature,’’ percent and 62 percent respectively). motivated by the existence, ecological, ‘‘wolves are part of our vanishing Almost half of farmers agreed with the and cultural values of the wolf. wilderness and should be protected,’’ same statements. Both groups disagreed and ‘‘wolves are essential to A 2002 statewide survey of 557 that they would be afraid of an attack if Michigan residents’ attitudes toward maintaining the balance in nature’’ (72 they saw a wolf while walking in the percent, 56 percent, and 62 percent in wolf recovery found that support for woods. Farmers and non-farmers were agreement, respectively). There was recovery by UP residents had declined divided about wolf restoration, with half substantial support for wolf hunting (41 since Kellert’s 1990 study (Mertig 2004). of farmers and about one-third of non- percent), and a majority (60 percent) At the time this study was conducted, famers opposed. Both groups favored indicated they would shoot a wolf if it the UP’s wolf population had risen to trapping and removal of problem threatened their pet. about 250 animals (Hammill 2007), but wolves. In a followup to Naughton-Treves et in the LP, where wolves were not Wilson (1999) examined knowledge, al. (2003), 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-Teves 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. Using a stratified random sample of general residents, wolf damage Treves et al. (in review) report the respondents from five regions in complainants, recipients of first longitudinal results for change in Michigan, Beyer (2006) measured compensation, and demographic individual attitudes over time using tolerance of wolves using a scale for segments. The strongest predictor of findings from surveys conducted in social carrying capacity. The scale was tolerance was social group. A large 2001 (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003), based on Michigan wolves’ perceived majority of bear hunters (73 percent) 2004 (Treves et al. 2009), and 2009. range, numbers, and the type and were in favor of reducing or eliminating During the data collection period, wolf number of interactions with people. The the wolf population, compared to 45 numbers nearly tripled and greatly study found that most people were at percent of the livestock producers and exceeded the State population goal, the the most tolerant end of the scale, with 29 percent of general residents. level of wolf depredation on pets smaller percentages classified as Individuals who had lost a domestic increased and became the third most

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81720 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81721

haplotypes were not found in coyotes, The third specimen, collected in the has rebounded from near extirpation, the apparent introgression occurred winter of 1907–1908 in Wisconsin, had yet retains essential genetic, behavioral, through matings of wolf males with the common Great Lakes wolf haplotype and other biological features of wolves coyote females. They determined that a C1. Microsatellite DNA analysis of these without being displaced by coyotes. minimum of six instances of coyote- three specimens grouped them with This fact suggests that the threat of wolf hybridization could account for the wolves rather than coyotes. coyote hybridization to the recovered diversity of ‘‘coyote-type’’ haplotypes Koblmu¨ ller et al. (2009) addressed the WGL wolf population is small. observed in wolves (p. 112). Their issue of coyote hybridization in the Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis general interpretation was that Great Lakes region from analyses of introgression primarily occurred as mtDNA sequence and both Y- As required by the Act, we considered coyotes expanded their ranges into the chromosome and autosomal the five potential threat factors to assess Great Lakes region within historical microsatellite DNA. They found whether the wolves in the WGL DPS are time, although they allow that two evidence of repeated incidences of threatened or endangered throughout all coyote-type haplotypes commonly ancient introgression of coyotes into or a significant portion of their range. observed in Great Lakes wolves may Great Lakes wolves, although they also When considering the status of the have been the result of ancient suggested that introgression by coyotes species, the first step in the analysis is hybridization. Their data also indicated is recent and ongoing, especially to determine whether the species is in (Lehman et al., Figure 4) that coyote- ‘‘north’’ of the Great Lakes. Although danger of extinction or likely to become type haplotypes were less common in they use the term ‘‘north,’’ it is apparent endangered in the foreseeable future the western part of the Great Lakes they are referring to wolves in Ontario throughout all of its range. region than in the east. and Quebec, Canada east of the Great The wolf population in the WGL DPS Wilson et al. (2000, Figure 6, p. 2165) Lakes. Koblmu¨ ller et al. (2009) failed to currently occupies all the suitable provided a different interpretation of recognize that in the western Great habitat area identified for recovery in wolf-coyote relationships in the region. lakes, especially Minnesota and the Midwest in the 1978 Recovery Plan They found coyote-like mtDNA Wisconsin, wolves were exposed to and 1992 Revised Recovery Plan and sequences in eastern Canadian wolves coyotes throughout historical and recent most of the potentially suitable habitat from Algonquin Provincial Park, geological time (Jackson 1961, pp. 285– in the WGL DPS. Much of the important Ontario, southern Manitoba, and 286; Wydeven and Pils 2008, p. 260). wolf habitat in the DPS is in public northeastern Minnesota that were Their paper demonstrates that ownership, and the suitable habitat in intermediate in sequence divergence hybridization of wolves with coyotes the DPS is adequately protected for the between coyotes and gray wolves. As occurred mainly east of the Great Lakes foreseeable future. these haplotypes were apparently absent and not in the western Great lakes Human-caused mortality is the most in coyotes, they were thought not to region. significant issue to the long-term result from hybridization with coyotes, Wheeldon and White (2009, p. 2) and conservation status of the wolves in the but to represent an eastern wolf species, Fain et al. (2010) concluded that the WGL DPS. Therefore, managing this Canis lycaon. They suggest that these coyote-related haplotype C13 is actually source of mortality remains the primary Canis lycaon haplotypes may have been an eastern wolf (what they call C. challenge to maintaining a recovered previously reported as ‘‘coyote-type’’ in lycaon) marker based on its presence wolf population into the foreseeable the study of Lehman et al. (1991). mainly in C. lycaon-C. lupus hybrids in future. We have concluded that It is now generally agreed that the western Great Lakes region, the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan historical and most contemporary Great absence of C13 in nonhybridizing will maintain their share and Lakes wolves have unique mtDNA coyotes, and its occurrence in historical distribution of the WGL wolf population haplotypes that are distinct from those eastern wolves. Assessments based on above recovery levels for the foreseeable of other wolves, and more related to but mtDNA, Y-chromosome, and autosomal future, and that the threats have been still distinct from those of coyotes. microsatellite DNA data consistently sufficiently reduced. All three States Haplotypes specific to the early 20th found that the wolf population in the have wolf management laws, plans, and century wolf population of the western western Great Lakes region does not regulations that adequately regulate Great Lakes region were identified by currently interbreed with coyotes (Fain human-caused mortality. Each of the Leonard and Wayne (2008, pp. 2–3), et al. 2010, p. 14; Wheeldon et al. 2010). three States has committed to manage from a study of 17 historical specimens Lehman et al.’s (1991, p. 114) its wolf population at or above viable from Michigan, Wisconsin, Ontario, and interpretation of coyote introgression population levels, and this commitment Quebec. Of the 17 specimens that gave into Great Lakes wolves included an is not expected to change. conclusive results, 14 were either the explanation that it occurred at a time Regulatory mechanisms in all three same or most similar to the haplotypes when wolf population densities were States are adequate to facilitate the described by Wilson et al. (2000) as C. low in the region, so that wolves would maintenance of, and in no way threaten, lycaon. Only one had a coyote be less likely to find mates of the same the recovered status of the wolves in the haplotype. Wheeldon and White (2009) species and mating with coyotes was WGL DPS. When federally delisted, reported haplotypes from three more likely to take place. Conversely, wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and additional historical specimens from the Lehman et al. (1991) suggested that Michigan will continue to receive western Great Lakes region. Two coyote introgression does not appear to protection from general human individuals from Minnesota (collected occur when wolf densities are higher. If persecution by State laws and 1899 and 1900) had the same coyote- so, the increase in population size that regulations. Violation of regulations will like haplotypes (C13) found in a late has occurred over the last 30 years be subject to prosecution. 19th century specimen from Maine, 50 renders the western Great Lakes wolf As long as populations are maintained years before recorded coyote sightings population less vulnerable to whatever at or above minimum recovery levels, in Maine (Wilson et al. 2003), as well as threat may have been presented by wolf biology (namely the species’ in contemporary western Great Lakes coyote introgression. The wolf reproductive capacity) and the wolves from Minnesota to Quebec population of the region has likely been availability of large, secure blocks of (Leonard and Wayne 2008, pp. 2–3). exposed to this factor for centuries and suitable habitat will maintain strong

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81722 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

populations capable of withstanding all Act does not define the term through 4) and the portions of the DPS other foreseeable threats. In terms of ‘‘significant portion of its range.’’ that support the second viable wolf habitat, the amount and distribution of Therefore, we must give meaning to this population (Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2 suitable habitat in public ownership phrase based on our experience and and the entire UP of Michigan) provide provides, and will continue to provide, expertise. We interpret a portion of a an adequate wild prey base, suitably large core areas that contain high- species’ range as being significant if it low levels of human-caused mortality, quality habitat of sufficient size to is part of the current range of the species and sufficient representation, resiliency, anchor a recovered wolf population. (species used here is as defined in the and redundancy to buffer the impacts of Our analysis of land management shows Act, to include species, subspecies, or disease and parasite-induced mortality these areas will maintain their DPS) and if it is important to the (See the discussion under Recovery suitability into the foreseeable future, if conservation of the species because it Criteria, above, regarding how achieving not indefinitely. contributes meaningfully to the the goals of the Recovery Plan for the While disease and parasites can representation, resiliency, or Eastern Timber Wolf assures a viable temporarily impact population stability, redundancy of the species. The wolf population in terms of as long as populations are managed contribution must be at a level such that representation, resiliency, and above recovery levels, these factors are its loss would result in a decrease in the redundancy.). not likely to threaten the wolf ability to conserve the species. Post-delisting wolf protection, population at any point in the Applying the definition described management, and population and health foreseeable future. Natural predation is above for determining whether a species monitoring by the States, Tribes, and also likely to remain an insignificant is endangered or threatened in a Federal land management agencies will factor in population dynamics into the significant portion of its range, we first ensure the continuation of viable wolf foreseeable future. Finally, we believe address whether any portions of the populations above the Federal recovery that other natural or manmade factors, range of wolves in the WGL DPS criteria for the foreseeable future. The such as potential hybridization with warranted further consideration. We State management plans provide the coyotes and public attitudes, are evaluated the WGL DPS in the context greatest protections for the species in unlikely to threaten the wolves in the of whether any potential remaining Minnesota Zone A, Wisconsin Zones 1 WGL DPS in the foreseeable future in all threats are concentrated in one or more and 2, and across the UP of Michigan, portions of the range within the DPS. areas, such that if there were (see the discussion of the three plans in We find that the threat of habitat concentrated impacts, those wolves State Wolf Management Planning, destruction or degradation or a might be threatened, and further, above). Post-delisting threats to wolves reduction in the range of the wolf; whether any such area might constitute in Zone B in Minnesota, Zones 3 and 4 utilization by humans; disease, a significant portion of the species’ in Wisconsin, and in the Lower parasites, or predatory actions by other ranges. Peninsula of Michigan will be more animals or humans; regulatory measures Wolves are highly adaptable habitat substantial and may preclude the by State, tribal, and Federal agencies; or generalists, and their primary biological establishment of wolf packs in most or other threats will not individually or in need is an adequate natural prey base of all of these areas. The Recovery Plan combination cause wolves in the WGL large ungulates. The primary current specifically recommends against DPS to become endangered within the and likely future threats to wolves are managing for wolves in large areas of foreseeable future throughout all of the excessive human-caused mortality and unsuitable habitat, stating that species’ range in the DPS. Ongoing increased mortality from diseases and Minnesota Zone 5 (identical to effects of recovery efforts over the past parasites. Based on the biology of the Minnesota Wolf Management Zone B, decades, which resulted in a significant gray wolf, threats to its continued Figure 2) should be managed with a goal expansion of the occupied range of existence, and conservation biology of zero wolves there, because ‘‘Zone 5 wolves in the WGL DPS, in conjunction principles, the Recovery Plan specifies is not suitable for wolves. Wolves found with future State, tribal, and Federal that two populations (or what equates to there should be eliminated by any legal agency wolf management across that a single metapopulation) are needed to means’’ (USFWS 1992, p 20). Therefore, occupied range, will be adequate to ensure long-term viability (see Recovery the Recovery Plan views Zone 5, which ensure the conservation of the WGL Criteria, above). The Revised Recovery is roughly 60 percent of the State, as not DPS. These activities will maintain an Plan states the importance of a large an important part of the range of the adequate prey base, preserve denning wolf population throughout Minnesota wolf. This portion of the State is and rendezvous sites, monitor disease, Wolf Management Zones 1 through 4 predominantly agricultural land, with restrict human take, and keep wolf (geographically identical to Zone A in high road densities, and high potential populations well above the numerical the 2001 Minnesota Wolf Management for wolves to depredate on livestock. recovery criteria established in the Plan, see Figure 2 earlier in the Although individual wolves and some Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, preamble to this rule) and the need for wolf packs occupy parts of Zone 5, these pp. 25–28). Thus, the gray wolves in the a second viable wolf population wolves are using habitat islands or are WGL DPS do not merit continued listing occupying 10,000 sq mi or 5,000 sq mi existing in other situations where as threatened or endangered throughout elsewhere in the eastern United States conditions generally are not conducive all of their range. (depending on its isolation from the to their long-term persistence. Minnesota wolf population) (USFWS The northern LP of Michigan appears Is the species threatened or endangered 1992, pp. 24–29). to have the only unoccupied potentially in a significant portion of its range? The Recovery Plan also discusses the suitable wolf habitat in the Midwest that Having determined that wolves in the importance of low-road-density areas, is of sufficient size to maintain wolf WGL DPS do not meet the definition of the importance of minimizing wolf– packs (Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1239; endangered or threatened throughout human conflicts, and the maintenance Potvin 2003, pp. 44–45), although its their entire range, we must next of an adequate natural prey base in the small size and fragmented nature may consider whether they are in danger of areas hosting these two necessary wolf mean that northern LP wolf population extinction or are likely to become so in populations. These portions of viability would be dependent upon a significant portion of their range. The Minnesota (Management Zones 1 continuing immigration from the UP.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81723

The only part of Michigan’s LP that may needs of the species. Reasonably for wolves in Minnesota. These contain suitable habitat are those areas foreseeable threats to wolves in all parts regulations currently are found at 50 of fragmented habitat studied by Potvin of the WGL DPS are not likely to CFR 17.40(d). (2003, pp. 44–45) and Gehring and threaten wolf population viability in the Critical habitat was designated for the Potter (2005, p. 1239). However, these WGL DPS in the foreseeable future. gray wolf in 1978 (43 FR 9607, March areas amount to less than half of the Therefore, we find that wolves in the 9, 1978). That rule (codified at 50 CFR minimal area identified by the Recovery WGL DPS are not in danger of 17.95(a)) identifies Isle Royale National Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf as extinction and are not likely to become Park, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf needed for the establishment of viable endangered in the foreseeable future management zones 1, 2, and 3, as populations. These LP areas, therefore, throughout all or a significant portion of delineated in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(1), as might have difficulty maintaining wolf their range. critical habitat. Wolf management zones populations even with the help of 1, 2, and 3 comprise approximately Determination occasional immigration of wolves from 25,500 sq km (9,845 sq mi) in the UP (see Suitable Habitat Within the After a thorough review of all northeastern and north-central Western Great Lakes DPS, above, for available information and an evaluation Minnesota. This final rule removes the additional discussion). While the UP of the five factors specified in section designation of critical habitat for gray wolves may be significant to any LP 4(a)(1) of the Act, as well as wolves in Minnesota and on Isle Royale, wolf population (occasional UP to LP consideration of the definitions of Michigan. ‘‘threatened’’ and ‘‘endangered’’ movements may provide important Post-Delisting Monitoring genetic and demographic augmentation contained in the Act and the reasons for crucial to a small population founded delisting as specified in 50 CFR Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in by only a few individuals), the reverse 424.11(d), we are (1) revising the 1978 the 1988 reauthorization, requires us to will not be true—LP wolves would not listing of wolves in Minnesota as implement a system, in cooperation be important to the wolf population in threatened by identifying it as the WGL with the States, to monitor for not less the UP, as that population is already DPS, which includes Minnesota, than 5 years the status of all species that large enough in size and range to be self- Wisconsin, and Michigan and portions have recovered and been removed from sustaining. of the adjacent States and (2) removing the Lists of Endangered and Threatened The lack of sufficient areas of suitable that WGL DPS from the List of Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and habitat in those parts of North Dakota, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 17.12). The purpose of this post- South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, (50 CFR 17.11). Wolves have recovered delisting monitoring (PDM) is to verify and Ohio that are within the WGL DPS in the WGL DPS as a result of the that a species delisted due to recovery are expected to preclude the reduction of threats as described in the remains secure from risk of extinction establishment of viable populations in analysis of the five categories of threats after it no longer has the protections of these areas, although dispersing wolves and no longer are in danger of the Act. To do this, PDM generally and packs may temporarily occur in extinction, nor are likely to become so focuses on evaluating (1) demographic some of these areas. As a result, wolf in the foreseeable future, throughout all characteristics of the species, (2) threats numbers in these areas will have no or a significant portion of their range. to the species, and (3) implementation impact on the continued viability of of legal and/or management wolves in the WGL DPS, and are not Available Conservation Measures commitments that have been identified necessary to maintain adequate Conservation measures provided to as important in reducing threats to the representation, resiliency, and species listed as endangered or species or maintaining threats at redundancy for wolves in the DPS. threatened under the Act include sufficiently low levels. We are to make In conclusion, Minnesota Zone A, recognition, recovery actions, prompt use of the emergency listing Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2, and the UP requirements for Federal protection, and authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the of Michigan provide an adequate wild prohibitions against certain practices. Act to prevent a significant risk to the prey base, suitably low levels of human- Recognition through listing encourages well-being of any recovered species. caused mortality, and sufficient and results in conservation actions by Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly numbers and distribution of wolves to Federal, State, tribal, and private requires cooperation with the States in ensure adequate representation, agencies, groups, and individuals. The development and implementation of resiliency, and redundancy to buffer the Act provides for possible land PDM programs, but we remain impacts of disease and parasite-induced acquisition and cooperation with the responsible for compliance with section mortality. Post-delisting wolf protection, States and requires that recovery actions 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively management, and population and health be carried out for all listed species. This engaged in all phases of PDM. We also monitoring by the States, Tribes, and final rule removes these Federal will seek active participation of other Federal land management agencies will conservation measures for gray wolves entities that are expected to assume ensure the continuation of viable wolf within the WGL DPS. responsibilities for the species’ populations in those areas above the conservation, after delisting. recovery criteria established in the Effects of the Rule We developed a PDM plan for the Recovery Plan for the foreseeable future. This final rule revises the pre-DPS wolves in the WGL DPS with the In coming to this determination, we policy Minnesota ‘‘species’’ listing and assistance of the Eastern Wolf Recovery considered the quality, quantity, and establishes it as a WGL DPS of the gray Team. That document is available on distribution of the habitat relative to the wolf (C. lupus), expands the boundaries our Web site (See FOR FURTHER biological needs of the species, the need of that DPS, and removes the INFORMATION CONTACT). to maintain the remaining genetic protections of the Act for that WGL DPS The PDM program will rely on a diversity, the importance of geographic by removing the gray wolf in that DPS continuation of State monitoring distribution in coping with catastrophes from the List of Endangered and activities, similar to those which have such as disease, the ability of the habitat Threatened Wildlife. been conducted by Minnesota, to provide adequate wild prey, and the This final rule removes the special Wisconsin, and Michigan DNR’s in need to otherwise meet the conservation regulations under section 4(d) of the Act recent years, and tribal monitoring.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81724 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan Required Determinations with Native American Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, comprise the core recovery areas within Paperwork Reduction Act the DPS, and, therefore, the numerical and the Department of the Interior’s recovery criteria in the Recovery Plan Office of Management and Budget manual at 512 DM 2, we readily apply only to the area encompassed by (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320 acknowledge our responsibility to these States’ boundaries. These implement provisions of the Paperwork communicate meaningfully with Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). activities will include both population recognized Federal Tribes on a The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and health monitoring of individual government-to-government basis. In define a collection of information as the wolves. During the PDM period, the accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 obtaining of information by or for an of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Service and the Recovery Team will agency by means of identical questions Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust conduct a review of the monitoring data posed to, or identical reporting, Responsibilities, and the Endangered and program. We will consider various recordkeeping, or disclosure Species Act), we readily acknowledge relevant factors (including but not requirements imposed on, 10 or more our responsibilities to work directly limited to mortality rates, population persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR with Tribes in developing programs for changes and rates of change, disease 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ‘‘ten or more healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that occurrence, range expansion or persons’’ refers to the persons to whom tribal lands are not subject to the same contraction) to determine if the a collection of information is addressed controls as Federal public lands, to population of wolves within the DPS by the agency within any 12-month remain sensitive to Indian culture, and warrants expanded monitoring, period. For purposes of this definition, to make information available to Tribes. additional research, consideration for employees of the Federal Government We have coordinated the rule with the relisting as threatened or endangered, or are not included. The Service may not affected Tribes and, furthermore, emergency listing. conduct or sponsor, and you are not throughout several years of required to respond to, a collection of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan development of earlier related rules and information unless it displays a DNRs have monitored wolves for several this rule, we have endeavored to consult currently valid OMB control number. decades with significant assistance from with Native American Tribes and Native This final rule does not include any American organizations in order to both numerous partners, including the U.S. collections of information that require (1) provide them with a complete Forest Service, National Park Service, approval by OMB under the Paperwork understanding of the changes, and (2) to USDA–APHIS–Wildlife Services, Tribal Reduction Act. As described under the understand their concerns with those natural resource agencies, and the Post-delisting Monitoring above, wolf changes. If requested, we will conduct Service. To maximize comparability of populations in the Western Great Lakes additional consultations with Native future PDM data with data obtained DPS will be monitored by the States of American Tribes and multitribal before delisting, all three State DNRs Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in organizations subsequent to this final have committed to continue their accordance with their wolf State rule in order to facilitate the transition previous wolf population monitoring management plans. There may also be to State and tribal management of methodology, or will make changes to additional voluntary monitoring wolves within the WGL DPS. We fully that methodology only if those changes activities conducted by a small number considered all of the comments on the will not reduce the comparability of pre- of tribes in these three States. We do not proposed rule that were submitted by and post-delisting data. anticipate a need to request data or Tribes and Tribal members during the other information from 10 or more In addition to monitoring wolf public comment period and attempted persons during any 12-month period to population numbers and trends, the to address those concerns, new data, satisfy monitoring information needs. If and new information where appropriate. PDM will evaluate post-delisting it becomes necessary to collect threats, in particular human-caused standardized information from 10 or Data Quality Act mortality, disease, and implementation more non-Federal individuals, groups, In developing this rule we did not of legal and management commitments. or organizations per year, we will first conduct or use a study, experiment, or If at any time during the monitoring obtain information collection approval survey requiring peer review under the period we detect a substantial from OMB. Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554). downward change in the populations or an increase in threats to the degree that National Environmental Policy Act References Cited population viability may be threatened, We have determined that an A complete list of all references cited we will work with the States and Tribes environmental assessment or an in this document is available on the to evaluate and change (intensify, environmental impact statement, as Internet at http://www.regulations.gov extend, and/or otherwise improve) the defined under the authority of the or upon request from the Midwest monitoring methods, if appropriate, National Environmental Policy Act of Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER and/or consider relisting the WGL DPS, 1969, need not be prepared in INFORMATION CONTACT). connection with regulations adopted if warranted. Authors pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We This monitoring program will extend published a notice outlining our reasons The primary authors of this rule are for 5 years beyond the effective delisting for this determination in the Federal the staff members of the Midwest date of the DPS. At the end of the 5-year Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER period, we and the Recovery Team will 49244). INFORMATION CONTACT), with conduct another review and post the contributions from staff from Service results on our Web site. In addition to Government-to-Government Regions 2, 4, and 5. Staff from the the above considerations, the review Relationship With Tribes Michigan DNR, Minnesota DNR, and will determine whether the PDM In accordance with the President’s Wisconsin DNR provided current program should be terminated or memorandum of April 29, 1994, information regarding wolves in their extended. Government-to-Government Relations States. Staff from the Nelson Institute

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 81725

for Environmental Studies at the Regulation Promulgation § 17.11—[Amended] University of Wisconsin-Madison Accordingly, we hereby amend part ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the compiled the current data on public 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of entries for ‘‘Wolf, gray’’ and ‘‘Wolf, gray attitudes toward the wolf. the Code of Federal Regulations, as set [Northern Rocky Mountain DPS]’’ under List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 forth below: ‘‘MAMMALS’’ in the List of Endangered PART 17—[AMENDED] and Threatened Wildlife to read as Endangered and threatened species, follows: Exports, Imports, Reporting and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 § 17.11 Endangered and threatened recordkeeping requirements, continues to read as follows: Transportation. wildlife. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. * * * * * 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. (h) * * *

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

Mammals

******* Wolf, gray ...... Canis lupus ..... Holarctic ...... U.S.A.: All of AL, AR, CA, CO, E 1, 6, 13, 15, NA NA. CT, DE, FL, GA, KS, KY, 35 LA, MA, MD, ME, MO, MS, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, VA, VT and WV; those portions of AZ, NM, and TX not in- cluded in an experimental population as set forth below; and portions of IA, IN, IL, ND, OH, OR, SD, UT, and WA as follows: (1) Southern IA, (that portion south of the centerline of Highway 80); (2) Most of IN (that portion south of the centerline of Highway 80); (3) Most of IL (that portion south of the centerline of Highway 80); (4) Western ND (that portion south and west of the Mis- souri River upstream to Lake Sakakawea and west of the centerline of Highway 83 from Lake Sakakawea to the Canadian border); (5) Most of OH (that portion south of the centerline of Highway 80 and east of the Maumee River at Toledo); (6) Western OR (that portion of OR west of the centerline of Highway 395 and Highway 78 north of Burns Junction and that portion of OR west of the centerline of Highway 95 south of Burns Junction); (7) Western SD (that portion south and west of the Mis- souri River); (8) Most of Utah (that portion of UT south and west of the centerline of Highway 84 and that portion of UT south of Highway 80 from Echo to the UT/WY Stateline); and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 81726 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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

(9) Western WA (that portion of WA west of the centerline of Highway 97 and Highway 17 north of Mesa and that portion of WA west of the centerline of Highway 395 south of Mesa). Mexico. Do ...... do ...... do ...... U.S.A. (portions of AZ, NM, XN 631 NA 17.84(k). and TX—see § 17.84(k)). Wolf, gray Canis lupus ..... U.S.A. (MT, ID, U.S.A. (WY—see § 17.84(i) XN 561, 562 NA 17.84(i). [Northern WY, eastern and (n)). 17.84(n). Rocky Moun- WA, eastern tain DPS]. OR, and north central UT).

*******

§ 17.40—[Amended] § 17.95—[Amended] Dated: December 13, 2011. Daniel M. Ashe, ■ 3. Amend § 17.40 by removing and ■ 4. Amend § 17.95(a) by removing the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. reserving paragraph (d). critical habitat entry for ‘‘Gray Wolf (Canis lupus).’’ [FR Doc. 2011–32825 Filed 12–21–11; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:26 Dec 27, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\28DER3.SGM 28DER3 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES3