Monday, March 27, 2006

Part II

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants—Western Population of Gray Wolves; Proposed Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15266 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ADDRESSES: You may submit comments materials we receive during the and other information, identified by comment period also will be made Fish and Wildlife Service ‘‘RIN 1018-AU54,’’ by any of the available for public inspection, by following methods: appointment, during normal business 50 CFR Part 17 • Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 hours following the close of the Web Site: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ comment period. See the ‘‘Public RIN 1018–AU54 wolf/ Follow the instructions found Comments Solicited’’ section of there. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for location Endangered and Threatened Wildlife • E-mail: [email protected] information. • and Plants; Designating the Western Fax: 612–713–5292. Put ‘‘WGL Wolf FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Great Lakes Population of Gray Delisting; RIN 1018-AU54’’ in the Ressnider, 612–713–5350. Direct all Wolves as a Distinct Population subject line. questions or requests for additional • Segment; Removing the Western Great Mail: WGL Wolf Delisting, U.S. Fish information to the Service using the Lakes Distinct Population Segment of and Wildlife Service, Whipple Federal Gray Wolf Phone Line—612–713–7337, the Gray Wolf From the List of Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, facsimile—612–713–5292, the general Endangered and Threatened Wildlife MN 55111–4056. gray wolf electronic mail address— • Hand Delivery/Courier: WGL Wolf [email protected], or write AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Delisting, Ecological Services—Room to: GRAY WOLF QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish Interior. 646, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, ACTION: Proposed rule. Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, MN Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111–4056. 55111–4056. Additional information is • SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// also available on our World Wide Web Wildlife Service (Service) propose to www.regulations.gov. Follow the site at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ establish the Western Great Lakes instructions found there for submitting wolf. In the event that our internet Distinct Population Segment (WGL DPS) comments. connection is not functional, please of the gray wolf (Canis lupus). This DPS All submissions received must contact the Service by the alternative includes all of Minnesota, , include the agency name and Regulatory methods mentioned above. Individuals and Michigan; the eastern half of North Information Number (RIN) for this who are hearing-impaired or speech- Dakota and South Dakota; the northern rulemaking. For detailed instructions on impaired may call the Federal Relay half of Iowa; the northern portions of submitting comments and additional Service at 1–800–877–8337 for TTY Illinois and Iowa; and the northwestern information on the rulemaking process, assistance. Do not submit comments or portion of Ohio. We further propose to see the ‘‘Public Comments Solicited’’ other information by the methods remove the WGL DPS from the List of heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY described in this paragraph. INFORMATION Endangered and Threatened Wildlife section of this document. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: established under the Endangered Hearings: We have scheduled Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). informational meetings followed by Background We propose these actions because public hearings at the following four Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves available data indicate that this DPS no locations: • longer meets the definitions of May 8, 2006—Duluth, Minnesota. Gray wolves are the largest wild threatened or endangered under the Act. Meeting and hearing will be in the members of the Canidae, or dog family, The threats have been reduced or Northern Lights I Room at the Inn on with adults ranging from 18 to 80 eliminated as evidenced by a population , 350 Canal Park Drive. kilograms (kg) (40 to 175 pounds (lb)) • that is stable or increasing in Minnesota, May 10, 2006—Wausau, Wisconsin. depending upon sex and subspecies Wisconsin, and Michigan, and greatly Meeting and hearing will be at the (Mech 1974). The average weight of exceeds the numerical recovery criteria Westwood Conference Room of the male wolves in Wisconsin is 35 kg (77 established in its recovery plan. Westwood Center, 1800 West Bridge lb) and ranges from 26 to 46 kg (57 to Street. 102 lb), while females average 28 kg (62 Completed State wolf management • plans will provide adequate protection May 16, 2006—Marquette, lb) and range from 21 to 34 kg (46 to 75 and management of the species if Michigan. Meeting and hearing will be lb) (Wisconsin Department of Natural delisted in the WGL DPS. The proposed in the Michigan Room of the Don H. Resources (WI DNR) 1999). Wolves’ fur rule, if finalized, would remove this Bottum University Center, Northern color is frequently a grizzled gray, but DPS from the protections of the Act. Michigan University, 540 West Kaye it can vary from pure white to coal Avenue. (Use parking lot #8.) black. Wolves may appear similar to This proposed rule would also remove • the currently designated critical habitat May 17, 2006—Grayling, Michigan. coyotes (Canis latrans) and some for the gray wolf in Minnesota and Meeting and hearing will be held in the domestic dog breeds (such as the Michigan and remove the current Evergreen Room of the Holiday Inn, German shepherd or Siberian husky) (C. special regulations for gray wolves in 2650 Business Loop South I–75. lupus familiaris). Wolves’ longer legs, Additional details on the hearings, Minnesota. larger feet, wider head and snout, and including maps, will be provided on our straight tail distinguish them from both DATES: We request that comments be Web site (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION coyotes and dogs. received by June 26, 2006 in order to CONTACT). Wolves primarily are predators of ensure their consideration in our final The complete file for this rule is medium and large mammals. Wild prey decision. We have scheduled four available for inspection, by species in include white- informational meetings followed by appointment, during normal business tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and public hearings for May 8, 10, 16, and hours at our Midwest Regional Office: mule deer (O. hemionus), moose (Alces 17, 2006. At each location the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal alces), elk (Cervus elaphus), woodland informational meeting will be held from Building, 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, caribou (Rangifer caribou) and barren 6 to 7:15 p.m., followed by a public MN 55111–4056. Call 612–713–5350 to ground caribou (R. arcticus), bison hearing from 7:30 to 9 p.m. make arrangements. The comments and (Bison bison), muskox (Ovibos

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15267

moschatus), bighorn sheep (Ovis or 3 litters in one year has been Recovery Planning—Gray wolf canadensis) and Dall sheep (O. dalli), routinely documented in Yellowstone populations in the are mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), National Park (USFWS et al. 2002; currently protected under the Act as a beaver (Castor canadensis), snowshoe Smith et al. 2005). threatened species in Minnesota and hare (Lepus americanus), and muskrat Yearling wolves frequently disperse endangered in the remaining 47 (Ondatra zibethicus), with small from their natal packs, although some conterminous states and Mexico (50 mammals, birds, and large invertebrates remain with their natal pack. Adult CFR 17.11(h)), by separate regulations sometimes being taken (Chavez and wolves and pups older than 5 months establishing three non-essential Gese 2005, Mech 1974, Stebler 1944, WI also may disperse but at much lower experimental populations (50 CFR DNR 1999, Huntzinger et al. 2005). In frequencies (Fuller 1989). Dispersers 17.84(i), (k), and (n)), and by special the WGLDPS, during the last 25 years, may range over large areas as lone regulations for Minnesota wolves (50 wolves have also killed domestic animals after leaving their natal pack or CFR 17.40(d)). The current status of animals including horses (Equus they may locate suitable unoccupied wolves is discussed below under caballus), cattle (Bos taurus), sheep habitat and a member of the opposite Previous Federal Action. At the time the (Ovis aries), goats (Capra hircus), llamas sex and begin their own pack. These Act was passed, only several hundred (Lama glama), pigs (Sus scrofa), geese dispersal movements allow a wolf wolves occurred in northeastern (Anser sp.), ducks (Anas sp.), turkeys population to quickly expand and Minnesota and on Isle Royale, (Meleagris gallopavo), chickens (Gallus colonize areas of suitable habitat that Michigan, and a few scattered wolves sp.), guinea fowl (Numida meleagris), are nearby or even those that are may have occurred in the Upper pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), dogs, isolated by a broad area of unsuitable Peninsula of Michigan, Montana, the cats (Felis catus), and captive white- habitat. Additional details on American Southwest, and Mexico. tailed deer (Paul 2004, 2005; Wydeven extraterritorial movements are found in We approved the 1978 Recovery Plan 1998; Wydeven et al. 2001; Wydeven Delineating the Midwestern Gray Wolf for the Eastern Timber Wolf (Recovery and Wiedenhoeft 1999, 2000, 2001, Population DPS, below. Plan) on May 2, 1978 (USFWS 1978). 2005). We subsequently approved an updated Recovery Wolves are social animals, normally and revised version on January 31, 1992 living in packs of 2 to 12 wolves. Winter Background—The gray wolf (USFWS 1992), which replaced the 1978 pack size in Michigan’s Upper historically occurred across most of Recovery Plan. The 1978 Recovery Plan Peninsula (UP) averaged from 2.7 to 4.6 North America, Europe, and . In and its 1992 revision were intended to wolves during the 1995 through 2005 North America, gray wolves formerly apply to the eastern timber wolf, Canis period and ranged from 2 to 14 wolves occurred from the northern reaches of lupus lycaon, thought at that time to be per pack (Huntzinger et al. 2005). Pack Alaska, Canada, and Greenland to the the wolf subspecies that historically size in Wisconsin is similar, averaging central mountains and the high interior inhabited the United States east of the 3.8 to 4.1 wolves per pack, and ranging plateau of southern Mexico. The only Great Plains (Young and Goldman 1944; from 2 to 11 wolves in winter 2004– areas of the conterminous United States Hall 1981; Mech 1974). Thus, these 2005 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005). that apparently lacked gray wolf Recovery Plans cover a geographic In Minnesota the average pack size populations since the last ice age are triangle extending from Minnesota to found in the 1988–89, 1997–98, and parts of California (but some authorities Maine and into northeastern Florida. 2003–2004 winter surveys was higher— 5.55, 5.4, and 5.3 wolves per pack, question the reported historical absence The Recovery Plan was based on the respectively (Erb and Benson 2004). of gray wolves from parts of California best available information on wolf Packs are primarily family groups (Carbyn in litt. 2000; Mech, U.S. taxonomy at the time of its original consisting of a breeding pair, their pups Geological Survey, in litt. 2000)) and publication and subsequent revision. from the current year, offspring from portions of the eastern and southeastern Since the publication of those Recovery one or two previous years, and United States (areas occupied by the red Plans, several studies have produced occasionally an unrelated wolf. Packs wolf or a recently suggested eastern conflicting results regarding the typically occupy, and defend from other wolf, C. lycaon (Wilson et al. 2000; taxonomic identity of the wolf that packs and individual wolves, a territory Grewal et al. 2004; White et al. 2001)). historically occupied the eastern States. of 50 to 550 square kilometers (km2) (20 In addition, wolves were generally While this issue remains unresolved, to 214 square miles (mi2)). Midwest absent from the deserts and this recovery program has continued to wolf packs tend to occupy territories on mountaintop areas of the western focus on recovering the wolf population the lower end of this size range. United States (Young and Goldman that survived in, and has expanded Michigan Upper Peninsula territories 1944; Hall 1981; Mech 1974; Nowak outward from, northeastern Minnesota, averaged 267 km2 in 2000–2001 2000). regardless of its taxonomic identity. (Drummer et al. 2002), Wisconsin European settlers in North America The 1978 Recovery Plan and the 1992 territories 37 mi2 in 2004–2005 and their cultures often had revised plan contain the same two (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005), and superstitions and fears of wolves and a delisting criteria. The first delisting Minnesota territory size averaged 102 unified desire to eliminate them criterion states that the survival of the km2 in 2003–2004 (Erb and Benson (Boitani 1995). Their attitudes, coupled wolf in Minnesota must be assured. We, 2004). Normally, only the top-ranking with perceived and real conflicts and the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery (‘‘alpha’’) male and female in each pack between wolves and human activities Team (Rolf Peterson, Eastern Timber breed and produce pups. Litters are along the western frontier, led to Wolf Recovery Team, in litt. 1997, 1998, born from early April into May; they widespread persecution of wolves. 1999a, 1999b), have concluded that this range from 1 to 11 pups, but generally Poison, trapping, snaring, and shooting first delisting criterion remains valid. It include 4 to 6 pups (Michigan spurred by Federal, State, and local addresses a need for reasonable Department of Natural Resources (MI government bounties extirpated this assurances that future State, Tribal, and DNR) 1997; USFWS 1992; USFWS et al. once widespread species from nearly all Federal wolf management and 2001). Normally a pack has a single of its historical range in the 48 protection will maintain a viable litter annually, but the production of 2 conterminous States. recovered population of gray wolves

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15268 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

within the borders of Minnesota for the or within Minnesota. The 1978 management (USFWS 1992). Unless foreseeable future. Recovery Plan identified potential gray stated otherwise in this proposal, Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf wolf restoration areas throughout the subsequent discussions of Michigan population is vital because the eastern United States, including wolves do not refer to wolves on Isle remaining genetic diversity of gray northern Wisconsin and Michigan and Royale. wolves in the eastern United States was areas as far south as the Great Smoky The Recovery Plan recognizes the carried by the several hundred wolves Mountains and adjacent areas in that survived in the State into the early Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia. potential for wolves to come into 1970s. The Recovery Team insisted that The revised 1992 Recovery Plan conflict with human activities, and that the remnant Minnesota wolf population dropped from consideration the more such conflicts are likely to impede wolf be maintained and protected to achieve southern potential restoration areas, recovery unless they can be reduced to wolf recovery in the eastern United because recovery efforts for the red wolf socially tolerated levels. Among major States. The successful growth of that were being initiated in those areas. The recovery actions identified in the 1992 remnant population has maintained and 1992 revision retained potential gray Recovery Plan is the need to ‘‘minimize maximized the representation of that wolf re-establishment areas in northern losses of domestic animals due to wolf genetic diversity among gray wolves in Wisconsin, the UP of Michigan, the predation.’’ [p.6] The Recovery Plan the WGL DPS. Furthermore, the Adirondack Forest Preserve of New recommends measures to avoid such Recovery Team established a planning York, a small area in eastern Maine, and conflicts and to reduce conflicts when goal of 1,250–1,400 animals for the a larger area of northwestern Maine and they develop. These measures include Minnesota wolf population (USFWS adjacent northern New Hampshire promoting the re-establishment of wolf 1992), which would increase the (USFWS 1992). Neither the 1978 nor the populations only in areas where such likelihood of maintaining its genetic 1992 recovery criteria suggest that the conflicts are likely to be relatively diversity over the long term. This large restoration of the gray wolf throughout infrequent, a recommendation that wolf Minnesota wolf population also all or most of its historical range in the density in peripheral wolf range in provides the resiliency to reduce the eastern United States, or to all of these Minnesota (Zone 4, 26 percent of the adverse impacts of unpredictable potential re-establishment areas, is State) be limited to an average of one demographic and environmental events. necessary to achieve recovery under the Furthermore, the Recovery Plan Act. wolf per 50 square miles (128 sq km) promotes a wolf population across 4 of In 1998, the Eastern Timber Wolf [p.15], and a recommendation that 5 wolf management zones, Recovery Team clarified the delisting wolves that move into Minnesota Zone encompassing about 40 percent of the criterion for the second population (i.e., 5 (about 61 percent of the State) ‘‘should State, further adding to the resiliency of the wolf population that had developed be eliminated by any legal means’’ the Minnesota wolf population. The in northern Wisconsin and the adjacent because livestock production and other State’s wolf population currently is Upper Peninsula of Michigan). It stated human activities make that area ‘‘not estimated to be more than double that that the numerical delisting criterion for suitable for wolves.’’ [p.20] numerical goal, and occupies all 4 the Wisconsin-Michigan population will When wolves kill domestic animals, management zones. be achieved when 6 consecutive late- the Recovery Plan recommends that The second delisting criterion in the winter wolf surveys documented that government agents remove those Recovery Plan states that at least one the population equaled or exceeded 100 wolves. In Minnesota Zone 1 (4,462 sq viable wolf population should be wolves (excluding Isle Royale wolves) mi in northeastern Minnesota), wolf reestablished within the historical range for the 5 consecutive years between the of the eastern timber wolf outside of 6 surveys (Rolf Peterson, Eastern Timber removal should be by livetrapping and Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. Wolf Recovery Team, in litt. 1998). This translocation, whereas in Zones 2 and 3 The Recovery Plan provides two options second population is less than 200 miles (1,864 and 3,501 sq mi in northeastern for reestablishing this second viable from the Minnesota wolf population, and north central Minnesota, wolf population. If it is an isolated and it has had a late-winter population respectively), those wolves may be population, that is, located more than exceeding 100 animals since 1994, and removed by any means including lethal 100 miles from the Minnesota wolf exceeding 200 animals since 1996, thus take. In Zones 4 and 5, the Recovery population, the second population the recovery goals have been met. Plan recommends preventive should consist of at least 200 wolves for The Recovery Plan has no goals or depredation control be conducted by at least 5 years (based upon late-winter criteria for the gray wolf population on trapping wolves in the vicinity of population estimates) to be considered 546 sq km (210 sq mi) of Isle Royale, previous depredation sites. Similarly, viable. Alternatively, if the second Michigan. The wolf population of Isle the Recovery Plan recommends population is not isolated, that is, Royale is not considered to be an management practices ‘‘including the located within 100 miles of a self- important factor in the recovery or long- potential taking of problem animals’’ for sustaining wolf population (for term survival of wolves in the WGL wolf populations that develop in example, the Minnesota wolf DPS. This wolf population is small, Wisconsin and Michigan. [p.34] (Service population), a reestablished second varying from 12 to 30 animals in 2 or 1992). Neither the trapping and population having a minimum of 100 3 packs over the last 20 years (Peterson translocations (Minnesota Zone 1) nor wolves for at least 5 years would be and Vucetich 2005). Due to its small the preventive depredation control considered viable. insular nature, it is almost completely The Recovery Plan does not specify isolated from other wolf populations (Zones 4 and 5) have been implemented. where in the eastern United States the and has never exceeded 50 animals. For Lethal taking of depredating wolves in second population should be these reasons, the Recovery Plan does Wisconsin and Michigan has occurred reestablished. Therefore, the second not include these wolves in its recovery only on a very limited basis. More population could be located anywhere criteria, but recommends the detailed discussion of wolf depredation within the triangular Minnesota-Maine- continuation of research and complete control activities in the Midwest is Florida area covered by the Recovery protection for these wolves that is found in Factor D. Plan, except on Isle Royale (Michigan) assured by National Park Service

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15269

Recovery of the Gray Wolf in the Minnesota at 1,000 or less. This was the During the winter of 1997–98, a Western Great Lakes only significant wolf population in the statewide wolf population and Minnesota United States outside Alaska during distribution survey was repeated by MN those time-periods. DNR, using methods similar to those of During the pre-1965 period of wolf After the wolf was listed as the two previous surveys. Field staff of bounties and legal public trapping, Federal, State, Tribal, and county land wolves persisted in the remote endangered under the Act, Minnesota management agencies and wood northeastern portion of Minnesota, but population estimates increased (see products companies were queried to were eliminated from the rest of the Table 1 below). Mech estimated the State. Estimated numbers of Minnesota population to be 1,000 to 1,200 in 1976 identify occupied wolf range in wolves before their listing under the Act (USFWS 1978), and Berg and Kuehn Minnesota. Data from five concurrent in 1974 include 450 to 700 in 1950–53 (1982) estimated that there were 1,235 radio telemetry studies tracking 36 (Fuller et al. 1992, Stenlund 1955), 350 wolves in 138 packs in the winter of packs, representative of the entire to 700 in 1963 (Cahalane 1964), 750 in 1978–79. In 1988–89, the Minnesota Minnesota wolf range, were used to 1970 (Leirfallom 1970), 736 to 950 in Department of Natural Resources (MN determine average pack size and 1971–72 (Fuller et al. 1992), and 500 to DNR) repeated the 1978–79 survey and territory area. Those figures were then 1,000 in 1973 (Mech and Rausch 1975). also used a second method to estimate used to calculate a statewide estimate of Although these estimates were based wolf numbers in the State. The resulting wolf and pack numbers in the occupied upon different methodologies and are independent estimates were 1,500 and range, with single (non-pack) wolves not directly comparable, each puts the 1,750 wolves in at least 233 packs factored into the estimate (Berg and pre-listing abundance of wolves in (Fuller et al. 1992). Benson 1999).

TABLE 1.—GRAY WOLF WINTER POPULATIONS IN MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, AND MICHIGAN (EXCLUDING ISLE ROYALE) FROM 1976 THROUGH 2005. NOTE THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL YEARS BETWEEN THE FIRST FOUR ESTIMATES

Year Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan WI & MI Total

1976 ...... 1,000–1,200 1978–79 ...... 1,235 1988–89 ...... 1,500–1,750 31 3 34 1993–94 ...... 57 57 114 1994–95 ...... 83 80 163 1995–96 ...... 99 116 215 1996–97 ...... 148 112 260 1997–98 ...... 2,445 180 140 320 1998–99 ...... 205 174 379 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 ...... 425 405 830

The 1997–98 survey concluded that confidence interval for this estimate is pairs or breeding packs of wolves were approximately 2,445 wolves existed in 2,301 to 3,708 wolves). Due to the wide estimated to occupy an area of 22,000 sq about 385 packs in Minnesota during overlap in the confidence intervals for mi (57,050 sq km) in northern that winter period (90 percent the 1997–98 and 2003–04 surveys, the Minnesota (Mech et al. 1988). That confidence interval from 1,995 to 2,905 authors conclude that, although the study also identified an additional wolves) (Berg and Benson 1999). This population point estimate increased by 15,577 sq mi (40,500 sq km of figure indicated the continued growth of about 24 percent over the 6 years peripheral range, where habitat the Minnesota wolf population at an between the surveys (about 3.5 percent appeared suitable but no wolves or only average rate of about 3.7 percent annually), there was no statistically lone wolves existed. The 1988–89 study annually from 1970 through 1997–98. significant increase in the State’s wolf produced an estimate of 23,165 sq mi Between 1979 and 1989 the annual population during that period (Erb and (60,200 sq km) as the contiguous wolf growth rate was about 3 percent, and it Benson 2004). range at that time in Minnesota (Fuller increased to between 4 and 5 percent in As wolves increased in abundance in et al. 1992), an increase of 65 percent the next decade (Berg and Benson 1999; Minnesota, they also expanded their over the primary range calculated for Fuller et al. 1992). As of the 1998 distribution. During 1948–53, the major 1978–79. The 1997–98 study concluded survey, the number of Minnesota wolves wolf range was estimated to be about that the contiguous wolf range had was approximately twice the planning 11,954 sq mi (31,080 sq km) (Stenlund expanded to 33,971 sq mi (88,325 sq goal for Minnesota, as specified in the 1955). A 1970 questionnaire survey km), a 47 percent increase in 9 years Eastern Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992). resulted in an estimated wolf range of (Berg and Benson 1999). By that time Minnesota DNR conducted another 14,769 sq mi (38,400 sq km) (calculated the Minnesota wolf population was survey of the State’s wolf population by Fuller et al. 1992 from Leirfallom using most of the occupied and and range during the winter of 2003–04, 1970). Fuller et al. (1992), using data peripheral range identified by Mech et again using similar methodology. That from Berg and Kuehn (1982), estimated al. (1988). The wolf population in survey concluded that an estimated that Minnesota primary wolf range Minnesota had recovered to the point 3,020 wolves in 485 packs occurred in included 14,038 sq mi (36,500 sq km) that its contiguous range covered Minnesota at that time (90 percent during winter 1978–79. By 1982–83, approximately 40 percent of the State

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15270 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

during 1997–98. In contrast, the 2003– once per week, and pack territories are 2005a). This represents an annual 04 survey failed to show a continuing estimated and mapped from the increase of 21 percent through 2000, expansion of wolf range in Minnesota, movements of the individuals who and an average annual increase of 11 and any actual increase in wolf numbers exhibit localized patterns. From percent for the most recent five years. since 1997–98 was attributed to December through March, the pilots This declining rate of increase may increased wolf density within a make special efforts to visually locate indicate that the Wisconsin wolf stabilized range (Erb and Benson 2004). and count the individual wolves in each population is nearing the carrying Although Minnesota DNR does not radio-tracked pack. Snow tracking is capacity in the State. conduct a formal wolf population used to supplement the information In 1995, wolves were first survey annually, it includes the species gained from aerial sightings and to documented in Jackson County, in its annual carnivore track survey. provide pack size estimates for packs Wisconsin, well to the south of the This survey, standardized and lacking a radio-collared wolf. Tracking northern Wisconsin area occupied by operational since 1994, provides an is done by assigning survey blocks to other Wisconsin wolf packs. The annual index of abundance for several trained trackers who then drive snow- number of wolves in this central species of large carnivores by counting covered roads in their blocks and follow Wisconsin area has dramatically their tracks along 51 standardized all wolf tracks they encounter. increased since that time. During the survey routes in the northern portion of Snowmobiles are used to locate wolf winter of 2004–05, there were 42–44 Minnesota. Based on these surveys, the tracks in more remote areas with few wolves in 11 packs in the central forest wolf track indices for winter 2004–05 roads. The results of the aerial and wolf range (Zone 2 in the Wisconsin showed little change from the previous ground surveys are carefully compared Wolf Management Plan) and an winter, and no statistically significant to properly separate packs and to avoid additional 19 wolves in 6 packs in the trends are apparent since 1994. over-counting (Wydeven et al. 2003). marginal habitat in Zone 3, located However, the data show some The number of wolves in each pack is between Zone 1 (northern forest wolf indication of an increase in wolf density estimated based on the aerial and range) and Zone 2 (Wisconsin DNR (Erb 2005). Thus, the winter track ground observations made of the 1999, Wydeven et al. 2005a) (see Figure survey results are consistent with a individual wolves in each pack over the 3). stable or slowly increasing wolf winter. During the winter of 2002–03, 7 population in northern Minnesota over Because the monitoring methods wolves were believed to be primarily this 11-year period. focus on wolf packs, lone wolves are occupying Native American reservation likely undercounted in Wisconsin. As a lands in Wisconsin (Wydeven et al. Wisconsin result, the annual population estimates 2003); this increased to 11 to 13 wolves Wolves were considered to have been are probably slight underestimates of in the winter of 2004–05 (Wydeven in extirpated from Wisconsin by 1960. No the actual wolf population within the litt. 2005). The 2004–05 animals formal attempts were made to monitor State during the late-winter period. consisted of 2 packs totaling 7 to 9 the State’s wolf population from 1960 Fuller (1989) noted that lone wolves are wolves on the Bad River Chippewa until 1979. From 1960 through 1975, estimated to compose from 2 to 29 Reservation and a pack of 4 wolves on individual wolves and an occasional percent. Also, these estimates are made the Lac Courtes Oreilles Chippewa wolf pair were reported. There is no at the low point of the annual wolf Reservation, both in northern documentation, however, of any wolf population cycle; the late-winter Wisconsin. There were an additional 24 reproduction occurring in Wisconsin, surveys produce an estimate of the wolf to 26 wolves that spent some time on and the wolves that were reported may population at a time when most winter reservation lands in the winter of 2004– have been dispersing animals from mortality has already occurred and 05, including the Lac du Flambeau Minnesota. before the birth of pups. Thus, Chippewa Reservation, the Red Cliff Wolves are believed to have returned Wisconsin wolf population estimates Chippewa Reservation, the St. Croix to Wisconsin in more substantial are conservative in two respects: they Chippewa Reservation, the numbers in about 1975, and the WI DNR undercount lone wolves and the count Reservation, and the Ho Chunk began wolf population monitoring in is made at the annual low point of the Reservation. It is likely that the 1979–80 and estimated a statewide population. This methodology is Potowatomi Reservation lands will also population of 25 wolves at that time consistent with the recovery criteria host wolves in the near future (Wydeven (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2001). This established in the 1992 Recovery Plan, in litt. 2005). Of these reservations the population remained relatively stable which established numerical criteria to Ho-Chunk, St. Croix Chippewa, and for several years then declined slightly be measured with data obtained by late- Potowatomi are composed mostly of to approximately 15 to 19 wolves in the winter surveys. scattered parcels of land, and are not mid-1980s. In the late 1980s, the During the July 2004 through June likely to provide significant amounts of Wisconsin wolf population began an 2005 period, 63 radio collars were active wolf habitat. increase that has continued into 2005 on Wisconsin wolves, including 7 In 2002, wolf numbers in Wisconsin (Wydeven et al. 2005). dispersers. At the beginning of the alone surpassed the Federal criterion for Wisconsin DNR intensively surveys winter of 2004–05 radio collars were a second population, as identified in the its wolf population annually using a functioning in at least 39 packs. An 1992 Recovery Plan (i.e., 100 wolves for combination of aerial, ground, and estimated 425 to 455 wolves in 108 a minimum of 5 consecutive years, as satellite radio telemetry, complemented packs, including 11 to 13 wolves on measured by 6 consecutive late-winter by snow tracking and wolf sign surveys Native American reservations, were in counts). Furthermore, in 2004 (Wydeven et al. 1995, 2005). Wolves are the State in early 2005, representing a Wisconsin wolf numbers exceeded the trapped from May through September 14 percent increase from 2004 Recovery Plan criterion of 200 animals and fitted with radio collars, with a goal (Wydeven et al. 2005a). for 6 successive late-winter surveys for of having at least one radio-collared Wisconsin population estimates for an isolated wolf population. The wolf in about half of the wolf packs in 1985 through 2005 increased from 15 to Wisconsin wolf population continues to Wisconsin. Aerial locations are obtained 425–455 wolves (see Table 1 above) and increase, although the slower rates of from each functioning radio-collar about from 4 to 108 packs (Wydeven et al. increase seen since 2000 may be the first

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15271

indications that the State’s wolf concurrent aerial tracking are used to Royale has ranged from 12 to 50 wolves population growth and geographic accurately delineate territories of since 1959, and was 30 wolves in the expansion are beginning to level off. adjacent packs and count their members winter of 2004–05 (Peterson and Mladenoff et al. (1997) and Wydeven et (Beyer et al. 2004, Huntzinger et al. Vucetich 2005). al. (1997) estimated that occupancy of 2005, Potvin et al. in press). As with Although there have been verified primary wolf habitat in Wisconsin Wisconsin, the Michigan surveys likely reports of wolf sightings in the Lower would produce a wolf population of miss many lone wolves, thus Peninsula of Michigan, resident about 380 animals in the northern forest underestimating the actual population. breeding packs have not been confirmed area of the State plus an additional 20– Annual surveys have documented there. In October 2004 the first gray wolf 40 wolves in the central forest area. If minimum late-winter estimates of since 1910 was documented in the wolves occupy secondary habitat (areas wolves occurring in the Upper Lower Peninsula (LP). This wolf had with a 10–50 percent probability of Peninsula as increasing from 57 wolves been trapped and radio-collared by the supporting a wolf pack) in the State, in 1994 to 405 in 87 packs in 2005 (see MI DNR while it was a member of a their estimated population could be 50 Table 1 above). Over the last 10 years central UP pack in late 2003. At some percent higher or more (Wydeven et al. the annualized rate of increase has been point it had moved to the LP and 1997) resulting in a statewide about 18 percent (MI DNR 1997, 1999, ultimately was killed by a trapper who population of 600 or more wolves. 2001, 2003; Beyer et al. 2003, 2004; believed it was a coyote (MI DNR Huntzinger et al. 2005). The rate of 2004a). Shortly after that, MI DNR Michigan annual increase has varied from year to biologists and conservation officers Wolves were extirpated from year during this period, but there confirmed that two additional wolves Michigan as a reproducing species long appears to be two distinct phases of were traveling together in Presque Isle before they were listed as endangered in population growth, with relatively rapid County in the northern Lower Peninsula 1974. Prior to 1991, and excluding Isle growth (about 25 percent per year from (NLP). A subsequent two-week survey Royale, the last known breeding 1997 through 2000) and slower growth was conducted in that area, but no population of wild Michigan wolves (about 14 percent from 2000 to the additional evidence of wolf presence occurred in the mid-1950s. However, as present time). Similar to Wisconsin, this was found (Huntzinger et al. 2005). wolves began to reoccupy northern may indicate a slowing growth rate as Recognizing the likelihood that small Wisconsin, the MI DNR began noting the population increases. The 2005 late- numbers of gray wolves will eventually single wolves at various locations in the winter population was up 13 percent move into the Lower Peninsula and Upper Peninsula of Michigan. In 1989, from the previous year’s estimated form persistent packs (Potvin 2003, a wolf pair was verified in the central population (Huntzinger et al. 2005). As Gehring and Potter 2005 in press), MI Upper Peninsula, and it produced pups with the Wisconsin wolves, the number DNR has begun a revision of its Wolf in 1991. Since that time, wolf packs of wolves in the Michigan Upper Management Plan in part to incorporate have spread throughout the Upper Peninsula wolf population by itself has provisions for wolf management there. Peninsula, with immigration occurring surpassed the recovery criterion for a Summary for Wisconsin and Michigan from Wisconsin on the west and second population in the eastern United possibly from Ontario on the east. They States (i.e., 100 wolves for a minimum The two-State wolf population, now are found in every county of the of 5 consecutive years, based on 6 late- excluding Isle Royale wolves, has Upper Peninsula, with the possible winter estimates), as specified in the exceeded 100 wolves since late-winter exception of Keweenaw County Federal Recovery Plan, since 2001. In 1993–94 and has exceeded 200 wolves (Huntzinger et al. 2005). addition, the Upper Peninsula numbers since late-winter 1995–96. Therefore, The MI DNR annually monitors the have now surpassed the Federal the combined wolf population for wolf population in the Upper Peninsula criterion for an isolated wolf population Wisconsin and Michigan has exceeded by intensive late-winter tracking surveys of 200 animals for 6 successive late- the second population recovery goal of that focus on each pack. The Upper winter surveys (FWS 1992). the 1992 Recovery Plan for a non- Peninsula is divided into seven In 2004–05, no wolf packs were isolated wolf population since 1999. monitoring zones, and specific known to be primarily using tribal- Furthermore, the two-state population surveyors are assigned to each zone. owned lands in Michigan (Beyer pers has exceeded the recovery goal for an Pack locations are derived from comm. 2005). Native American tribes in isolated second population since 2001. previous surveys, citizen reports, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan own Other Areas in the Western Great Lakes extensive ground and aerial tracking of small, scattered parcels of land. As DPS radio-collared wolves. During the winter such, no one tribal property would of 2004–05 at least 87 wolf packs were likely support a wolf pack. However, as As described earlier, the increasing resident in the Upper Peninsula wolves occur in all counties in the wolf population in Minnesota and the (Huntzinger et al. 2005). A minimum of Upper Peninsula and range widely, accompanying expansion of wolf range 40 percent of these packs had members tribal land is likely utilized periodically westward and southwestward in the with active radio-tracking collars during by wolves. State have led to an increase in the winter of 2004–05 (Huntzinger et al. As mentioned previously, the wolf dispersing wolves that have been 2005). Care is taken to avoid double- population of Isle Royale National Park, documented in North and South Dakota counting packs and individual wolves, Michigan, is not considered to be an in recent years. No surveys have been and a variety of evidence is used to important factor in the recovery or long- conducted to document the number of distinguish adjacent packs and term survival of wolves in the WGL wolves present in North Dakota or accurately count their members. DPS. This small and isolated wolf South Dakota. However, biologists who Surveys along the border of adjacent population cannot make a significant are familiar with wolves there generally monitoring zones are coordinated to numerical contribution to gray wolf agree that there are only occasional lone avoid double-counting of wolves and recovery, although long-term research dispersers that appear primarily in the packs occupying those border areas. In on this wolf population has added a eastern portion of these States. There areas with a high density of wolves, great deal to our knowledge of the were reports of pups being seen in the ground surveys by 4 to 6 surveyors with species. The wolf population on Isle Turtle Mountains of North Dakota in

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15272 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

1994, but there have been no reports in (Gehring and Potter in press, Potvin three DPS listings and reverting all gray the last few years (Roger Collins, 2003), perhaps dependent on occasional wolves south of Canada to endangered USFWS, in litt. 1998; Phil Mastrangelo, to frequent immigration of UP wolves. status, except those wolves in USDA–APHIS–Wildlife Services, However, currently existing wolf Minnesota retained their threatened Bismarck, ND, pers. comm. 2005). populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, status and the experimental population An examination of eight skulls from and the UP of Michigan have already wolves in the northern U.S. Rockies and North and South Dakota wolves greatly exceeded the Federal recovery the Southwest retained their indicates that seven likely had criteria, and maintaining viable ‘‘nonessential experimental’’ status. dispersed from Minnesota; the eighth recovered wolf populations in these These rulings also vacated the 2003 probably came from Manitoba, Canada areas will not be dependent in any way special rules under section 4(d) that (Licht and Fritts 1994). Genetic analyses on wolves or wolf populations in other authorized lethal control of problem of an additional gray wolf killed in 2001 areas of the WGL DPS. wolves in the Eastern and Western in extreme northwestern South Dakota DPSs. Because we had subsequently Previous Federal Action and another killed in central Nebraska used the Eastern DPS as the basis for a in 2002 (both outside of this proposed On April 1, 2003, we published a final July 21, 2004, gray wolf delisting WGL DPS) indicate that they, too, rule (68 FR 15804) that reclassified and proposal (69 FR 43664), that proposal originated from the Minnesota- delisted gray wolves, as appropriate, could not be finalized. Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population across their range in the 48 On March 1, 2000, we received a (Straughan and Fain 2002, Steve conterminous United States and petition from Mr. Lawrence Krak of Anschutz, USFWS, Lincoln, NE, in litt. Mexico. Within that rule, we established Gilman, Wisconsin, and on June 28, 2003). three DPSs for the gray wolf. Gray 2000, we received a petition from the Additionally, some wolves from the wolves in the Western DPS and the Minnesota Conservation Federation. Mr. Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan Eastern DPS were reclassified from Krak’s petition requested the delisting of population have traveled to other endangered to threatened, except where gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, portions of the WGL DPS. In October already classified as threatened or as an and Michigan. The Minnesota 2001, a wolf was killed in north-central experimental population. Gray wolves Conservation Federation requested the Missouri by a farmer who stated that he in the Southwestern DPS retained their delisting of gray wolves in a Western thought it was a coyote. The wolf’s ear previous endangered or experimental Great Lakes DPS. Because the data tag identified it as having originated population status. Three existing gray reviews resulting from the processing of from the western portion of Michigan’s wolf experimental population these petitions would be a subset of the Upper Peninsula, where it had been designations were not affected by the review begun by our July 13, 2000, captured as a juvenile in July 1999. A April 1, 2003, final rule. We removed proposal (65 FR 43450) to revise the wolf, presumably from the Wisconsin or gray wolves from the protections of the current listing of the gray wolf across possibly Minnesota wolf population, Act in all or parts of 16 southern and most of the conterminous United States, was shot and killed in Marshall County, eastern States where the species we did not initiate separate reviews in in north-central Illinois, in December historically did not occur. We also response to those two petitions. While 2002. A second wolf was killed by a established a new special rule under we addressed these petitions in our July vehicle strike in northeastern Illinois in section 4(d) of the Act for the threatened 21, 2004, proposed rule (69 FR 43664), February 2005, and a third (verified as Western DPS to increase our ability to this rule was mooted by the Court originating from the Western Great effectively manage wolf-human conflicts rulings. Therefore, this delisting Lakes wolf population) was killed in outside the two experimental proposal restates our 90-day findings Pike County, Illinois, (near Quincy) in population areas in the Western DPS. In that the action requested by each of the December 2005. Another Great Lakes addition, we established a second petitions may be warranted, as well as wolf was found dead in Randolph section 4(d) rule that applied provisions our 12-month finding that the action County in east-central Indiana (about 12 similar to those previously in effect in requested by each petition is warranted. miles from the Ohio border) in June Minnesota to most of the Eastern DPS. 2003. That wolf originated in Jackson These two special rules were codified in Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment County, Wisconsin, based on a 50 CFR 17.40(n) and (o), respectively. In Policy Overview Wisconsin DNR ear tag that it carried that final rule (on page 15806), we Pursuant to the ESA, we consider for (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003b). included a detailed summary of the listing any species, subspecies, or, for Wolf dispersal is expected to continue previous Federal actions completed vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa if as wolves travel away from the more prior to publication of that final rule. there is sufficient information to saturated habitats in the core recovery The final rule is available at http:// indicate that such action may be areas into areas where wolves are www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/esa-status/ warranted. To interpret and implement extremely sparse or absent. Unless they Reclass-final-fr.PDF. Therefore, we will the DPS provision of the ESA and return to a core recovery population and not repeat the details of that history in Congressional guidance, the Service and join or start a pack there, they are this proposal. the National Marine Fisheries Service unlikely to contribute to long-term On January 31, 2005, and August 19, (NMFS) published, on December 21, maintenance of recovered wolf 2005, the U.S. District Courts in Oregon 1994, a draft Policy Regarding the populations. Although it is possible for and Vermont, respectively, concluded Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate them to encounter a mature wolf of the that the 2003 final rule was ‘‘arbitrary Population Segments under the ESA opposite sex, to mate, and to reproduce and capricious’’ and violated the ESA and invited public comments on it (59 outside the core wolf areas, the lack of (Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 03– FR 65884). After review of comments large expanses of unfragmented public 1348–JO, D. OR 2005; National Wildlife and further consideration, the Service land make it unlikely that any wolf Federation v. Norton, 1:03–CV–340, D. and NMFS adopted the interagency packs will persist in these areas. The VT. 2005). The courts’ rulings policy as issued in draft form, and only exception is the NLP of Michigan, invalidated the April 2003 changes to published it in the Federal Register on where several studies indicate a the ESA listing for the gray wolf. These February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). This persistent wolf population may develop rulings had the effect of eliminating the policy addresses the recognition of a

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15273

DPS for potential listing, km) or more are very rare. Wolf Wolf numbers in most parts of the reclassification, and delisting actions. dispersal is expected to continue but province are believed to be stable or Under our DPS policy, three factors unless they return to a core recovery increasing since about 1993 (Ontario are considered in a decision regarding population and join or start a pack Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) the establishment and classification of a there, they are unlikely to contribute to 2005a). In 2005 Ontario limited hunting possible DPS. These are applied long-term maintenance of recovered and trapping of wolves by closing the similarly for additions to the list of wolf populations. Dispersing wolves season from April 1 through September endangered and threatened species, may encounter a mature wolf of the 14 in central and northern Ontario reclassification of already listed species, opposite sex outside the core wolf areas, (Ontario MNR 2005b). In southern and removals from the list. The first two but the lack of large expanses of Ontario (the portion of the province that factors—discreteness of the population unfragmented public land make it is adjacent to the proposed WGL DPS), segment in relation to the remainder of unlikely that any wolf packs will persist wolf hunting and trapping is permitted the taxon (i.e., Canis lupus) and the in these areas. While we cannot rule out year around except within, and significance of the population segment the possibility of a Midwest wolf immediately around, Algonquin to the taxon to which it belongs (i.e., traveling 600 miles or more and joining Provincial Park in southeastern Ontario Canis lupus)—bear on whether the or establishing a pack in the Northern (north of ) where seasons population segment is a valid DPS. If a Rockies, such a movement has not been are closed all year (Ontario MNR 2005c). population meets both tests, it is a DPS documented and is expected to happen We, therefore, conclude that the above and then the third factor is applied—the very infrequently, if at all. As the described proposed WGL DPS boundary population segment’s conservation discreteness criterion requires that the would satisfy both conditions that can status in relation to the ESA’s standards DPS be ‘‘markedly separated’’ from be used to demonstrate discreteness of for listing, delisting, or reclassification other populations of the taxon rather a potential DPS. (i.e., is the population segment than requiring complete isolation, this Analysis for Significance endangered or threatened). high degree of physical separation If we determine a population segment satisfies the discreteness criterion. Analysis for Discreteness is discrete, we next consider available Under our Policy Regarding the Delimited by International Boundaries scientific evidence of its significance to Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate with Significant Management the taxon (i.e., Canis lupus) to which it Population Segments, a population Differences Between the United States belongs. Our DPS policy states that this segment of a vertebrate taxon may be and Canada—This border has been used consideration may include, but is not considered discrete if it satisfies either as the northern boundary of the listed limited to, the following—(1) one of the following conditions—(1) It is entity since gray wolves were Persistence of the discrete population markedly separated from other reclassified in the 48 states and Mexico segment in an ecological setting unusual populations of the same taxon (i.e., in 1978. There remain significant cross- or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence Canis lupus) as a consequence of border differences in exploitation, that loss of the discrete population physical, physiological, ecological, or management, conservation status, and segment would result in a significant behavioral factors (quantitative regulatory mechanisms. More than gap in the range of the taxon; (3) measures of genetic or morphological 50,000 wolves exist in Canada, where evidence that the discrete population discontinuity may provide evidence of suitable habitat is abundant, human segment represents the only surviving this separation); or (2) it is delimited by harvest of wolves is common, Federal natural occurrence of a taxon that may international governmental boundaries protection is absent, and provincial be more abundant elsewhere as an within which differences in control of regulations provide widely varying introduced population outside its exploitation, management of habitat, levels of protection. In general, historic range; and/or (4) evidence that conservation status, or regulatory Canadian wolf populations are the discrete population segment differs mechanisms exist that are significant in sufficiently large and healthy so that markedly from other populations of the light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. harvest and population regulation, species in its genetic characteristics. Markedly Separated From Other rather than protection and close Below we address Factors 1 and 2. Populations of the Taxon—The western monitoring, is the management focus. Factors 3 and 4 do not apply to the edge of the proposed Western Great There are an estimated 4,000 wolves in proposed WGL wolf DPS and thus are Lakes Distinct Population Segment is Manitoba (Manitoba Conservation not included in our analysis for approximately 400 mi (644 km) from the undated). Hunting is allowed nearly significance. nearest known wolf packs in Wyoming province-wide, including in those Unusual or Unique Ecological and Montana. The distance between provincial hunting zones adjoining Setting—Wolves within the proposed those western packs and the nearest northwestern Minnesota, with a current WGL DPS occupy the Laurentian Mixed packs within the proposed WGL DPS is season that runs from August 29, 2005, Forest Province, a biotic province that is nearly 600 miles (966 km). The area through March 31, 2006 (Manitoba transitional between the boreal forest between Minnesota packs and Northern Conservation 2005a). Trapping wolves and the broadleaf deciduous forest. Rocky Mountain packs largely consists is allowed province-wide except in and Laurentian Mixed Forest consists of of unsuitable habitat, with only immediately around Riding Mountain mixed conifer-deciduous stands, pure scattered islands of possibly suitable Provincial Park (southwestern deciduous forest on favorable sites, and habitat, such as the Black Hills of Manitoba), with a current season pure coniferous forest on less favorable eastern Wyoming and western South running from October 14, 2005, through sites. Within the United States this Dakota. There are no known gray wolf February 28 or March 31, 2006 (varies biotic province occurs across populations to the south or east of this with trapping zone) (Manitoba northeastern Minnesota, northern proposed WGL DPS. Conservation 2005b). The Ontario Wisconsin, the UP, and the NLP, as well As discussed in the previous section, Ministry of Natural Resources estimates as the eastern half of Maine, and gray wolves are known to disperse over there are 8,850 wolves in the province, portions of New York and Pennsylvania vast distances, but straight line based on prey composition and (Bailey 1995). In the Midwest, current documented dispersals of 400 mi (644 abundance, topography, and climate. wolf distribution closely matches this

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15274 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

province, except for the NLP and the Conclusion the Missouri River upstream as far as Door Peninsula of Wisconsin, where Lake Sakakawea and east of Highway 83 We conclude, based on our review of wolf packs currently are absent. To the from Lake Sakakawea to the Canadian best of our knowledge, wolf packs the best available scientific information, that the proposed WGL DPS is discrete border; the part of South Dakota that is currently do not inhabit the New north and east of the Missouri River; the England portions of the Laurentian from other wolf populations as a result of physical separation and the parts of Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana that Mixed Forest Province. Therefore, WGL are north of Interstate Highway 80; and wolves represent the only wolves in the international border with Canada. The proposed DPS is significant to the taxon the part of Ohio north of Interstate United States occupying this province. Highway 80 and west of the Maumee Furthermore, WGL wolves represent the to which it belongs because it is the River (at Toledo). (See Figure 1.) As only use by gray wolves of any form of only occurrence of the species in the discussed below, this DPS has been eastern coniferous or eastern mixed Laurentian Mixed Forest Biotic Province coniferous-broadleaf forest in the United in the United States, it contains a wolf delineated to include the core recovered States. metapopulation that fills a large gap in wolf population plus a zone around the Significant Gap in the Range of the the historical range of the taxon, and it core wolf populations. This geographic Taxon—This factor may be primarily of contains the majority of the wolves in delineation is not intended to include value when considering the initial the conterminous States. Therefore, we all areas where wolves have dispersed listing of a taxon under the Act to have determined that this population of from. Rather, it includes the area prevent the development of a major gap wolves satisfies the discreteness and currently occupied by wolf packs in in a taxon’s range (‘‘* * * loss * * * significance criteria required to MN, WI, and MI; the nearby areas in would result in a significant gap in the designate it as a DPS. The evaluation of these States, including the Northern range of the taxon’’ (71 FR 6641)). the appropriate conservation status for Lower Peninsula of Michigan, in which However, this successful restoration of a the WGL DPS is found below. wolf packs may become established in viable wolf metapopulation to large Delineating the WGL Gray Wolf the foreseeable future; and a parts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Population DPS surrounding area into which MN, WI, Michigan has filled a significant gap in and MI wolves disperse but where the historical range of the wolf in the To delineate the boundary of the WGL persistent packs are not expected to be United States, and it provides an DPS, we considered the current established. The area surrounding the distribution of the wolves in those areas important extension of the range of the core wolf populations includes the North American gray wolf population. we consider significant in the locations of most known dispersers from Without the recovered Western Great population and the potential dispersal the core populations, especially the Lakes wolf metapopulation, there would distance wolves may travel from those not be a wolf population in the core population areas. The WGL DPS shorter and medium-distance dispersers conterminous States east of the Rocky boundary includes all of Minnesota, that are most likely to survive and Mountains except for the red wolves Wisconsin, and Michigan; the part of potentially return to the core areas. being restored along the Atlantic Coast. North Dakota that is north and east of BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15275

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C Benson 2004), Wisconsin (Wydeven et most, perhaps all, suitable habitat in The WGL areas that are regularly al. 2006), and the Upper Peninsula of Minnesota. Minnesota data from the occupied by wolf packs are well Michigan (Huntzinger et al 2005). winter of 2003–2004 indicate that wolf documented in Minnesota (Erb and Wolves have successfully colonized numbers and density either have

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 EP27MR06.000 15276 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

continued to increase slowly or have distance shown by known returning west of the Missouri River before it stabilized since 1997–1998, and there wolves ranging from 54 mi (90 km) to died. was no expansion of occupied range in 307 mi (494 km). Genetic analysis of a wolf killed in the State (Erb and Benson 2004). Michigan—Drummer et al. (2002) Harding County, in extreme Wisconsin wolves now occupy most reported 10 instances involving UP northwestern South Dakota, in 2001 habitat areas believed to have a high wolves. One of these wolves moved to indicated that it originated from the probability of wolf occurrence except northcentral Missouri and another to Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf for some areas of northeastern southeastern Wisconsin, both beyond population (Straughan and Fain 2002). Wisconsin, and the State’s wolf the core wolf areas in the WGL. The The straight-line travel distance to the population continues to annually average straight-line distance traveled nearest Minnesota wolf pack is nearly increase in numbers and, to a lesser by those two wolves was 377 mi (608 400 miles (644 km). degree, in area (Wydeven and km), while the average straight-line A wolf illegally killed near Spalding, Wiedenhoeft 2005). The Upper distance for all 10 of these wolves was Nebraska, in December of 2002 also Peninsula of Michigan has wolf packs 232 mi. (373 km). Their straight-line originated from the Minnesota- throughout, although current population distances ranged from 41 to 468 mi. (66 Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population, as remains well below the estimated to 753 km). determined by genetic analysis biological carrying capacity and will Wisconsin—In 2004 a wolf tagged in (Anschutz, in litt. 2003). The nearest likely continue to increase in numbers Michigan was killed by a vehicle in Minnesota wolf pack is nearly 350 miles in the UP for at least several more years Rusk County in northwestern (563 km) from this location. Other notable extra-territorial (Mladenoff et al. 1997). Wisconsin, 295 miles (475 km) west of movements—Notable are several wolves When delineating the WGL DPS, we his original capture location in the whose extra-territorial movements were had to consider the high degree of eastern UP (Wydeven et al. 2005). A radio-tracked in sufficient detail to mobility shown by wolves. The similar distance (298 mi, 480 km) was dispersal of wolves from their natal provide insight into their actual travel traveled by a north-central Wisconsin routes and total travel distances for each packs and territories is a normal and yearling female wolf that moved to the important behavioral attribute of the trek, rather than only documenting Rainy Lake region of Ontario during straight-line distance from beginning to species that facilitates the formation of 1988–1989 (Wydeven et al. 1995). new packs, the occupancy of vacant end-point. Merrill and Mech (2000) In December 2002 a wolf was shot and territories, and the expansion of reported on four such Minnesota wolves killed in Marshall County, Illinois. This occupied range by the ‘‘colonization’’ of with a documented travel distance wolf likely dispersed from the vacant habitat. Data on wolf dispersal ranging from 305 to 2641 mi (490 to Wisconsin wolf population, nearly 200 rates from numerous North American 4251 km) and an average travel route miles (322 km) to the north (Great Lakes studies (Fuller et al. 2003, Boyd and length of 988 mi (1590 km). Wydeven Directory 2003). Another wolf known to Pletscher 1991) shows dispersal rates of (1994) described a WI wolf that moved 13 to 48 percent of the individuals in a have come from a central Wisconsin from northwestern WI to the northern pack. Sometimes the dispersal is wolf pack was found shot in Randolph suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota, for 2 temporary, and the wolf ends its extra- County in east central Indiana about 12 weeks (apparently not seen or reported territorial movement by returning to a miles from the Ohio border in June to authorities by the local residents), location in or near its natal territory. In 2003. It had traveled a minimum then moved back to north-central WI. some cases a wolf may continue its distance of at least 420 miles (676 km) The total travel distance was 278 mi movement for scores or even hundreds to get around ; it likely (447 km) from her natal pack to the of miles until it locates suitable habitat, traveled much father than that unless it north-central WI location where she where it may establish a territory or join went through the city or suburbs of settled down. an existing pack. In other cases, a wolf Chicago (Wydeven et al. 2004). Another From these extra-territorial movement may die while apparently continuing its likely Wisconsin wolf was shot in Pike records we conclude that gray wolf dispersal movement, leaving County, Illinois, in late 2005. This movements of over 200 miles (320 km) unanswered the questions of how far it animal was about 300 mi (180 km) from straight-line distance have been would have gone and whether it the nearest wolf packs in central documented on numerous occasions, eventually would have returned to its Wisconsin. while shorter distance movements are natal area or population. North Dakota, South Dakota, and more frequent. Movements of 300 miles Published and unpublished scientific Nebraska—Licht and Fritts (1994) (480 km) straight-line distance or more data provide a great deal of insight into tabulated 10 gray wolves found dead in are less common, but include one the magnitude of extra-territorial ND and SD from 1981 through 1992. Minnesota wolf that journeyed a movements, and document the Seven of these are believed to have straight-line distance of 300 mi (480 km) following: originated from Minnesota, based on and a known minimum distance of Minnesota—The current record for a skull morphometrics. (Another probably 2,550 mi (4251 km) before it reversed documented extra-territorial movement originated in Manitoba and the likely direction, as determined by its satellite- by a gray wolf in North America is held origins of the other two wolves are tracked collar. This wolf returned to a by a Minnesota wolf that moved a unknown.) Although none of these spot only 24 mi (40 km) from its natal straight line distance of at least 550 mi. wolves were marked or radio-tracked, territory (Merrill and Mech 2000). While (886 km) northwest into Saskatchewan making it impossible to determine the much longer movements have been (Fritts 1983). Nineteen other primarily point of initiation of their journey, a documented, including some by WGL MN movements summarized by Mech minimum straight-line travel distance wolves, return movements to the (2005 in litt.) averaged 154 mi (248 km). can be determined from the nearest wolf vicinity of natal territories have not Their straight-line distance of travel breeding range in MN. For the seven, been documented for extra-territorial (i.e., from known starting location to the average distance to the nearest wolf movements beyond 300 mi (480 km). most distant known location) ranged breeding range was 160 mi (257 km) and Based on extra-territorial movement from 32–532 mi (53–886 km) with the ranged from 29 to 329 mi (46 to 530 data, we conclude that affiliation with straight-line maximum dispersal km). One of these seven wolves moved the midwestern wolf population has

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15277

diminished and is essentially lost at a a significant portion of its range. habitat to sustain viable wolf distance of 250 to 300 miles (400 to 480 Determining whether a species is populations (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and km) beyond the outer edge of the areas recovered requires consolidation of the Michigan). of the WGL that are largely continuously same five categories of threats specified A. The Present or Threatened occupied by wolf packs. Although some in section 4(a)(1). For species that are Destruction, Modification, or WGL wolves will move beyond this being considered for delisting, this Curtailment of its Habitat or Range distance, available data indicate that analysis of threats is an evaluation of longer distance dispersers are unlikely both the threats currently facing the A common misperception is that to return to their natal population. species and the threats that could wolves inhabit only remote portions of Furthermore, wolves moving this potentially affect the species in the pristine forests or mountainous areas, distance outward from the core areas of foreseeable future after its delisting and where human developments and other Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan the consequent removal of the Act’s activities have produced negligible will encounter landscape features that protections. change to the natural landscape. Their not only provide clear borders to For the purposes of this notice, we extirpation south of Canada and Alaska, delineate a DPS, but which are also at consider ‘‘foreseeable future’’ to be 30 except for the heavily forested portions least partial barriers to further wolf years. This is a period for which we can of northeastern Minnesota, reinforced movement, and that may—if crossed— make reasonable assumptions, based on this popular belief. Wolves, however, impede attempts of wolves to return recent and current observations, survived in those areas not because toward the WGL core areas. These regarding the continuation of current those were the only places with the landscape features are the Missouri trends in human attitudes and necessary habitat conditions, but River in North Dakota and downstream behaviors, regulatory mechanisms, and because only in those remote areas were to Omaha, Nebraska, and Interstate environmental factors that will be the they sufficiently free of the human Highway 80 from Omaha eastward primary determinants of threats to wolf persecution that elsewhere killed through Illinois, Indiana, and into Ohio, populations in the future. wolves faster than the species could ending where this highway crosses the For the purposes of this notice, the reproduce (Mech 1995). Maumee River in Toledo, Ohio. ‘‘range’’ of wolves in this WGL DPS is In the western , Although there is evidence that two the area within the DPS boundaries wolves in the densely forested Minnesota wolves have crossed the where viable populations of the species northeastern corner of Minnesota have Missouri River and some wolves have now exist. However, a species’ historical expanded into the more agricultural crossed interstate highways, there is range is also considered because it helps portions of central and northwestern also evidence that some wolves are inform decisions on the species’ status Minnesota, northern and central hesitant to cross highways (Kohn et al. in its current range. While wolves Wisconsin, and the entire Upper 2000, Licht and Fritts 1994, Merrill and historically occurred throughout the Peninsula of Michigan. Habitats Mech 2000, Whittington et al. 2004, geographic area of the DPS, large currently being used by wolves span the Wydeven et al. 2005a, but see Blanco et portions of its historical range are no broad range from the mixed hardwood- al. 2005). Interstate highways and longer able to support viable wolf coniferous forest wilderness area of smaller roads are a known mortality populations. northern Minnesota, through sparsely factor for wolves, adding to their Significance of a portion of the range settled, but similar habitats in function as a partial barrier to wolf is viewed in terms of biological Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and movements (Blanco et al. 2005). significance rather than in quantitative northern Wisconsin, and into more terms. A portion of a species’ range that intensively cultivated and livestock- Summary of Factors Affecting the is so important to the continued producing portions of central and Species existence of the species that threats to northwestern Minnesota and central Section 4 of the ESA and regulations the species in that area can threaten the Wisconsin. (50 CFR Part 424) promulgated to viability of the species, subspecies, or Wolf research and the expansion of implement the listing provisions of the DPS as a whole is considered to be a wolf range over the last three decades ESA set forth the procedures for listing, significant portion of the range. In have shown that wolves can reclassifying, and delisting species. regard to the WGL DPS, the significant successfully occupy a wide range of Species may be listed as threatened or portions of the gray wolf’s range are habitats, and they are not dependent on endangered if one or more of the five those areas that are important or wilderness areas for their survival factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the necessary for maintaining a viable, self- (Mech 1995). In the past, gray wolf ESA threaten the continued existence of sustaining, and evolving representative populations occupied nearly every type the species. A species may be delisted, meta-population or multiple separate of habitat north of mid-Mexico that according to 50 CFR 424.11(d), if the populations in order for the WGL DPS contained large ungulate prey species, best scientific and commercial data to persist into the foreseeable future. including bison, elk, white-tailed deer, available substantiate that the species is The following analysis examines all mule deer, moose, and woodland neither endangered nor threatened significant factors currently affecting caribou; thus, wolves historically because of (1) extinction, (2) recovery, wolf populations or likely to affect wolf occupied the entire Midwest. An or (3) error in the original data used for populations within the foreseeable inadequate prey density and a high level classification of the species. future. Factor A considers all factors of human persecution appear to be the A recovered population is one that no affecting both currently occupied and only factors that limit wolf distribution longer meets the ESA’s definition of potentially suitable habitat (defined (Mech 1995). threatened or endangered. The ESA below in Factor A). The issues An indication of the availability of defines an endangered species as one discussed under Factors B, C, and E are suitable habitat in portions of historical that is in danger of extinction analyzed throughout the entire DPS. range is the increase in Midwest wolf throughout all or a significant portion of Adequate regulatory mechanisms population levels. In Minnesota, four its range. A threatened species is one (Factor D) are discussed for each of the comparable surveys of wolf numbers that is likely to become endangered in States within the DPS, with an emphasis and range have been carried out since the foreseeable future throughout all or on the three States with enough suitable 1979. These surveys estimated that there

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15278 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

were 1,235, 1,500–1,750, 2,445, and (NWR), Tamarac NWR, and Rice Lake due to the connection between roads 3020 wolves in Minnesota in 1979, NWR in Minnesota; Seney NWR in the and human-related wolf mortality. 1989, 1998, and 2004 respectively (Berg Upper Peninsula of Michigan; and Several studies demonstrated that and Kuehn 1982, Fuller et al. 1992, Berg Necedah NWR in central Wisconsin. wolves generally did not maintain and Benson 1999, Erb and Benson 2004) Agassiz NWR has had as many as 20 breeding packs in areas with a road (see ‘‘Recovery in the Western Great wolves in 2 to 3 packs in recent years. density greater than about 0.9 to 1.1 Lakes DPS,’’ above, for additional In 1999, mange and illegal shootings linear miles per square mile (0.6 to 0.7 details on the increase in numbers and reduced them to a single pack of five km/km2) (Thiel 1985; Jensen et al. 1986; range of Minnesota wolves). wolves and a separate lone wolf. Since Mech et al. 1988; Fuller et al. 1992). Hearne et al. (2003), determined that 2001, however, two packs with a total Work by Mladenoff and associates a viable wolf population (that is, having of 10 to 12 wolves have been using the indicated that colonizing wolves in less than 10 percent chance of refuge. About 60 percent of the packs’ Wisconsin preferred areas where road extinction over 100 years) should territories are located on the Refuge or densities were less than 0.7 mi/sq mi consist of at least 175 to 225 wolves, on adjacent State-owned wildlife (0.45 km/sq km) (Mladenoff et al. 1995). and they modeled various likely management area (Gary Huschle, However, recent work in the UP of scenarios of habitat conditions in the USFWS, in litt. 2005). Tamarac NWR Michigan indicates that in some areas Upper Peninsula of Michigan and has 2 packs, with a 15-year average of with low road densities, low deer northern Wisconsin through the year 12 wolves in one pack; adults and an density appears to separately limit wolf 2020 to determine whether future unknown number of pups comprise the occupancy (Potvin et al. in press) and conditions would support a wolf second pack (Barbara Boyle, USFWS, in may prevent recolonization of portions population of that size. Most scenarios litt. 2005). Rice Lake NWR, in of the UP. of future habitat conditions resulted in Minnesota, has one pack of nine Road density increases various forms viable wolf populations in each State animals using the refuge in 2004; in of other human-related wolf mortality through 2020. When the model analyzed 2005, the pack had at least 6 factors. A rural area with more roads the future conditions in the two States individuals. Other single or paired generally has a greater human density, combined, all scenarios produced a wolves pass through the refuge more vehicular traffic, greater access by viable wolf population through 2020. frequently (Mary Stefanski, USFWS, hunters and trappers, more farms and Their scenarios included increases in pers. comm. 2004; Michelle McDowell, residences, and more domestic animals. human population density, changes in USFWS, in litt. 2005). In 2003, Seney As a result, there is a greater likelihood land ownership that may result in NWR had one pack with two adults and that wolves in such an area will decreased habitat suitability, and two pups; in 2005 there were two pairs encounter humans, domestic animals, increased road density. of wolves and several lone individuals and various human activities. These encounters may result in wolves being Federal Lands using the Refuge (Dave Olson, USFWS, in litt. 2005). Necedah NWR currently hit by motor vehicles, being controlled National forests, and the prey species has 2 packs with at least 13 wolves in by government agents after becoming found in their various habitats, have the packs (Joel Trick, USFWS, in litt. involved in depredations on domestic been important to wolf conservation and 2005). Over the past 10 years, Sherburne animals, being shot intentionally by recovery in the core areas of the WGL and Crane Meadows NWRs in central unauthorized individuals, being trapped DPS. There are five national forests with Minnesota have had intermittent, but or shot accidentally, or contracting resident wolves (Superior, Chippewa, reliable, observations and signs of diseases from domestic dogs (Mech et Chequamegon-Nicolet, Ottawa, and individual wolves each year. To date, no al. 1988; Mech and Goyal 1983; Hiawatha National Forests) in established packs have been Mladenoff et al. 1995). Based on Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. documented on either of those refuges. mortality data from radio-collared Their wolf populations range from The closest established packs are within Wisconsin wolves from 1979 to 1999, approximately 20 on the Nicolet portion 15 miles of Crane Meadows NWR at natural causes of death predominate (57 of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Camp Ripley Military Installation and percent of mortalities) in areas with Forest in northeastern Wisconsin, to 30 miles north of Sherburne NWR at road densities below 1.35 mi/sq mi (0.84 160–170 on the UP’s Ottawa National Mille Lacs State Wildlife Management km/sq km), but human-related factors Forest, to an estimated 465 (in winter of Area (Jeanne Holler, USFWS, in litt. produced 71 percent of the wolf deaths 2003–04) on the Superior National 2005). in areas with higher road densities Forest in northeastern Minnesota (Wydeven et al. 2001). (Lindquist in litt. 2005). Nearly half of Suitable Habitat Within the Western Some researchers have used a road the wolves in Wisconsin currently use Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPS density of 1 mi/sq mi (0.6 km/sq km) of the Chequamegon portion of the Various researchers have investigated land area as an upper threshold for Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. habitat suitability for wolves in the suitable wolf habitat. However, the National Park, along eastern portion of the United States. In common practice in more recent studies Minnesota’s northern border, has a land recent years, most of these efforts have is to use road density to predict base of nearly 882 km2 (340 mi2). There focused on using human density, deer probabilities of persistent wolf pack are 40 to 55 wolves within 7 to 11 packs density or deer biomass, and road presence in an area. Areas with road that exclusively or partially reside density, or have used road density alone densities less than 0.7 mi/sq mi (0.45 within the park, and at least 4 packs are to identify areas where wolf populations km/sq km) are estimated to have a located wholly inside the Park are likely to persist or become greater than 50 percent probability of boundaries (Holbeck, Voyageurs NP, in established (Mladenoff et al. 1995, 1997, wolf pack colonization, and areas where litt. 2005, based on 2000–2001 data). 1998, 1999; Harrison and Chapin 1998; road density exceeded 1 mi/sq mi (0.6 In the WGL DPS, we currently manage Wydeven et al. 2001; Potvin et al. in km/sq km) have less than a 10 percent seven units within the National Wildlife press). probability of occupancy (Mladenoff et Refuge System with significant wolf Road density has largely been adopted al 1995; Mladenoff and Sickley 1998; activity. Primary among these are as the best predictor of habitat Mladenoff et al. 1999; Wydeven et al. Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge suitability in the Northeast and Midwest 2001). The territories of packs that do

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15279

occur in areas of high road density, and wolf pup production is documented in support limited and occasional wolf hence with low expected probabilities the NLP. reproduction, the Turtle Mountain area of occupancy, are generally near broad These NLP patches of suitable habitat within the United States is not a areas of more suitable areas that are contain a great deal of private land, are significant portion of the range of gray likely serving as a source of wolves, small in comparison to the occupied wolves within the WGL DPS, because of thereby assisting in maintaining wolf habitat on the UP and in MN and WI, its very small area and its setting as an presence in the higher road density, less and are intermixed with agricultural island of forest surrounded by a suitable, areas (Mech 1989; Wydeven et and higher road density areas (Gehring landscape largely modified for al. 2001). and Potter in press). Therefore, agriculture and grazing (Licht and Recent surveys for Wisconsin wolves continuing wolf immigration from the Huffman 1996). and wolf packs show that wolves have UP may be necessary to maintain an It appears that essentially all suitable now recolonized the areas predicted by NLP population. The Gehring and Potter habitat in Minnesota is now occupied, habitat models to have high and study concludes that NLP suitable and the wolf population within the moderate probability of occupancy habitat (i.e., areas with greater than a 50 State may have slowed its increase or (primary and secondary wolf habitat) percent probability of wolf occupancy) has stabilized (Erb and Benson 2004). In (Wisconsin DNR 1999). The late winter amounts to 850 sq mi (2,198 sq km). Wisconsin, suitable habitat is largely 2004–05 Wisconsin wolf survey Potvin, using deer density in addition to occupied, but there are some gaps in the identified packs occurring throughout road density, believes there are about northeastern part of the State where the central Wisconsin forest area and 3,090 sq mi (8,000 sq km) of suitable there appears to be room for additional across the northern forest zone, with habitat in the NLP. Gehring and Potter packs to occupy areas between existing highest pack densities in the northwest exclude from their calculations those packs (Wydeven et al. 2005a). Similarly, and north central forest; pack densities NLP low road density patches that are in the UP of Michigan, wolf pairs or are lower, but increasing, in the less than 19 sq mi (50 sq km), while packs occur throughout the area northeastern corner of the State Potvin does not limit habitat patch size identified as suitable (i.e., a high (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005b). in his calculations (Gehring and Potter probability of wolf pack occupancy; Michigan wolf surveys in winter 2003– in press; Potvin 2003). Both of these Mladenoff et al. 1995, Potvin et al. in 04 and 2004–05 continue to show wolf area estimates are well below the press), including every county of the UP pairs or packs (defined by Michigan minimum area described in the Federal except possibly Keweenaw. Wolf DNR as three or more wolves traveling Recovery Plan, which states that 10,000 density is lower in the northern and together) in every UP county except sq mi (25,600 sq km) of contiguous eastern portions of the UP where lower Keweenaw County, which probably suitable habitat is needed for a viable deer numbers may prevent lacks a suitable ungulate prey base isolated gray wolf population, and half establishment of packs in some areas during winter months (Huntzinger et al. that area (5,000 sq mi or 12,800 sq km) (Potvin et al. in press), but over the next 2005). is needed to maintain a viable wolf several years packs may be able to fill Habitat suitability studies in the population that is subject to wolf in some of the currently unoccupied Upper Midwest indicate that the only immigration from a nearby population areas. The NLP of Michigan appears to large areas of suitable or potentially (USFWS 1992). have the only unoccupied, but suitable habitat areas that are currently It is generally recognized that potentially suitable, wolf habitat in the unoccupied by wolves are located in the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, Midwest that is of sufficient size to Northern Lower Peninsula (NLP) of provide the only sufficiently large areas maintain wolf packs (Gehring and Potter Michigan (Mladenoff et al. 1997; with adequate wild ungulate prey base in press; Potvin 2000), although its Mladenoff et al 1999; Potvin 2003; and low road and human density within small size and fragmented nature may Gehring and Potter, in press, Wildlife this proposed DPS (USFWS 1992). The mean that NLP wolf population viability Soc. Bull.). One Michigan study only other area within the proposed may be dependent upon continuing (Gehring and Potter, in press) estimates WGL DPS that potentially might hold immigration from the UP. Other that these areas could host 46 to 89 wolves on a frequent or possibly potentially suitable wolf habitat areas wolves; a masters degree thesis constant basis is the Turtle Mountain within the proposed DPS boundary, investigation (Potvin 2003) estimates region that straddles the international including the Turtle Mountains in North that 110–480 wolves could exist in the border in north central North Dakota. Dakota, are too small to consistently NLP. The NLP is separated from the UP Road densities within the Turtle support a viable resident wolf by the , whose 4-mile Mountains are below the thresholds population, and cannot be considered a width freezes during mid- and late- believed to limit colonization by significant portion of wolf range in the winter during some years. In recent wolves. However, this habitat area is WGL DPS. years there have been two documented only on the order of 579 sq mi (1,500 sq Based on the biology of the gray wolf occurrences of wolves in the NLP (the km), with approximately 394 sq mi and conservation biology principles, the last recorded wolf in the LP was in (1,020 sq km) in North Dakota, and Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992) specifies 1910). In the first instance a radio- roughly 185 sq mi (480 sq km) in that two populations (or a single collared female wolf from the central UP Manitoba (Licht and Huffman 1996). metapopulation) are needed to ensure was trapped and killed by a coyote This area is far less than the long-term viability. The Recovery Plan trapper in Presque Isle County in late recommendation in the Recovery Plan indicates the importance of a large wolf October 2004. In late November 2004, for the Eastern Timber Wolf as the population in Minnesota Wolf tracks from two wolves were verified in minimum area of habitat necessary to Management Zones 1 through 4 the same NLP county. Follow-up winter support a wolf population (FWS 1992). (identical to Zone A in the 2001 surveys by the DNR in early 2005 failed Furthermore, the Manitoba portion of Minnesota Wolf Management Plan) and to find additional wolf tracks in the NLP the Turtle Mountains is outside the the need for a second wolf population (Huntzinger et al. 2005); additional currently listed area for the gray wolf occupying 10,000 mi2 or 5,000 mi2 surveys are being conducted in February and outside this proposed WGL DPS. elsewhere in the eastern United States and March 2006. However, it probably While this area may provide a small (depending on its isolation from the is only a matter of several years before area of marginal wolf habitat and may Minnesota wolf population. Based on

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15280 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

these recovery criteria, the portions of Based on three decades of wolf Prey the range that support these two wolf research and implementing wolf Wolf density is heavily dependent on populations are a Significant Portion of recovery actions, the Recovery Plan, our prey availability (e.g., expressed as the Range (SPR) in the WGL DPS. analysis of five categories of threats and ungulate biomass, Fuller 1989), but prey The Recovery Plan also discusses the potential threats to the species, and the availability is not likely to threaten importance of low road density areas, numerical growth and geographic wolves in the WGL DPS. Conservation the importance of minimizing wolf– expansion of the Midwest’s wolf of primary wolf prey in the WGL DPS, human conflicts, and the maintenance population, we have concluded that the white-tailed deer and moose, is clearly of an adequate natural prey base in the wolf population has expanded to the a high priority for State conservation areas hosting these two necessary wolf extent that it now occupies the SPR agencies. As Minnesota DNR points out populations. The Recovery Plan, along within the DPS. The species has in its wolf management plan (MN DNR with numerous other scientific expanded to the extent that the 2001:25), it manages ungulates to ensure publications, supports the need to currently occupied range in the WGL a harvestable surplus for hunters, manage and reduce wolf–human DPS exceeds that portion of the species’ nonconsumptive users, and to minimize conflicts. The Recovery Plan specifically historical range in the DPS that is conflicts with humans. To ensure a recommends managing against wolves necessary to avoid the likelihood of harvestable surplus for hunters, MN in large areas of unsuitable habitat, extinction in the DPS for the foreseeable DNR must account for all sources of stating that Minnesota Zone 5 should be future. natural mortality, including loss to managed with a goal of zero wolves wolves, and adjust hunter harvest levels there, because ‘‘Zone 5 is not suitable While there are large areas of when necessary. For example, after for wolves. Wolves found there should historical range within the DPS that are severe winters in the 1990’s, MN DNR be eliminated by any legal means.’’ unoccupied by the species, these areas modified hunter harvest levels to allow (USFWS 1992, p 20). Therefore, the are almost completely lacking suitable for the recovery of the local deer Recovery Plan views Zone 5’s roughly habitat, and there is little likelihood that population (MN DNR 2001). In addition 60 percent of the State as not an they can play a meaningful role in to regulation of human harvest of deer important part of the range of the gray ensuring the persistence of a viable wolf and moose, MN DNR also plans to wolf. population in the WGL DPS. We have continue to monitor and improve Similarly, other portions of the WGL assessed the threats to wolves habitat for these species. Land DPS that lack suitable habitat, or only throughout the DPS, and we have management carried out by other public have areas of suitable habitat that are determined that the existing and likely agencies and by private land owners in below the areal thresholds specified in future threats to wolves outside the Minnesota’s wolf range, including the Recovery Plan and/or are highly currently occupied areas, and especially timber harvest and prescribed fire, fragmented, cannot be considered a to wolves outside of Minnesota, incidentally and significantly improves significant portion of the range of the Wisconsin, and the UP, do not rise to habitat for deer, the primary prey for gray wolf in the WGL DPS. These areas the level that they threaten the long- wolves in the State. The success of these include North Dakota, South Dakota, term viability of wolf populations in measures is apparent from the Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the Upper continuing high deer densities in the Wolf Management Zones 3 and 4 (WI Peninsula of Michigan. Therefore, the Forest Zone of Minnesota, and the fact DNR 1999), and most of the Lower large areas of unsuitable habitat in the that the State’s three largest deer Peninsula of Michigan. eastern Dakotas; the northern portions harvests have occurred in the last three The only part of Michigan’s Lower of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio; and years. Approximately one-half of the Peninsula that warrants any the southern areas of Minnesota, MN deer harvest is in the Forest Zone, consideration for inclusion in the SPR Wisconsin, and Michigan; as well as the which encompasses most of the for the WGL DPS is composed of those relatively small areas of unoccupied occupied wolf range in the State areas of fragmented habitat studied by potentially suitable habitat, do not (Lennarz 2005). There is no indication Gehring and Potter (in press) and Potvin constitute a significant portion of the that harvest of deer and moose or (2003). However, this amounts to less range for the WGL DPS. management of their habitat will than half of the areal thresholds significantly depress abundance of these In summary, wolves currently occupy identified by the Recovery Plan for the species in Minnesota’s core wolf range. establishment of viable populations, so the vast majority of the suitable habitat Therefore, prey availability is not likely these NLP areas may have difficulty in the WGL DPS. Unoccupied to endanger gray wolves in the maintaining wolf populations even with potentially suitable habitat exists in foreseeable future in the State. the help of occasional immigration of small and fragmented parcels and Similarly, the deer populations in wolves from the UP (see F. Suitable would neither make a substantial Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Habitat Within the WGL DPS for contribution to wolf population viability Michigan are at historically high levels. additional discussion). These in the DPS nor constitute a biologically Wisconsin’s pre-season deer population potentially suitable habitat areas are not significant portion of gray wolf range in has exceeded 1 million animals since likely to substantially contribute to the WGL DPS. Furthermore, threats to 1984, and hunter harvest has exceeded maintaining a viable wolf population in wolves in the unoccupied portions of 400,000 deer in 7 of the last 10 years. Michigan, and they are not necessary to the DPS are inconsequential to the long- A record harvest of 517,169 deer maintain a second viable wolf term viability of wolf populations in the occurred in the 2004 deer season (WI population in the WGL DPS. In fact, DPS. Therefore, within the WGL DPS, DNR web site, accessed Jan. 27, 2006). while the UP wolves will be significant gray wolves are not in danger of Michigan’s pre-season deer population to any NLP wolf population that may extinction now, nor are they likely to be was approximately 1.7 million deer, develop, the reverse will not be true. so in the foreseeable future, in all or in with about 336,000 residing in the UP. Thus, we conclude that the NLP is not a significant portion of their range due Currently MI DNR is proposing revised a significant part of the range of the gray to inadequate or threatened suitable deer management goals to guide wolf in the WGL DPS. habitat or contraction of their range. management of the deer population

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15281

through 2010. The proposed UP goal will not emerge as new threats upon and this is not likely to change as a range is 323,000 to 411,000 (MI DNR delisting. See Factor D for a detailed result of Federal delisting. We do not 2005 web site accessed Jan. 31, 2006), discussion of State wolf management expect taking for educational purposes which would maintain, or possibly plans, and for applicable regulations in to constitute any threat to Midwest wolf increase, the current ungulate prey base States lacking wolf management plans. populations for the foreseeable future. for UP wolves. Short of a major, and We do not expect the use of wolves See Factor E for a discussion of taking unlikely, shift in deer management and for scientific purposes to increase in of gray wolves by Native Americans for harvest strategies, there will be no proportion to total wolf numbers in the religious, spiritual, or traditional shortage of prey for Wisconsin and WGL DPS after delisting. Prior to cultural purposes. See the Depredation Michigan wolves for the foreseeable delisting, the intentional or incidental Control Programs sections under Factor future. killing, or capture and permanent D for discussion of other past, current, Summary of Factor A—The wolf confinement, of endangered or and potential future forms of intentional population in the WGL DPS currently threatened gray wolves for scientific and accidental take by humans, occupies all the suitable habitat area purposes has only legally occurred including depredation control, public identified for recovery in the Midwest under permits or subpermits issued by safety, and under public harvest. While in the 1978 and 1992 Recovery Plans the Service (under section 10(a)(1)(A)) public harvest may include recreational and most of the suitable habitat in the or by a State agency operating under a harvest, it is likely that public harvest WGL DPS. Unsuitable habitat, and cooperative agreement with the Service will also serve as a management tool, so small, fragmented areas of suitable pursuant to section 6 of the Act (50 CFR it is discussed in Factor D. habitat away from these core areas, 17.21(c)(5) and 17.31(b)). Although Summary of Factor B—Threats to largely represent geographic locations exact figures are not available, wolves resulting from scientific or where wolf packs cannot persist. throughout the coterminous 48 States, educational purposes are not likely to Although they may have been historical such removals of wolves from the wild increase substantially following habitat, many of these areas are no have been very limited and probably delisting of the DPS, and any increased longer suitable; none of them are comprise an average of not more than use for these purposes will be regulated important or necessary for maintaining two animals per year since the species and monitored by the States and Tribes a viable, self-sustaining, and evolving was first listed as endangered. In the in the core recovery areas. Taking representative wolf population in the WGL DPS, these animals were either wolves for scientific or educational WGL DPS into the foreseeable future, taken from the Minnesota wolf purposes in the other WGL DPS States and they are not a significant portion of population during long-term research may not be regulated or closely the range of the WGL DPS. activities (about 15 gray wolves) or were monitored in the future, but the threat The WGL DPS wolf population accidental takings as a result of research to wolves in those States will not be exceeds its numerical, temporal, and activities in Wisconsin (4 to 5 significant to the long-term viability of distributional goals for recovery. A mortalities and 1 long-term the wolf population in the WGL DPS. delisted wolf population would be confinement) and in Michigan (2 The potential limited commercial and safely maintained above recovery levels mortalities) (William Berg, MN DNR, in recreational harvest that may occur in for the foreseeable future, because much litt. 1998; Mech, in litt. 1998; Wydeven the DPS will be regulated by State and/ important wolf habitat is in public 1998; Roell, in litt. June 22, 2004 & July or Tribal conservation agencies and is ownership, the states will continue to 19, 2005). discussed under Factor D. manage for high ungulate populations, The Minnesota DNR plans to and the States, Tribes, and Federal land encourage the study of wolves with C. Disease or predation management agencies will adequately radio-telemetry after delisting, with an Disease regulate human-caused mortality of emphasis on areas where they expect wolves and wolf prey. This will allow wolf-human conflicts and where wolves Many diseases and parasites have these three States to easily support a are expanding their range (MN DNR been reported for the gray wolf, and recovered and viable wolf 2001). Similarly, Wisconsin and several of them have had significant metapopulation into the foreseeable Michigan DNRs will continue to trap impacts during the recovery of the future wolves for radio-collaring, examination, species in the 48 conterminous United and health monitoring for the States (Brand et al. 1995, WI DNR 1999). B. Overutilization for Commercial, foreseeable future (WI DNR 1999, WI If not monitored and controlled by Recreational, Scientific, or Educational DNR 1997). The continued handling of States, these diseases and parasites, and Purposes wild wolves for research, including the perhaps others, may threaten gray wolf Since their listing under the Act, no administration of drugs, may result in populations in the future. Thus, to avoid gray wolves have been legally killed or some accidental deaths of wolves. We a future decline caused by diseases or removed from the wild in any of the believe that capture and radio- parasites, States and their partners will nine States included in the WGL DPS telemetry-related injuries or mortalities have to diligently monitor the for either commercial or recreational will not increase significantly above the prevalence of these pathogens in order purposes. Some wolves may have been level observed before delisting in to effectively respond to significant illegally killed for commercial use of the proportion to wolf abundance; adverse outbreaks. pelts and other parts, but we think that effects to wolves associated with such Canine parvovirus (CPV) is a illegal commercial trafficking in wolf activities has been minimal (see below) relatively new disease that infects pelts or parts and illegal capture of and would not constitute a threat to the wolves, domestic dogs, foxes, coyotes, wolves for commercial breeding WGL DPS. skunks, and raccoons. Recognized in the purposes is rare. State wolf management No wolves have been legally removed United States in 1977 in domestic dogs, plans for Minnesota, Wisconsin, and from the wild for educational purposes it appeared in Minnesota wolves (based Michigan ensure that wolves will not be in recent years. Wolves that have been upon retrospective serologic evidence) killed for these purposes for at least used for such purposes are the captive- live-trapped as early as 1977 (Mech et several years following Federal reared offspring of wolves that were al. 1986). Minnesota wolves, however, delisting, so these forms of mortality already in captivity for other reasons, may have been exposed to the virus as

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15282 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

early as 1973 (Mech and Goyal 1995). wolves tested positive for CPV. During that may provide protection from future Serologic evidence of gray wolf the following years of population infection from CPV (Kerry Beheler, WI exposure to CPV peaked at 95 percent increase (1988–96) only 35 percent of DNR Wildlife Health Specialist, in litt. for a group of Minnesota wolves live- the 63 wolves tested positive for CPV undated and April 14, 2004). There are trapped in 1989 (Mech and Goyal 1993). (WI DNR 1999). More recent exposure no data showing any CPV-caused wolf In a captive colony of Minnesota rates for CPV continue to be high in mortality or population impacts to the wolves, pup and yearling mortality from Wisconsin wolves, with annual rates gray wolf population on the Upper CPV was 92 percent of the animals that ranging from 60 to 100 percent among Peninsula, but few wolf pups are showed indications of active CPV wild wolves handled from 2001 through handled in the UP (Peterson et al. 1998, infections in 1983 (Mech and Fritts mid-2005. Part of the reason for high Hammill pers. comm. 2002, Beyer in litt. 1987), demonstrating the substantial exposure percentages is likely an 2006), so low levels of CPV-caused pup impacts this disease can have on young increased emphasis in sampling pups mortality may go undetected there. wolves. It is believed that the and Central Forest wolves starting in Mortality data are primarily collected population impacts of CPV occur via 2001, so comparisons of post- and pre- from collared wolves, which until diarrhea-induced dehydration leading to 2001 data are of limited value. CPV recently received CPV inoculations. abnormally high pup mortality (WI DNR appears not to be a significant cause of Therefore, mortality data for the Upper 1999). CPV has been detected in nearly mortality, as only a single wolf (male Peninsula should be interpreted every wolf population in North America pup) is known to have died from CPV cautiously. including Alaska (Bailey et al. 1995) and during this period (Wydeven and Sarcoptic mange is caused by a mite exposure in wolves is now believed to Wiedenhoeft 2002a, 2003a, 2004a, (Sarcoptes scabiei) infection of the skin. be almost universal. 2005). While the difficulty of The irritation caused by the feeding and There is no evidence that CPV has discovering CPV-killed pups must be burrowing mites results in scratching caused a population decline or has had considered, and it is possible that CPV- and then severe fur loss, which in turn a significant impact on the recovery of caused pup mortality is being can lead to mortality from exposure the Minnesota gray wolf population. underestimated, the continuing increase during severe winter weather. The mites Mech and Goyal (1995), however, found of the Wisconsin wolf population are spread from wolf to wolf by direct that high CPV prevalence in the wolves indicates that CPV mortality is no longer body contact or by common use of of the Superior National Forest in impeding wolf population growth in the ‘‘rubs’’ by infested and uninfested Minnesota occurred during the same State. It may be that many Wisconsin animals. Thus, mange is frequently years in which wolf pup numbers were wolves have developed some degree of passed from infested females to their low. Because the wolf population did resistance to CPV, and this disease is no young pups, and from older pack not decline during the study period, longer a significant threat in the State. members to their pack mates. In a long- they concluded that CPV-caused pup Canine parvovirus, hypothesized to term Alberta, Canada, wolf study, higher mortality was compensatory, that is, it have been introduced to the island by a wolf densities were correlated with replaced deaths that would have dog whose owners visited the island increased incidence of mange, and pup occurred from other causes, especially over the Fourth of July holiday, is survival decreased as the incidence of starvation of pups. They theorized that considered to have been the cause of the mange increased (Brand et al. 1995). CPV prevalence affects the amount of precipitous decline of the isolated Isle From 1991 to 1996, 27 percent of live- population increase and that a wolf Royale, Michigan, population in 1981– trapped Wisconsin wolves exhibited population will decline when 76 82. The island’s gray wolf population symptoms of mange. During the winter percent of the adult wolves consistently dropped from 30 wolves in 1981 to only of 1992–93, 58 percent showed test positive for CPV exposure. Their 14 in 1982, due in large part to 100 symptoms, and a concurrent decline in data indicate that CPV prevalence in percent pup mortality (at least 9 pups) the Wisconsin wolf population was adult wolves in their study area in 1981 (Peterson and Vucetich 2002). attributed to mange-induced mortality increased by an annual average of 4 CPV appears to have disappeared from (WI DNR 1999). Seven Wisconsin percent during 1979–93 and was at least the island by 1989, but the wolf wolves died from mange from 1993 80 percent during the last 5 years of population remained low through 1995, through October 15, 1998, and severe their study (Mech and Goyal 1995). before commencing an increase that fur loss affected five other wolves that Additional unpublished data gathered continued into 2005 (Peterson and died from other causes. During that since 1995 indicate that CPV had Vucetich 2005). Factors other than period, mange was the third largest reduced wolf population growth in that disease, however, may have caused, or cause of death in Wisconsin wolves, area from 1979 to 1989, but not since contributed to, high mortality and a low behind trauma (usually vehicle that period (Mech in litt. 1999). These level of reproductive success post-CPV collisions) and shooting (Nancy Thomas data provide strong justification for decline, including a low level of genetic in litt. 1998). Largely as a result of continuing population and disease diversity and a prey population mange, pup survival was only 16 monitoring. composed of young healthy moose that percent in 1993, compared to a normal Wisconsin DNR, in conjunction with may make it difficult to secure sufficient 30 percent survival rate from birth to the U.S. Geological Survey National prey for pups (Peterson et al. 1998). one year of age. Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Similar to Wisconsin wolves, Mange continues to be prevalent in Wisconsin, (formerly the National serological testing of Michigan wolves Wisconsin, especially in the central Wildlife Health Laboratory) has an captured from 1992 through 2001 (most Wisconsin wolf population. Mortality extensive dataset on the incidence of recent available data) shows that the data from closely monitored radio- wolf diseases, beginning in 1981. majority of Upper Peninsula wolves collared wolves provides a relatively Canine parvovirus exposure was evident have been exposed to CPV. Fifty-six unbiased estimate of mortality factors, in 5 of 6 wolves tested in 1981, and percent of 16 wolves captured from especially those linked to disease or probably stalled wolf population growth 1992 to 1999 and 83 percent of 23 illegal actions, because nearly all in Wisconsin during the early and mid- wolves captured in 2001 showed carcasses are located within a few days 1980s when numbers there declined or antibody titers at levels established as of deaths. (Diseased wolves suffering were static; at that time 75 percent of 32 indicative of previous CPV exposure from hypothermia or nearing death

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15283

generally crawl into dense cover and percent during the 2001–2004 bioyears. because the WGL wolf range has may go undiscovered if they are not However, the sample sizes are too small experienced a series of mild winters radio-tracked (Shelley and Gehring to reliably detect a trend (MI DNR, beginning with the winter of 1997–1998 2002).) Such data show that over the last unpublished data). Before 2004, MI DNR (Van Deelen 2005). Mange-induced six years mange has killed as many treated all captured wolves with mortality is chiefly a result of winter wolves as were killed by illegal Ivermectin if they showed signs of hypothermia, thus the less severe shooting, making them the two highest mange. In addition, MI DNR vaccinated winters resulted in higher survival of causes of wolf mortality in the State. all captured wolves against CPV and mangy wolves, and increased spread of Based on mortality data from closely canine distemper virus (CDV) and mange to additional wolves during the monitored radio-collared wolves, mange administered antibiotics to combat following spring and summer. The high mortality ranged from 14 percent of potential leptospirosis infections. These wolf population, and especially higher deaths in 2002 to 30 percent of deaths inoculations were discontinued in 2004 wolf density on the landscape, may also in 2003, totaling 27 percent of radio- to provide more natural biotic be contributing to the increasing collared wolf deaths for this period. conditions and to provide biologists occurrence of mange in the WGL wolf Illegal shootings resulted in the death of with an unbiased estimate of disease- population. There has been speculation an identical percentage of wolves caused mortality rates in the population that 500 or more Minnesota wolves died (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2001, (Roell in litt. 2005). as a result of mange over the last 5 to 2002a, 2003a, 2004a, 2005). Mange Wisconsin wolves similarly had been 6 years, causing a slowing or cessation mortality does not appear to be treated with Ivermectin and vaccinated of previous wolf population increase in declining in Wisconsin, and the for CPV and CDV when captured, but the State (Paul, in litt. 2005). incidence of mange may be on the the practice was stopped in 1995 to Lyme disease, caused by the increase among central Wisconsin wolf allow the wolf population to experience spirochete (Borrelia burgdorferi), is packs (Wydeven et al. 2005b). However, more natural biotic conditions. Since another relatively recently recognized not all mangy wolves succumb; other that time, Ivermectin has been disease, first documented in New observations showed that some mangy administered only to captured wolves England in 1975; although it may have wolves are able to survive the winter with severe cases of mange. In the occurred in Wisconsin as early as 1969. (Wydeven et al. 2000, 2001). future, Ivermectin and vaccines will be It is spread by ticks that pass the The survival of pups during their first used sparingly on Wisconsin wolves, infection to their hosts when feeding. winter is believed to be strongly affected but will be used to counter significant Host species include humans, horses, by mange. The highest to date wolf disease outbreaks (Wydeven in litt. dogs, white-tailed deer, white-footed mortality (30 percent of radio-collared 1998). mice, eastern chipmunks, coyotes, and wolves) from mange in Wisconsin in Among Minnesota wolves, mange wolves. The prevalence of Lyme disease 2003 may have had more severe effects may always have been present at low exposure in Wisconsin wolves averaged on pup survival than in previous years levels. However, based on observations 70 percent of live-trapped animals in (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2004). The of wolves trapped under the Federal 1988–91, dropped to 37 percent during prevalence of the disease may have wolf depredation control program, 1992–97 and was back up to 56 percent contributed to the relatively small mange appears to have become more (32 of 57 tested) in 2002–04 (Wydeven population increase in 2003 (2.4 percent widespread in the State during the and Wiedenhoeft 2004b, 2005). Clinical in 2003 as compared to the average 18 1999–2005 period. Data from Wildlife symptoms have not been reported in percent to that point since 1985). Services trapping efforts showed only wolves, but infected dogs can However, mange has not caused a wolves showing symptoms of mange experience debilitating conditions, and decline in the State’s wolf population, were trapped during a 22-month period abortion and fetal mortality have been and even though the rate of population in 1994–96; in contrast, Wildlife reported in infected humans and horses increase has slowed in recent years, the Services trapped 10, 6, and 19 mangy (Kreeger 2003). It is possible that wolf population continues to increase wolves in 2003, 2004, and 2005, individual wolves may be debilitated by despite the continued prevalence of respectively (2005 data run through Lyme disease, perhaps contributing to mange in Wisconsin wolves. Although November 22 only). These data indicate their mortality; however, Lyme disease mange mortality may not be the primary that 12.6 percent of Minnesota wolves is not believed to be a significant factor determinant of wolf population growth were showing symptoms of mange in affecting wolf populations. in the State, the impacts of mange in 2005, (Paul 2005 in litt.). However, the The dog louse (Trichodectes canis) Wisconsin need to be closely monitored thoroughness of these observations may has been detected in wolves in Ontario, as identified and addressed in the not have been consistent over this 11- Saskatchewan, Alaska, Minnesota, and Wisconsin wolf management plan (WI year period. In a separate study, Wisconsin (Mech et al. 1985, Kreeger DNR 1999). mortality data from 12 years (1994– 2003, Paul in litt. 2005). Dogs are Seven wild Michigan wolves died 2005) of monitoring radio-collared probably the source of the initial from mange during 1993–97, making it wolves in 7–9 packs in north-central infections, and subsequently wild responsible for 21 percent of all Minnesota show that 11 percent died canids transfer lice by direct contact mortalities, and all disease-caused from mange (DelGiudice, MN DNR in with other wolves, particularly between deaths, during that period (MI DNR litt. 2005). However, the sample size (17 females and pups (Brand et al. 1995). 1997). During bioyears (mid-April to total mortalities, 2 from mange in 1998 Severe infestations result in irritated mid-April) 1999–04, mange-induced and 2004) is far too small to deduce and raw skin, substantial hair loss, hypothermia killed 9 of the 11 radio- trends in mange mortality over time. particularly in the groin. However, in collared Michigan wolves whose cause Furthermore, these data are from mange contrast to mange, lice infestations of death was attributed to disease, and mortalities, while the Wildlife Services’ generally result in loss of guard hairs it represented 17 percent of the total data are based on mange symptoms, not but not the insulating under fur, thus, mortality during those years. Mange mortalities. hypothermia is less likely to occur and caused the death of 31 percent of radio- It is hypothesized that the current much less likely to be fatal. Even though collared wolves during the 1999–2001 incidence of mange is more widespread observed in nearly 4 percent in a sample bioyears, but that rate decreased to 11 than it would have otherwise been, of 391 Minnesota wolves in 2003–05

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:18 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15284 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

(Paul 2005 in litt.), dog lice infestations programs will need to address such percentage of the wolf population that is have not been confirmed as a cause of threats. live-trapped each year will decline. To wolf mortality, and are not expected to In aggregate, diseases and parasites date, however, the number of wolves have a significant impact even at a local were the cause of 21 percent of the subject to disease testing has not been scale. diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared reduced, with 27 wolves captured and Canine distemper virus (CDV) is an wolves in Michigan from 1999 through tested in the 9 months of 2004 following acute disease of carnivores that has been 2004 (MI DNR unpublished data 2005) State delisting, compared to 22 in 2002 known in Europe since the sixteenth and 27 percent of the diagnosed and 19 in 2003 (Wydeven and century and is now infecting dogs mortalities of radio-collared wolves in Wiedenhoeft 2004b, 2005). The State worldwide (Kreeger 2003). CDV Wisconsin and adjacent Minnesota from will continue to test for disease and generally infects dog pups when they October 1979 through June 2005 parasite loads through periodic are only a few months old, so mortality (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005). necropsy and scat analyses. The plan in wild wolf populations might be Many of the diseases and parasites are also recommends that all wolves live- difficult to detect (Brand et al. 1995). known to be spread by wolf-to-wolf trapped for other studies should have CDV mortality among wild wolves has contact. Therefore, their incidence may their health monitored and reported to been documented only in two littermate increase as wolf densities increase in the WI DNR wildlife health specialists pups in Manitoba (Carbyn 1982), in two the more recently colonized areas. (WI DNR 1999). Alaskan yearling wolves (Peterson et al. Because wolf densities generally are The Minnesota Wolf Management 1984), and in a single Wisconsin pup relatively stable following the first few Plan (MN DNR 2001) states that MN (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003b). years of colonization, wolf-to-wolf DNR ‘‘will collaborate with other Carbyn (1982) concluded that CDV was contacts will not likely lead to a investigators and continue monitoring continuing increase in disease a contributor to a 50 percent decline of disease incidence, where necessary, by prevalence in areas that have been the wolf population in Riding Mountain examination of wolf carcasses obtained occupied for several years or more and National Park (Manitoba, Canada) in the through depredation control programs, are largely saturated with wolf packs mid-1970s. Serological evidence and also through blood/tissue (Mech in litt. 1998). indicates that exposure to CDV is high physiology work conducted by DNR and Disease and parasite impacts may the U.S. Geological Survey. DNR will among some Midwest wolves—29 increase because several wolf diseases percent in northern Wisconsin wolves also keep records of documented and and parasites are carried and spread by suspected incidence of sarcoptic and 79 percent in central Wisconsin domestic dogs. This transfer of mange.’’ In addition, it will initiate wolves in 2002–2004 (Wydeven and pathogens from domestic dogs to wild ‘‘(R)egular collection of pertinent tissues Wiedenhoeft 2004b, 2005). However, wolves may increase as gray wolves of live captured or dead wolves’’ and there has been only a single CDV continue to colonize non-wilderness periodically assess wolf health ‘‘when mortality documented among areas (Mech in litt. 1998). Heartworm, circumstances indicate that diseases or Midwestern wolves (Wydeven and CPV, and rabies are the main concerns parasites may be adversely affecting Wiedenhoeft 2003b), and continued (Thomas in litt. 1998) but dogs may portions of the wolf population.’’ Unlike strong recruitment in Wisconsin and become significant vectors for other Michigan and Wisconsin, Minnesota has elsewhere in North American wolf diseases with potentially serious not established minimum goals for the populations indicates that distemper is impacts on wolves in the future proportion of its wolves that will be not likely a significant cause of (Crawford et al. 2005). However, to date assessed for disease nor does it plan to mortality (Brand 1995). wolf populations in Wisconsin and treat any wolves, although it does not Other diseases and parasites, Michigan have continued their rule out these measures. Minnesota’s including rabies, canine heartworm, expansion into areas with increased less intensive approach to disease blastomycosis, bacterial myocarditis, contacts with dogs and have shown no monitoring and management seems granulomatous pneumonia, brucellosis, adverse pathogen impacts since the warranted in light of its much greater leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, mid-1980s impacts from CPV. abundance of wolves than in the other hookworm, coccidiosis, and canine Disease and parasite impacts are a two States. hepatitis have been documented in wild recognized concern of the Minnesota, In areas within the WGL DPS, but gray wolves, but their impacts on future Michigan, and Wisconsin DNRs. The outside Minnesota, Wisconsin, and wild wolf populations are not likely to Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and Michigan, we lack data on the incidence be significant (Brand et al. 1995, Hassett Management Plan states that necropsies of diseases or parasites in transient in litt. 2003, Johnson 1995, Mech and will be conducted on all dead wolves, wolves. However, the WGL DPS Kurtz 1999, Mech et al. 1985, Thomas and that all live wolves that are handled boundary is laid out in a manner such in litt. 1998, WI DNR 1999, Kreeger will be examined, with blood, skin, and that the vast majority of, and perhaps 2003). Continuing wolf range expansion, fecal samples taken to provide disease all, wolves that will occur in the DPS in however, likely will provide new information (MI DNR 1997). Similarly, the foreseeable future will have avenues for exposure to several of these the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan originated from the Minnesota- diseases, especially canine heartworm, states that as long as the wolf is State- Wisconsin-Michigan wolf rabies, and bovine tuberculosis (Thomas listed as a threatened or endangered metapopulation. Therefore, they will be in litt. 2000), further emphasizing the species, the WI DNR will conduct carrying the ‘‘normal’’ complement of need for disease monitoring programs. necropsies of dead wolves and test a Midwest wolf parasites, diseases, and In addition, the possibility of new sample of live-captured wolves for disease resistance with them. Any new diseases developing and existing diseases and parasites, with a goal of pairs, packs, or populations that diseases, such as chronic wasting screening 10 percent of the State wolf develop within the DPS are likely to disease, West Nile Virus and canine population for diseases annually. experience the same low to moderate influenza (Crawford et al. 2005), moving However, the plan anticipates that after adverse impacts from pathogens that across species barriers or spreading from State delisting (which occurred on have been occurring in the core recovery domestic dogs to wolves must all be March 24, 2004), disease monitoring areas. The most likely exceptions to this taken into account, and monitoring will be scaled back because the generalization would arise from

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:18 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15285

exposure to sources of novel diseases or small component of wolf mortality will depredations of livestock or other more virulent forms that are being not increase with delisting. domestic animals. The resultant spread by other canid species that might Wolves frequently are killed by other reduction in human-caused wolf be encountered by wolves dispersing wolves, most commonly when packs mortality is the main cause of the wolf’s into currently unoccupied areas of the encounter and attack a dispersing wolf reestablishment in large parts of its DPS. To increase the likelihood of as an intruder or when two packs historical range. It is clear, however, detecting such novel, or more virulent, encounter each other along a territorial that illegal killing of wolves has diseases and thereby reduce the risk that boundary. This form of mortality is continued in the form of intentional they might pose to the core meta- likely to increase as more of the mortality and incidental deaths. population after delisting, we will available wolf habitat becomes saturated Illegal killing of wolves occurs for a encourage these States and Tribes to with wolf pack territories, as is the case number of reasons. Some of these provide wolf carcasses or suitable in northeastern Minnesota, but such a killings are accidental (e.g., wolves are tissue, as appropriate, to the USGS trend is not yet evident from Wisconsin hit by vehicles, mistaken for coyotes Madison Wildlife Health Center or the or Michigan data. From October 1979 and shot, or caught in traps set for other Service’s National Wildlife Forensics through June 1998, seven (12 percent) of animals); some of these accidental Laboratory for necropsy. This practice the mortalities of radio-collared killings are reported to State, Tribal, and should provide an early indication of Wisconsin wolves resulted from wolves Federal authorities. It is likely that most new or increasing pathogen threats killing wolves, and 8 of 73 (11 percent) illegal killings, however, are intentional before they reach the core mortalities were from this cause during and are never reported to government metapopulation or impact future 2000–05 (Wydeven 1998, Wydeven and authorities. Because they generally transient wolves to those areas. Wiedenhoeft 2001a, 2002, 2003a, 2004a, occur in remote locations and the Disease summary—We believe that 2005). Gogan et al. (1997) studied 31 evidence is easily concealed, we lack several diseases have had noticeable radio-collared wolves in northern reliable estimates of annual rates of Minnesota from 1987–91 and found that intentional illegal killings. impacts on wolf population growth in 3 (10 percent) were killed by other In Wisconsin, all forms of human- the Great Lakes region in the past. These wolves. Intra-specific strife was the caused mortality accounted for 54 impacts have been both direct, resulting primary cause of mortality within percent of the diagnosed deaths of in mortality of individual wolves, and Voyageurs National Park. The Del radio-collared wolves from October indirect, by reducing longevity and Giudice data (in litt. 2005) show a 17 1979 through June 2005. Thirty percent fecundity of individuals or entire packs percent mortality rate from other wolves of the diagnosed mortalities, and 55 or populations. Canine parvovirus in another study area in north central percent of the human-caused stalled wolf population growth in Minnesota from 1994–2005. This mortalities, were from shooting Wisconsin in the early and mid-1980s behavior is normal in healthy wolf (firearms and bows). Another 14 percent and has been implicated in the decline populations and is an expected outcome of all the diagnosed mortalities (25 of the isolated Isle Royale wolf of dispersal conflicts and territorial percent of the human-caused population in Michigan. Sarcoptic defense, as well as occasional intra-pack mortalities) resulted from vehicle mange has affected wolf recovery in strife. This form of mortality is collisions. (These percentages and those Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and in something that the species has evolved in the following paragraphs exclude two Wisconsin over the last ten years, and with and it should not pose a threat to radio-collared Wisconsin wolves that it is recognized as a continuing problem. wolf populations in the WGL DPS were killed in depredation control Despite these and other diseases and following delisting. actions by USDA–APHIS–Wildlife parasites, the overall trend for wolf Humans have functioned as highly Services in 2003–04. The wolf populations in the WGL DPS continues effective predators of the gray wolf in depredation control programs in the to be upward. Wolf management plans North America for several hundred Midwest are discussed separately under for Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin years. European settlers in the Midwest Depredation Control, below.) include disease monitoring components attempted to eliminate the wolf entirely As the Wisconsin population has that we expect will identify future in earlier times, and the United States increased in numbers and range, vehicle disease and parasite problems in time to Congress passed a wolf bounty that collisions have increased as a allow corrective action to avoid a covered the Northwest Territories in percentage of radio-collared wolf significant decline in overall population 1817. Bounties on wolves subsequently mortalities. During the October 1979 viability. We conclude that diseases and became the norm for States across the through June 1995 period, only 1 of 27 parasites will not prevent the species’ range. In Michigan, an 1838 (4 percent) known mortalities was from continuation of wolf recovery or the wolf bounty became the ninth law that cause; but from July 1995 through maintenance of viable wolf populations passed by the First Michigan June 1998, 5 of the 26 (19 percent) in the DPS. Delisting wolves in the WGL Legislature; this bounty remained in known mortalities resulted from vehicle DPS will not significantly change the place until 1960. A Wisconsin bounty collisions (WI DNR 1999, Wydeven incidence or impacts of disease and was instituted in 1865 and was repealed 1998). From 2002 through 2004, 7 of 45 parasites on these wolves. about the time wolves were extirpated (16 percent) known mortalities were Predation from the State in 1957. Minnesota from that cause (Wydeven and maintained a wolf bounty until 1965. Wiedenhoeft 2003a, 2004a, 2005). No wild animals habitually prey on Subsequent to the gray wolf’s listing A comparison over time for diagnosed gray wolves. Large prey, such as deer, as a federally endangered species, the mortalities of radio-collared Wisconsin elk, or moose (Mech and Nelson 1989, Act and State endangered species wolves shows that 18 of 57 (32 percent) Smith et al. 2001), or other predators, statutes prohibited the killing of wolves were illegally shot from October 1979 such as mountain lions (Felis concolor) except under very limited through 1998, while 12 of 42 (29 or grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) circumstances, such as in defense of percent) were illegally shot from 2002 where they are extant (USFWS 2005), human life, for scientific or through 2004 (Wisconsin DNR 1999; occasionally kill wolves, but this has conservation purposes, or under special Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003a, only been rarely documented. This very regulations intended to reduce wolf 2004a, 2005).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15286 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

It appears that in Wisconsin, vehicle small for reliable comparison to APHIS–Wildlife Services also confirmed collision has been an increasing Wisconsin and Michigan data. a wolf sighting along the Minnesota mortality factor, while illegal shooting A smaller mortality dataset is border near Gary, South Dakota, in has not increased, and shooting may available from a 1987–1991 study of 1996, and a trapper with the South have declined slightly in recent years. wolves in, and adjacent to, Minnesota’s Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks All human-caused mortality factors Voyageurs National Park, along the Department sighted a lone wolf in the (excluding 2 depredation control Canadian border. Of 10 diagnosed western Black Hills in 2002. Several actions) resulted in 35 of 57 (61 percent) mortalities, illegal killing outside the other unconfirmed sightings have been diagnosed deaths of radio-collared Park was responsible for 60 percent of reported from these States, including wolves from October 1979 through the deaths (Gogan et al. 1997). two reports in South Dakota in 2003. 1998, but only 20 of 41 deaths (49 Two Minnesota studies provide some Wolves killed in North and South percent) from 2002 through 2005 limited insight into the extent of Dakota are most often shot by hunters (Wisconsin DNR 1999; Wydeven and human-caused wolf mortality before and after being mistaken for coyotes, or were Wiedenhoeft 2003a, 2004a, 2005). after the species’ listing. On the basis of killed by vehicles. The 2001 mortality in In the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, bounty data from a period that predated South Dakota and one of the 2003 human-caused mortalities accounted for wolf protection under the Act by 20 mortalities in North Dakota were caused 75 percent of the diagnosed mortalities, years, Stenlund (1955) found an annual by M–44 devices that had been legally based upon 34 wolves recovered from human-caused mortality rate of 41 set in response to complaints about 1960 to 1997, including mostly non- percent. Fuller (1989) provided 1980–86 coyotes. radio-collared wolves. Twenty-eight data from a north-central Minnesota In and around the core recovery areas percent of all the diagnosed mortalities study area and found an annual human- in the Midwest, a continuing increase in caused mortality rate of 29 percent, a and 38 percent of the human-caused wolf mortalities from vehicle collisions, figure that includes 2 percent mortality mortalities were from shooting. In the both in actual numbers and as a percent from legal depredation control actions. Upper Peninsula during that period, of total diagnosed mortalities, is Drawing conclusions from comparisons about one-third of all the known expected as wolves continue their of these two studies, however, is mortalities were from vehicle collisions colonization of areas with more human difficult due to the confounding effects (MI DNR 1997). During the 1998 developments and a denser network of of habitat quality, exposure to humans, Michigan deer hunting season, 3 radio- roads and vehicle traffic. In addition, prey density, differing time periods, and the growing wolf populations in collared wolves were shot and killed, vast differences in study design. Wisconsin and Michigan are producing resulting in one arrest and conviction Although these figures provide support greater numbers of dispersing (Hammill in litt. 1999, Michigan DNR for the contention that human-caused individuals each year, and this also will 1999). During the subsequent 3 years, 8 mortality decreased after the wolf’s contribute to increasing numbers of additional wolves were killed in protection under the Act, it is not wolf-vehicle collisions. This increase Michigan by gunshot, and the cut-off possible at this time to determine if would be unaffected by a removal of radio-collar from a ninth animal was human-caused mortality (apart from WGL DPS wolves from the protections located, but the animal was never mortalities from depredation control) of the Act. found. These incidents resulted in 6 has significantly changed over the 30- In those areas of the WGL DPS that guilty pleas, with 3 cases remaining year period that the gray wolf has been are beyond the areas currently occupied open. Data collected from radio-collared listed as threatened or endangered. by wolf packs in Minnesota, Wisconsin, wolves from the 1999 to 2004 bioyears Wolves were largely eliminated from and the UP, we expect that human- (mid-April to mid-April) show that the Dakotas in the 1920s and 1930s and caused wolf mortality in the form of human-caused mortalities still account were rarely reported from the mid-1940s vehicle collisions, shooting, and for the majority of the wolf mortalities through the late 1970s. Ten wolves were trapping have been removing all, or (60 percent) in Michigan. Deaths from killed in these two States from 1981 to nearly all, the wolves that disperse into vehicular collisions were about 15 1992 (Licht and Fritts 1994). Six more these areas. We expect this to continue percent of total mortality (25 percent of were killed in North Dakota since 1992, after Federal delisting. Road densities the human-caused mortality) and with four of these mortalities occurring are high in these areas, with numerous showed no trend over this six-year in 2002 and 2003; in 2001, one wolf was interstate highways and other freeways period. Deaths from illegal killing killed in Harding County in extreme and high-speed thoroughfares that are constituted 38 percent of all mortalities northwestern South Dakota. The extremely hazardous to wolves (65 percent of the human-caused number of reported sightings of gray attempting to move across them. mortality) over the period. From 1999 wolves in North Dakota is increasing. Shooting and trapping of wolves also is through 2001 illegal killings were 31 From 1993–98, six wolf depredation likely to continue as a threat to wolves percent of the mortalities, but this reports were investigated in North in these areas for several reasons. increased to 42 percent during the 2002 Dakota, and adequate signs were found Especially outside of Minnesota, through 2004 bioyears (MI DNR, to verify the presence of wolves in two Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula, unpublished data). of the cases. A den with pups was also hunters will not expect to encounter North-central Minnesota data from 16 documented in extreme north-central wolves, and may easily mistake them for diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared North Dakota near the Canadian border coyotes from a distance, resulting in wolves over a 12-year period (1994– in 1994. From 1999–2003, 16 wolf unintentional shootings. 2005) show that human-causes resulted sightings/depredation incidents in It is important to note that, despite the in 69 percent of the diagnosed North Dakota were reported to USDA– difficulty in measuring the extent of mortalities. This includes 1 wolf APHIS–Wildlife Services, and 9 of these illegal killing of wolves, all sources of accidentally snared, 2 vehicle collisions, incidents were verified. Additionally, wolf mortality, including legal (e.g., and 8 (50 percent of all diagnosed one North Dakota wolf sighting was depredation control) and illegal human- mortalities) that were shot (Del Giudice, confirmed in early 2004, and two wolf caused mortality, have not been of in litt. 2005). However, this data set of depredation incidents were verified sufficient magnitude to stop the only 16 mortalities over 12 years is too north of Garrison in late 2005. USDA– continuing growth of the wolf

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15287

population in Wisconsin and Michigan, resulting from fluctuations in birth and Regulatory Assurances in States Within nor to cause a wolf population decline mortality rates. Adequate wolf the Significant Portion of the Range in Minnesota. This indicates that total monitoring programs, however, as State Wolf Management Planning. In gray wolf mortality does not threaten described in the Michigan, Wisconsin, late 1997, the Michigan Wolf the continued viability of the wolf and Minnesota wolf management plans Management Plan was completed and population in these three States, or in are likely to identify high mortality rates received the necessary State approvals. the WGL DPS. and/or low birth rates that warrant The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board Predation summary—The high corrective action by the management approved the Wisconsin Wolf reproductive potential of wolves allows agencies. The goals of all three State Management Plan in October 1999. The wolf populations to withstand relatively wolf management plans are to maintain MN DNR prepared a Wolf Management high mortality rates, including human- wolf populations well above the Plan and an accompanying legislative caused mortality. The principle of numbers recommended in the Federal bill in early 1999 and submitted them to compensatory mortality is believed to the Minnesota Legislature. The occur in wolf populations. This means Eastern Recovery Plan to ensure long- Legislature, however, failed to approve that human-caused mortality is not term viable wolf populations. The State the Minnesota Plan in the 1999 session. simply added to ‘‘natural’’ mortality, but management plans recommend a rather replaces a portion of it. For minimum wolf population of 1,600 in In early 2000, the MN DNR drafted a example, some of the wolves that are Minnesota, 350 in Wisconsin, and 200 second bill that would have resulted in killed during depredation control in Michigan. somewhat different wolf management and protection than the 1999 bill. The actions would have otherwise died Despite human-caused mortalities of legislature did not pass the 2000 during that year from disease, wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and intraspecific strife, or starvation. Thus, Minnesota wolf management bill, but Michigan, these wolf populations have instead passed separate legislation the addition of intentional killing of continued to increase in both numbers wolves to a wolf population will reduce directing the DNR to prepare a new and range. If wolves in the WGL DPS are management plan based upon various one or more mortality rates that wolf delisted, as long as other mortality population experiences. Based on 19 new regulatory provisions that factors do not increase significantly and addressed wolf protection and the take studies by other wolf researchers, Fuller monitoring is adequate to document, et al. (2003) concludes that human- of wolves. The MN DNR completed the and if necessary counteract, the effects Minnesota Wolf Management Plan (MN caused mortality can replace about 70 of excessive human-caused mortality percent of other forms of mortality. Plan) in early 2001 (MN DNR 2001). Fuller et al. (2003) has summarized should that occur, the Minnesota- The Minnesota Wolf Management the work of various researchers in Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population Plan. The MN Plan is based, in part, on estimating mortality rates, especially will not decline to nonviable levels in the recommendations of a State wolf human harvest, that would result in the foreseeable future as a result of management roundtable and on a State wolf population stability or decline. human-caused killing or other forms of wolf management law enacted in 2000. They provide a number of human- predation either within the core wolf This law and the Minnesota Game and caused and total mortality rate estimates populations or in all other parts of the Fish Laws constitute the basis of the and the observed population effects in DPS. State’s authority to manage wolves. The Plan’s stated goal is ‘‘to ensure the long- wolf populations in the United States D. The Adequacy or Inadequacy of and Canada. While variability is term survival of wolves in Minnesota Existing Regulatory Mechanisms apparent, in general, wolf populations while addressing wolf—human conflicts increased if their total average annual Human activities may adversely affect that inevitably result when wolves and mortality was 30 percent or less, and wolf abundance and population people live in the same vicinity.’’ It establishes a minimum goal of 1,600 populations decreased if their total viability in a variety of ways—by wolves in the State. Key components of average annual mortality was 40 percent degrading or reducing the wolf habitat the plan are population monitoring and or more. Four of the cited studies and range (Factor A); by excessive management, management of wolf showed wolf population stability or mortality via commercial or recreational depredation of domestic animals, increases with human-caused mortality harvest (Factor B); by acting as a management of wolf prey, enforcement rates of 24 to 30 percent. The clear predator of wolves and killing them for conclusion is that a wolf population of laws regulating take of wolves, public other reasons, to reduce perceived with high pup productivity—the normal education, and increased staffing to competition for wild ungulates, or in the situation in a wolf population—can accomplish these actions. Following interests of human safety; by serving as withstand levels of overall and of delisting, Minnesota DNR’s management human-caused mortality without a vector for wolf-impacting diseases or of wolves would differ from their suffering a long-term decline in parasites (Factor C); and in other ways current management while listed as numbers. (Factor E). Following Federal delisting threatened under the Act. Most of these The wolf populations in Minnesota, under the Act, many of these human differences deal with the control of Wisconsin, and Michigan will stop activities would be regulated or wolves that attack or threaten domestic growing at some point when they have prohibited by various regulatory animals. Additional aspects of the saturated the suitable habitat and are mechanisms implemented by State, Minnesota Plan are discussed here. curtailed in less suitable areas by Federal, or Tribal agencies. Therefore, The Minnesota Plan divides the State natural mortality (disease, starvation, the remaining human activities with the into two wolf management zones-Zones and intraspecific aggression), potential to impact wolf populations are A and B (see Figure 2 below). Zone A depredation management, incidental discussed under this factor (Factor D). corresponds to wolf management zones mortality (e.g., road kill), illegal killing, We will compare current regulatory 1 through 4 (an approximately 30,000 and other means. At that time, we mechanisms within the DPS with the mi2 area in northeastern Minnesota) in should expect to see population future mechanisms that will provide the the Service’s Eastern Recovery Plan, declines in some years followed by framework for wolf management after whereas Zone B constitutes zone 5 in short-term increases in other years, delisting. the Eastern Recovery Plan. Within Zone

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15288 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

A, wolves would receive strong animals. The rules governing the take of Zone B would be less protective than in protection by the State, unless they were wolves to protect domestic animals in Zone A. involved in attacks on domestic BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:18 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 EP27MR06.001 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15289

MN DNR plans to allow wolf numbers MN DNR acknowledges that increased additional information in Recovery). and distribution to naturally expand, enforcement of the State’s wolf laws and Minnesota wolf numbers grew at an and if any winter population estimate is regulations would be dependent on average annual rate of nearly 4 percent below 1,600 wolves, it would take increases in staff and resources, between 1989 and 1998 while the actions to ‘‘assure recovery’’ to 1,600 additional cross-deputization of tribal depredation control program was taking wolves. MN DNR will continue to law enforcement officers, and continued its highest percentages of wolves (Paul monitor wolves in Minnesota to cooperation with Federal law 2004). determine whether such intervention is enforcement officers. They specifically Under a Minnesota statute, the necessary. The MN DNR will conduct a propose after delisting to add three Minnesota Department of Agriculture statewide population survey no later Conservation Officers ‘‘strategically (MDA) compensates livestock owners than the fifth year after delisting and at located within current gray wolf range for full market value of livestock that subsequent five-year intervals. In in Minnesota’’ whose priority duty wolves have killed or severely injured. addition to these statewide population would be to implement the gray wolf A university extension agent or surveys, MN DNR annually reviews data management plan (MN DNR 2001). conservation officer must confirm that on depredation incident frequency and Minnesota DNR will consider wolf wolves were responsible for the locations provided by Wildlife Services population management measures, depredation. The agent or officer also and winter track survey indices (Erb including public hunting and trapping evaluates the livestock operation for 2005) to help ascertain annual trends in seasons and other methods, in the conformance to a set of Best wolf population or range. future. However, State law and the MN Management Practices (BMPs) designed Minnesota (MN DNR 2001) plans to Plan state that such consideration will to minimize wolf depredation and reduce or control illegal mortality of occur no sooner than five years after provides operators with an itemized list wolves through education, increased Federal delisting, and there would be of any deficiencies relative to the BMPs. enforcement of the State’s wolf laws and opportunity for full public comment on The Minnesota statute also requires regulations, by discouraging new road such possible changes at that time (MN MDA to periodically update its BMPs to access in some areas, and by Statutes 97B.645 Subdiv. 9; MN DNR incorporate new practices that it finds maintaining a depredation control 2001). The MN Plan requires that these would reduce wolf depredation. Following Federal delisting, program that includes compensation for population management measures have depredation control would be livestock losses. MN DNR plans to use to be implemented in such a way to maintain a statewide late-winter wolf authorized under Minnesota State law a variety of methods to encourage and population of at least 1,600 animals, and conducted in conformance to the support education of the public about well above the Federal Recovery Plan’s Minnesota Wolf Management Plan (MN the effects of wolves on livestock, wild 1250–1400 for the State (USFWS 1992). DNR 2001). The Minnesota Plan divides ungulate populations, and human the State into Wolf Management Zones activities and the history and ecology of Depredation Control in Minnesota A and B. Zone A comprises the current wolves in the State (MN DNR 2001). Wolves that have attacked domestic Federal Wolf Management Zones 1–4, These are all measures that have been in animals in Minnesota have been killed covering 30,728 sq. mi., approximately effect for years in Minnesota, although by designated government employees the northeastern third of the State. Zone ‘‘increased enforcement’’ of State laws under the authority of a special B is identical to the current Federal against take of wolves (MN DNR 2001) regulation under section 4(d) of the Act Wolf Management Zone 5, and contains would replace enforcement of the Act’s since the 1978 reclassification of wolves the 48,889 sq. mi. that make up the rest take prohibitions. Financial to threatened status. During the period of the State (MN DNR 2001). The compensation for livestock losses has from 1980–2004, the federal Minnesota statewide survey conducted during the been increased in recent years to the full wolf depredation control program winter of 2003–04 provided an estimate market value of the animal, replacing euthanized from 20 (in 1982) to 216 (in that there were approximately 2,570 previous caps of $400 and $750 per 1997) gray wolves annually. Annual wolves in Zone A and 450 in Zone B (J. animal. We do not expect the State’s averages (and percentage of statewide Erb, MN DNR, in litt. 2005). As efforts will result in the reduction of populations) were 30 (2.2 percent) discussed in Recovery, the Federal illegal take of wolves from existing wolves killed from 1980 to 1984, 49 (3.0 planning goal for Zones 1–4 is 1251– levels, but these measures may be percent) from 1985 to 1989, 115 (6.0 1400 wolves and no wolves in Zone 5 crucial in ensuring that illegal mortality percent) from 1990 to 1994, and 152 (6.7 (USFWS 1992). does not significantly increase following percent) from 1995 to 1999. During Currently, while federally-protected Federal delisting. 2000–04 an average of 127 wolves (4.2 as a threatened species in Minnesota, no The likelihood of illegal take percent of the wolf population, based on control of depredating wolves is increases in relation to road density and the 2003–2004 statewide estimate) were allowed in Zone 1. In Zones 2 through human population density, but killed under the program annually. 5 employees or agents of the Service changing attitudes towards wolves may Since 1980, the lowest annual (including USDA–APHIS–Wildlife allow them to survive in areas where percentage of Minnesota wolves killed Services) or MN DNR may take wolves road and human densities were under this program was 1.5 percent in in response to depredations of domestic previously thought to be too high (Fuller 1982; the highest percentage was 9.4 in animals within one-half mile of the et al. 2003). MN DNR does not plan to 1997 (Paul 2004). depredation site. Young-of-the-year reduce current levels of road access, but This level of wolf removal for captured on or before August 1 of that would encourage managers of land areas depredation control has not interfered year must be released. The regulations large enough to sustain one or more with wolf recovery in Minnesota, that allow for this take (50 CFR wolf packs to ‘‘be cautious about adding although it may have slowed the 17.40(d)(2)(i)(B)(4)) do not specify a new road access that could exceed a increase in wolf numbers in the State, maximum duration for depredation density of one mile of road per square especially since the late-1980s, and may control, but Wildlife Services personnel mile of land, without considering the be contributing to the possibly follow informal guidelines under which potential effect on wolves’’ (MN DNR stabilized Minnesota wolf population they trap for no more than 10–15 days, 2001). suggested by the 2003–04 estimate (see except at sites with repeated or chronic

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:18 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15290 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

depredation, where they may trap for up may still persist in Zone B despite the for wolves in Zone B in order to to 30 days (Paul, pers. comm. 2004). likely increased take there. The Eastern maintain a Minnesota wolf population Timber Wolf Recovery Team concluded that continues to satisfy the Federal Post-Delisting Depredation Control in that the changes in wolf management in recovery goals after Federal delisting. Minnesota the State’s Zone A would be ‘‘minor’’ The proposed changes in the control Upon Federal delisting, wolf and would not likely result in of depredating wolves in Minnesota depredation control would be modified ‘‘significant change in overall wolf under State management emphasize the under Minnesota’s Wolf Management numbers in Zone A.’’ They found that, need for post-delisting monitoring. Plan, with the greatest change occurring despite an expansion in the depredation Minnesota will continue to monitor in Zone B. In Zone A, if DNR verifies control area from approximately 1 to 3 wolf populations throughout the State that a wolf destroyed any livestock, square miles and an extension of the and will also monitor all depredation domestic animal, or pet, trained and control period to 60 days, depredation control activities in Zone A (MN DNR certified predator controllers may take control will remain ‘‘very localized’’ in 2001). These and other activities wolves within a one-mile radius of the Zone A. The requirement that contained in their plan would be depredation site for up to 60 days. In depredation control activities be essential in meeting their population Zone B, predator controllers may take conducted only in response to verified goal of a minimum statewide winter wolves for up to 214 days after MN DNR wolf depredation in Zone A played a population of 1,600 wolves, which opens a depredation control area, key role in the team’s evaluation (R. exceeds the Recovery Plan’s criteria of depending on the time of year. The DNR Peterson, in litt. 2001). Depredation 1,251 to 1,400 wolves. may open a control area in Zone B control would be allowed throughout The Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan anytime within five years of a verified Zone A, which includes an area (Federal Both the Wisconsin and Michigan depredation loss upon request of the Wolf Management Zone 1) where such Wolf Management Plans are designed to landowner. control has not been permitted under The Minnesota plan would also allow manage and ensure the existence of wolf Federal protection. Depredation in Zone for private wolf depredation control populations in the States as if they are 1, however, has been limited to 3 to 6 throughout the State. Persons may shoot isolated populations and are not reported incidents per year, mostly of or destroy a gray wolf that poses an dependent upon immigration of wolves wolves killing dogs (Paul, pers. comm. immediate threat to their livestock, from an adjacent State or Canada. Thus, 2004), although some dog kills in this guard animals, or domestic animals on even after Federal wolf delisting, each zone probably go unreported. There are lands that they own, lease, or occupy. State will be managing for a wolf few livestock in Zone 1; therefore, the Immediate threat is defined as ‘‘stalking, population at, or in excess of, the 200 number of verified depredation attacking, or killing.’’ Owners of wolves identified in the Federal domestic pets may also kill wolves incidents in that Zone is expected to be Recovery Plan as necessary for a viable posing an immediate threat to pets low, resulting in a correspondingly low isolated wolf population. We support under their supervision on lands that number of depredating wolves being this approach and believe it provides they do not own or lease, although such killed there after delisting. strong assurances that the gray wolf will actions are subject to local ordinances, Within Zone B, the Minnesota wolf remain a viable component of the WGL trespass law, and other applicable management plan would provide broad DPS for the foreseeable future. The WI restrictions. MN DNR will investigate authority to landowners and land Plan updates are expected to be any private taking of wolves in Zone A. managers to shoot wolves at any time to completed and approved by the Natural The Minnesota Plan would also allow protect their livestock, pets, or other Resources Board in mid-2006 persons to harass wolves anywhere in domestic animals on land owned, (Wydeven, pers. comm. 2006).] the State within 500 yards of ‘‘people, leased, or managed by the individual. At the time the Wisconsin Wolf buildings, dogs, livestock, or other Such takings can occur in the absence Management Plan was completed, it domestic pets or animals’’ (MN DNR of wolf attacks on the domestic animals. recommended immediate 2001). Harassment may not include Thus, the estimated 450 wolves in Zone reclassification from State-endangered physical injury to a wolf. B could be potentially subject to to State-threatened status because To protect their domestic animals in substantial reduction in numbers, and Wisconsin’s wolf population had Zone B, individuals do not have to wait one could even argue that at the already exceeded its reclassification for an immediate threat in order to take extreme, wolves could be eliminated criterion of 80 wolves for 3 years; that wolves. At anytime in Zone B, persons from Zone B. However, there is no way State reclassification occurred in 1999, who own, lease, or manage lands may to reasonably evaluate in advance the after the population exceeded that level shoot wolves on those lands to protect extent to which residents of Zone B will for 5 years. The Plan further livestock, domestic animals, or pets. use this new authority, and any estimate recommends the State manage for a gray They may also employ a predator of future wolf numbers in Zone B would wolf population of 350 wolves outside controller to trap a gray wolf on their be highly speculative at this time. The of Native American reservations, and land or within one mile of their land fact that this broad authority is limited specifies that the species should be (with permission of the landowner) to to Zone B is consistent with the Federal delisted by the State once the protect their livestock, domestic Recovery Plan’s advice that wolves population reaches 250 animals outside animals, or pets. should be restored to the rest of of reservations. The species was This expansion of depredation control Minnesota but not to Zone B (Federal proposed for State delisting in late 2003, activities will not threaten the Zone 5) because that area ‘‘is not and the State delisting process was conservation of wolves in the State. suitable for wolves.’’ The Federal completed in 2004. Upon State Significant changes in wolf depredation Recovery Plan envisioned that the delisting, the species was classified as a control under State management would Minnesota numerical recovery goal ‘‘protected nongame species,’’ a primarily be restricted to Zone B, which would be achieved solely in Zone A designation that continues State is outside of the area that our Recovery (Federal Zones 1–4) (USFWS 1992), and prohibitions on sport hunting and Plan found was necessary for wolf that has occurred. Therefore, there is no trapping of the species (Wydeven and recovery (USFWS 1992), and wolves need to maintain significant protection Jurewicz 2005). The Wisconsin Plan

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15291

includes criteria that would trigger State components of the plan that are key to found. Wolf scat will be collected and relisting to threatened (a decline to our evaluation are not expected to analyzed to monitor for canine viruses fewer than 250 wolves for 3 years) or change; specifically, the State wolf and parasites. Health monitoring will be endangered status (a decline to fewer population goal of 350 animals, the part of the capture protocol for all than 80 wolves for 1 year). The boundaries of the four wolf management studies that involve the live capture of Wisconsin Plan will be reviewed zones, and the guidelines for the wolf Wisconsin wolves. annually by the Wisconsin Wolf depredation control program will not Cooperative habitat management will Advisory Committee and will be undergo significant alteration during the be promoted with public and private reviewed by the public every 5 years. update process (Wydeven pers. comm. landowners to maintain existing road The WI Plan sets a management goal 2005, Jurewicz pers. comm. 2005, of 350 wolves, well above the 200 Wydeven 2006). densities in Zones 1 and 2 (see Figure wolves specified in the Federal recovery An important component of the WI 3), protect wolf dispersal corridors, and plan for a viable isolated wolf Plan is the annual monitoring of wolf manage forests for deer and beaver. population. The WI Plan is currently populations by radio collars and winter Furthermore, in Zone 1, a year-around being updated to reflect current wolf track surveys in order to provide prohibition on tree harvest within 330 numbers, additional knowledge, and comparable annual data to assess feet of den and rendezvous sites, and issues that have arisen since its 1999 population size and growth for at least seasonal restrictions to reduce completion. This update will be put into 5 years after Federal delisting. This disturbance within one-half mile, will service in the form of one or more monitoring will include health be DNR policy on public lands and will appendices to the 1999 plan, rather than monitoring of captured wolves and be encouraged on private lands. as a major revision to the plan. Several necropsies of dead wolves that are BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15292 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C restitution value to be levied in addition not advocated in the most recent draft The WI Plan contains other to fines and other penalties for wolves update of the Wisconsin Plan (WI DNR recommendations that would provide that are illegally killed. 1999, Wydeven 2006). The plan briefly protection to assist maintenance of a The WI Plan emphasizes the discusses (Appendix D) the possibility viable wolf population in the State: (1) continuing need for public education of a public harvest after the Statewide Continue the protection of the species as efforts that focus on living with a (outside Indian reservations) wolf a ‘‘protected wild animal’’ with recovered wolf population, ways to population reaches 350, but it takes no penalties similar to those for unlawfully manage wolves and wolf-human steps to begin establishing a public killing large game species (fines of conflicts, and the ecosystem role of harvest. Public attitudes toward a wolf $1000–2000, loss of hunting privileges wolves. The plan recommends population in excess of 350 would have for 3–5 years, and a possible 6-month reimbursement for depredation losses, to be fully evaluated, as would the jail sentence), (2) maintain closure citizen stakeholder involvement in the impacts from other mortalities, before a zones where coyotes cannot be shot wolf management program, and public harvest could be initiated. A during deer hunting season in Zone 1, coordination with the Tribes in wolf public harvest must be preceded by a (3) legally protect wolf dens under the management and investigation of illegal citizen review process, including public Wisconsin Administrative Code, (4) killings. hearings, as well as approvals by the require State permits to possess a wolf A public harvest of gray wolves is not State legislature and by the Natural or wolf-dog hybrid, and (5) establish a included in the Wisconsin Plan, and is Resources Board. The fact that the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 EP27MR06.002 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15293

Wisconsin Plan calls for State relisting 29 (plus 6 presumed wolf-dog hybrids) December 5, 2005; Wydeven, pers. of the wolf as a threatened species if the were euthanized in 2005. This comm. December 6, 2005; Wydeven population falls to fewer than 250 for 3 represents 5.1 percent, 6.4 percent, and 2006). Verification of wolf depredation years provides a strong assurance that 6.8 percent, respectively, of the late incidents will continue to be conducted any future public harvest is not likely to winter population of Wisconsin wolves by USDA–APHIS–Wildlife Services, threaten the persistence of the during the previous winter. (Note that working under a cooperative agreement population. some of the wolves euthanized after with WI DNR, or at the request of a Given the likely decline and ultimate August 1 were young-of-the-year who Tribe, depending on the location of the termination in Federal funding for wolf were not present during the late winter reported incident. Following monitoring in the future, Wisconsin and survey, so the cited percentages are verification, one or more of several Michigan DNRs are seeking an effective, overestimates.) Following this level of options will be implemented to address yet cost-efficient, method for detecting lethal depredation control, the WI wolf the depredation problem. Technical wolf population changes to replace the population increased 11 percent from assistance, consisting of advice or current labor-intensive and expensive 2003 to 2004, and 14 percent from 2004 recommendations to reduce wolf monitoring protocols. A methodology to 2005, indicating a continuing healthy conflicts, will be provided. Technical similar to that implemented in rate of population increase (Wydeven assistance may also include providing to Minnesota was tested in Wisconsin and Jurewicz 2005, Wydeven et al the landowner various forms of non- during the winter of 2003–04, but the 2005b). results of the comparison were A significant portion of depredation injurious behavior modification inconclusive, so wolf population incidents in Wisconsin involve attacks materials, such as flashing lights, noise monitoring methodology likely will on dogs engaged in bear hunting makers, temporary fencing, and fladry. remain unchanged. activities or dogs being trained in the For depredation incidents in Wisconsin The WI Plan allows for differing field for hunting. Attacks on other dogs Zones 1 through 3, where all wolf packs levels of protection and management occur much less frequently. The currently reside, wolves may be trapped within four separate management zones frequency of attacks on hunting dogs and translocated and released at a point (see figure 3). The Northern Forest Zone has increased as the State’s wolf distant from the depredation site. As (Zone 1) and the Central Forest Zone population has grown. In 2004, 13 dogs noted above, translocating depredating (Zone 2) now contain most of the wolf involved in bear hunting or training wolves has become increasingly population, with less than 5 percent of were killed by wolves and 2 dogs not difficult in Wisconsin and is likely to be the Wisconsin wolves in Zones 3 and 4. involved in hunting/training were used infrequently in the future. In most Zones 1 and 2 have all the larger killed. These incidents were believed to wolf depredation cases where technical unfragmented areas of suitable habitat, involve 7 different wolf packs, or 8 assistance and non-lethal methods of so most of the State’s wolf packs will percent of the 108 packs in Wisconsin behavior modification are judged to be continue to inhabit those parts of in 2004. In 2005, 17 dogs were killed ineffective, wolves will be trapped and Wisconsin for the foreseeable future. and 6 injured by wolves, including 12 euthanized or shot by Wildlife Services Depredation Control in Wisconsin dogs killed and 3 injured during bear/ or DNR personnel. coyote hunting and training (Wydeven Following Federal delisting, in certain The rapidly expanding Wisconsin pers. comm. January 22, 2006). While wolf population has resulted in circumstances, Wisconsin landowners Wisconsin DNR compensates dog will be able to obtain permits from WI increased depredation problems. From owners for mortalities and injuries to 1979 through 1989, there were only five DNR to kill depredating wolves. In their dogs, DNR takes no action against Zones 1 and 2, where over 95 percent cases (an average of 0.4 per year) of the depredating pack. Instead, the DNR verified wolf depredations in of wolves currently reside, these permits issues press releases to warn bear will be available to private landowners Wisconsin. Between 1990 and 1997, hunters and bear dog trainers of the if their property has had a history of there were 27 verified depredation areas where wolf packs have been recurring wolf depredation problems incidents in the State (an average of 3.4 attacking bear dogs (WI DNR 2002) and and if the WI DNR believes that per year), and 82 incidents (an average provides maps and advice to hunters on additional depredation is likely to of 16.4 per year) occurred from 1998– the DNR web site. 2002. Depredation incidents increased occur. These permits will primarily be to 23 cases (including 50 domestic Post-delisting Depredation Control in issued in response to livestock animals killed and 4 injured) in 2003, Wisconsin depredations, but may be infrequently and to 35 cases (53 domestic animals Following Federal delisting, wolf issued in response to repeated instances killed, 3 injured, and 6 missing) in 2004 depredation control in Wisconsin would of, or high likelihood of, depredation on (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2004a, be carried out according to the confined pets. The permits will be of 2005a). In 2005, depredation grew to 45 Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan (WI short duration and will place a limit on cases, with 53 domestic animals killed DNR 1999), Wisconsin guidelines for the number of wolves to be killed. Based and 11 injured. The number of farms conducting depredation control on wolf depredation data from recent experiencing wolf depredations on (Wisconsin DNR 2005), and any Tribal years, there currently are 10 to 12 livestock grew from 8 in 2002, to 14 in wolf management plans or guidelines Wisconsin farms that have such a 2003, to 22 in 2004, and to 25 in 2005 that may be developed in the future for history and would likely qualify for (Wydevin and Jurewicz, 2005). reservations in occupied wolf range. landowner permits to kill depredating Over the several years that lethal While the Wisconsin Wolf Management wolves. In Zone 3 (currently has less depredation control has been conducted Plan is currently being updated by the than 5 percent of the State’s wolves) and in Wisconsin, there is no indication that DNR, these updates are not expected to Zone 4 (currently has no wolf packs), it has adversely impacted the ability to significantly change the State Plan, and landowners will be able to get DNR maintain a viable wolf population in the there are no plans to change the wolf permits to kill depredating or nuisance State. As a result of depredation control management goal of 350 wolves nor the wolves on their property if wolf actions, 17 wolves were euthanized in depredation management program depredation has been verified at the site, 2003, 24 were euthanized in 2004, and (Randall Jurewicz, WI DNR, pers. comm. but there is no history of recurring

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15294 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

depredation incidents (WI DNR 1999, evidence that this form of depredation deer farms fencing have recently been Wydeven pers. comm. 2006). control will not adversely impact the strengthened, and it is unlikely that In Zones 3 and 4, following Federal viability of the Wisconsin wolf more than an occasional wolf will need delisting, proactive control (that is, population. to be killed to resolve depredation removing wolves before depredation One significant change to lethal inside deer farms in the foreseeable occurs) or initiating intensive control to control that likely would result from future. Claims for wolf depredation reduce the wolf population in a limited Federal delisting would be the ability of compensation are rejected if the area may be conducted by WI DNR and a small number of private landowners, claimant is not in compliance with Wildlife Services. This would be done whose farms have a history of recurring regulations regarding farm-raised deer only in areas lacking large expanses of wolf depredation, to obtain DNR fencing or livestock carcass disposal public land and where wolf habitat is permits to kill depredating wolves. We (Wisconsin Statutes 90.20 & 90.21, marginal; it would occur in Zone 3 only estimate that up to 3 wolves from each Wisconsin Administrative Code 12.53) if the wolf population is above the State of 5 to 10 farms may be killed annually Data from verified wolf depredations management goal of 350. Proactive under these permits in the several years in recent years indicate that depredation control may also be carried out in Zones immediately after delisting. Because the on livestock is likely to increase as long 1 and 2, but it would not be carried out late-winter 2004–05 Wisconsin wolf as the Wisconsin wolf population on large public land areas, and only if population exceeded 400 animals, the increases in numbers and range. Most the wolf population exceeds 350 and the death of these 5 to 30 additional wolves large areas of forest land and public DNR determines that local population will not affect the viability of the lands are included in Wisconsin Wolf reduction is desirable. Proactive population. Another significant change Management Zones 1 and 2, and they controls would be allowed in Zones 1, would be proactive trapping or have already been colonized by wolves. 2, and 3 only if the population exceeds intensive control in limited areas. While Therefore, new areas likely to be 350 outside of Indian reservations, and it is not possible to estimate the number colonized by wolves in the future will such controls would cease if the of wolves that might be killed via these be in Zones 3 and 4, where they will be population declines below 350 wolves actions, we are confident that they will exposed to much higher densities of (WI DNR 1999, Wydeven pers. comm. not impact the long-term viability of the farms, livestock, and residences. During 2006). Wisconsin wolf population because they the period from July 2004 through June In Zones 3 and 4, and in urban areas would be carried out only if the State’s 2005, 29 percent (8 of 28) of farms within Zones 1 and 2, local law late-winter wolf population exceeds 350 experiencing wolf depredation were in enforcement officials may be allowed to animals. Zone 3, yet only 4 percent of the State kill wolves that appear to be losing a In recent years the number of dogs wolf population occurs in this zone fear of humans, but have not exhibited attacked by gray wolves in Wisconsin (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005). a clear threat to human safety (WI DNR has increased, with 33 dogs killed and Further expansion of wolves into Zone 1999, Wydeven pers. comm. 2006). A 9 dogs injured in 2001–03. In almost all 3 would likely lead to an increase in more flexible system such as this for cases, these have been hunting dogs that depredation incidents and an increase controlling bold wolves in urban areas were being used for, or being trained for, in lethal control actions against wolves. would also allow easier control of wolf- hunting bears and bobcats at the time These incidents, and resultant wolf dog hybrids that frequently escape or they were attacked. It is believed that mortalities, can be expected to increase are released to the wild (Wydeven and the dogs entered the territory of a wolf at a rate that exceeds the wolf Wiedenhoeft 2005). These hybrids have pack and may have been close to a den, population increase. However, it is not been as readily controlled in the rendezvous site, or feeding location, likely that these mortalities will have no past due to concerns about shooting thus triggering an attack by wolves impact on wolf population viability in endangered wolves. defending their territory or pups. The Wisconsin because of the wolf We have evaluated future lethal Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan states populations in Zones 1 and 2. For the depredation control based upon verified that ‘‘generally only wolves that are foreseeable future, the wolf population depredation incidents over the last habitual depredators on livestock will in Zones 1 and 2 will continue to greatly decade and the impacts of the be euthanized’’ (WI DNR 1999). exceed the Federal recovery goal of 200 implementation of similar lethal control Furthermore, the State’s guidelines for late winter wolves for an isolated of depredating wolves under 50 CFR conducting depredation control actions population and 100 wolves for a 17.40(o) and section 10(a)(1)(A) of the on wolves currently listed as Federally subpopulation connected to the larger Act. Under those authorities, WI DNR threatened say that no control trapping Minnesota population, regardless of the and Wildlife Services trapped and will be conducted on wolves that kill extent of wolf mortality in Zones 3 and euthanized 17 wolves in 2003, 24 in ‘‘dogs that are free-roaming or roaming 4. 2004, and 29 (including several possible at large.’’ Lethal control will only be The possibility of a public harvest of hybrids) in 2005. For 2003, 2004, and conducted on wolves that kill dogs that wolves is acknowledged in the 2005 this represents 5.1 percent, 6.4 are ‘‘leashed, confined, or under the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan and percent, and 6.8 percent (including owner’s control on the owner’s land’’ in plan update drafts (WI DNR 1999, several possible wolf-dog hybrids), (Wisconsin DNR 2005). Because of these Wydeven 2006). However, the question respectively, of the late winter State-imposed limitations, we do not of whether a public harvest will be population of Wisconsin wolves during believe that lethal control of wolves initiated and the details of such a the previous winter. As stated above, depredating on hunting dogs will be a harvest are far from resolved. this level of lethal depredation control significant additional source of Establishing a public harvest would be was followed by a wolf population mortality in Wisconsin. preceded by extensive public input and increase of 11 percent from 2003 to Lethal control of wolves that attack would require legislative authorization 2004, and 14 percent from 2004 to 2005. captive deer is included in the WI DNR and approval by the Wisconsin Natural (Wydeven and Jurewicz 2005, Wydeven depredation control program, because Resources Board. Because of the steps et al 2005b). (Data from the winter farm-raised deer are considered to be that must precede a public harvest of survey for 2005–2006 are not yet livestock under Wisconsin law. wolves and the uncertainty regarding available.) This provides strong However, Wisconsin regulations for the possibility of, and the details of, any

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15295

such program, it is not possible to will remain in the UP regardless of the wolf recovery has been achieved in evaluate the potential impacts of the future fate of wolves in Wisconsin or Michigan, additional scientific public harvest of wolves. Therefore, we Ontario. knowledge has been gained, and new consider public harvest of Wisconsin The MI plan identifies 800 wolves as social issues have arisen since the 1997 wolves to be highly speculative at this the estimated biological carrying Plan was drafted, the DNR intends that time. The Service will closely monitor capacity of suitable areas on the Upper revised plan to be more of a wolf any steps taken by States and/or Tribes Peninsula (MI DNR 1997). (‘‘Carrying management document than a recovery within the WGL DPS to establish any capacity’’ is the number of animals that plan. The DNR is convening a Michigan public harvest of gray wolves in the an area is able to support over the long Wolf Management Roundtable to assist foreseeable future. Based on wolf term; for wolves, it is primarily based on in this endeavor. The Roundtable will population data, the current WI Plan, the availability of prey animals and be a diverse group of citizens drawn and the draft updates, the Service competition from other wolf packs.) from organizations spanning the believes that any public harvest plan Under the MI Plan, wolves in the State spectrum of those interested in, and would continue to maintain wolf would be considered recovered when a impacted by, wolf recovery and populations well above the recovery sustainable population of at least 200 management in Michigan, including goal of 200 wolves in late winter. wolves is maintained for 5 consecutive Tribal entities and organizations The WI DNR compensates livestock years. The Upper Peninsula has had focused on agriculture, hunting/ and pet owners for confirmed losses to more than 200 wolves since the winter trapping, the environment, animal depredating wolves. The compensation of 1999–2000. Therefore, Michigan protection, law enforcement and public is made at full market value of the reclassified wolves from endangered to safety, and tourism. The Roundtable is animal (up to a limit of $2500 for threatened in June 2002, and the gray being asked to engage in strategic hunting dogs and pets) and can include wolf became eligible for State delisting planning for long-term wolf veterinarian fees for the treatment of under the MI Plan’s criteria in 2004. In management. This will include an injured animals (Wisconsin Admin. Michigan, however, State delisting evaluation of the current wolf Rules 12.54). Compensation costs have cannot occur until after Federal management goal and setting priorities been funded from the endangered delisting. During the State delisting for management issues to be addressed resources tax check-off and sales of the process, Michigan intends to amend its by subsequent, more detailed endangered resources license plates. Wildlife Conservation Order to grant operational planning by the DNR. The Current Wisconsin law requires the ‘‘protected animal’’ status to the gray Roundtable may also provide continuation of the compensation wolf. That status would ‘‘prohibit take, recommendations on whom the DNR payment for wolf depredation regardless establish penalties and restitution for should address the priorities it of Federal listing or delisting of the violations of the Order, and detail identifies. The revised Michigan wolf species (WI Admin. Rules 12.53). In conditions under which lethal management plan will be implemented recent years depredation compensation depredation control measures could be when the species has been Federally payments have ranged from $23,000 to implemented’’ (Rebecca Humphries, MI delisted, at which time the wolf would over $76,000. DNR, in litt. 2004). Population become a protected non-game species management, except for depredation Michigan Wolf Management Plan under State law. The DNR’s goal is to control, is not addressed in the MI Plan The Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery ‘‘ensure the wolf population remains beyond statements that the wolf viable and above a level that would and Management Plan (MI Plan) details population may need to be controlled by require either Federal or State wolf recovery and management actions lethal means at some future time, when reclassification as a threatened or needed and wolf recovery goals in the the cultural carrying capacity is reached endangered species’’ (MI DNR 2006). Upper Peninsula (UP) of Michigan. It or approached. does not address the potential need for Similar to the Wisconsin Plan, the At this time, the MI DNR is wolf recovery or management in the 1997 MI Plan recommends high levels developing a ‘‘white paper’’ to guide Lower Peninsula, nor wolf management of protection for wolf den and and help the Roundtable with its within Isle Royale National Park (where rendezvous sites, whether on public or strategic planning by identifying the wolf population is protected by the private land. Both State plans specific wolf issues and providing National Park Service). Necessary wolf recommend that most land uses be background information and data for management actions detailed in the plan prohibited at all times within 330 feet each issue. The Roundtable is being include public education and outreach (100 meters) of active sites. Seasonal given a December 15, 2006, deadline to activities, annual wolf population and restrictions (March through July) should draft a strategic plan that outlines goals health monitoring, research, be enforced within 0.5 mi (0.8 km) of and policies for managing Michigan depredation control, and habitat these sites, to prevent high-disturbance wolves. That draft will then be subject management. activities such as logging from to public review and subsequent As with the WI Plan, MI DNR has disrupting pup-rearing activities. These revision by the Roundtable prior to its chosen to manage the State’s wolves as restrictions should remain in effect even approval and use by MI DNR to develop though they are an isolated population after State delisting occurs (MI DNR operational wolf management that receives no genetic or demographic 1997). guidelines. Because the plan revision benefits from immigrating wolves. The MI Plan calls for re-evaluation of process will not be completed prior to Therefore, the MI Plan contains a long- the plan at 5-year intervals. The MI DNR 2007, we cannot evaluate the strategies term minimum goal of 200 wolves on initiated this process in 2001, with the or activities that it will contain. the UP (excluding Isle Royale wolves), appointment of a committee to evaluate However, MI DNR’s written which is the population level wolf recovery and management. As a commitment to ensure the continued established in the Federal Recovery Plan result of that review, MI DNR concluded viability of a Michigan wolf population for a viable isolated wolf population that a revision of the 1997 Plan is above a level that would trigger State or (USFWS 1992). We strongly support this needed, and a more formal review, Federal listing as threatened or approach, as it provides additional including extensive stakeholder input, endangered is sufficient for us to assurance that a viable wolf population was recently initiated. Recognizing that conclude that both the current MI Plan,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15296 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

and a revised plan to be developed Wolf Management Plan (MI DNR 1997) release site, making this a questionable under the January 12, 2006, instructions and any Tribal wolf management plans method to end the depredation to the Roundtable, will provide that may be developed in the future for behaviors of these wolves (MI DNR adequate regulatory mechanisms for reservations in occupied wolf range. 2005a). Michigan wolves (MI DNR 1997, 2006). However, the current MI Plan was Lethal control of depredating wolves Michigan has not experienced as high written well before Federal delisting is likely to be the most common future a level of attacks on dogs by wolves as was envisioned; it contains no guidance response in situations when improved Wisconsin, although a slight increase in on post-delisting depredation control livestock husbandry and wolf behavior such attacks has occurred over the last and it restricts control actions to modification techniques (e.g., flashing decade. The number of dogs killed in trapping and translocation of problem lights, noise-making devices) are judged the State was one in 1996, one in 1999, wolves. The Michigan Wolf to be inadequate. However, based on three in 2001, four in 2002, and eight in Management Plan is currently being nearly 3 years of depredation control 2003. Similar to Wisconsin, MI DNR has updated by the MI DNR, and a revised when lethal control was used (April 1, guidelines for their depredation control management plan is unlikely to be 2003, to September 13, 2005), only 12 program. The Michigan guidelines state completed before 2007. A series of depredating wolves were euthanized. that lethal control will not be used public meetings were held to gather These deaths constituted less than 2 when wolves kill dogs that are free- public input, and a Wolf Management percent of the UP wolf population, roaming, hunting, or training on public Roundtable is being convened by MI based on previous late-winter surveys. lands. Lethal control of wolves, DNR. The Roundtable will represent the As wolf numbers continue to increase however, would be considered if wolves full spectrum of wolf stakeholder on the UP, the number of verified have killed confined pets and remain in interests and will be charged with depredations will also increase, and will the area where more pets are being held developing recommended goals and probably do so at a rate that exceeds the (MI DNR 2005a). policies for wolf management in the rate of wolf population increase. This will occur as wolves increasingly Depredation Control in Michigan State following Federal delisting (MI DNR 2006). Until such time as the disperse into and occupy areas of the Data from Michigan show a similar Roundtable recommends, and MI DNR UP with more livestock and more increase in confirmed wolf depredations adopts, changes to wolf depredation human residences, leading to additional on livestock and dogs: 1 in 1996, 3 in control measures, the following exposure to domestic animals. In a 1998, 3 in 1999, 5 in 2000, 6 in 2001, practices will be used following Federal recent application for a lethal take 21 in 2003, and 15 in 2004 (MI DNR delisting. permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the unpublished data). As in Wisconsin, the To provide depredation control Act, MI DNR requested authority to number of verified depredation guidance when lethal control is an euthanize up to 10 percent of the late- incidents is increasing much faster than option, MI DNR has developed detailed winter wolf population annually (MI the increase in the State wolf instructions for incident investigation DNR 2005b). However, based on 2003– population. The 46 depredations on and response (MI DNR 2005). 2005 depredation data, it is likely that livestock occurred at 34 different UP Verification of wolf depredation significantly less than 10 percent lethal farms; nearly three-quarters of the incidents will be conducted by MI DNR control will be needed in 2006, or in the depredations were on cattle. Of the 24 or USDA–APHIS–Wildlife Services next several years. dogs killed by wolves in the last decade, personnel (working under a cooperative The Michigan Wolf Management half were hounds being used to hunt agreement with MI DNR or at the Roundtable has been asked to develop bear, and most of the rest were pets request of a Tribe, depending on the goals and policies to guide management attacked near homes. location) who have been trained in of various conflicts caused by wolf During the several years that lethal depredation investigation techniques. recovery, including depredation on control of depredating wolves had been MI DNR specifies that the verification livestock and pets, human safety, and conducted in Michigan, there is no process will use the investigative public concerns regarding wolf impacts evidence of resulting adverse impacts to techniques that have been developed on other wildlife. The Roundtable is the maintenance of a viable wolf and successfully used in Minnesota by being asked to provide population in the Upper Peninsula. Wildlife Services (MI DNR 2005a, esp. recommendations on ‘‘the selection of Four, six, and two wolves, respectively, Append. B). Following verification, one intervention methods to control wolf were euthanized in 2003, 2004, and or more of several options will be problems’’ (MI DNR 2006). While it is 2005. This represents 1.2 percent, 1.7 implemented to address the depredation possible that the Roundtable may percent, and 0.5 percent, respectively, of problem. Technical assistance, recommend management and control the UP’s late winter population of consisting of advice or methods such as private landowner wolves during the previous winter. recommendations to reduce wolf authority to kill wolves, preventative Following this level of lethal conflicts, will be provided. Technical trapping by government trappers, and depredation control, the UP wolf assistance may also include providing to public harvest of wolves, at this time we population increased 12 percent from the landowner various forms of non- can do no more than speculate on what 2003 to 2004, and 13 percent from 2004 injurious behavior modification will be recommended by the Roundtable to 2005, demonstrating that the wolf materials, such as flashing lights, noise and what measures might ultimately be population continues to increase at a makers, temporary fencing, and fladry. adopted by the MI DNR. However, based healthy rate (Huntzinger et al. 2005). Trapping and translocating on the current plan and stated goals for Data from the winter survey for 2005– depredating wolves has been used in the maintaining wolf populations at or 2006 are not yet available. past and may be used in the future, but above recovery goals, the Service as with Wisconsin, suitable relocation believes these changes will not result in Post-Delisting Depredation Control in sites are becoming rarer, and there is significant reductions in MI wolf Michigan local opposition to the release of populations. At this time, MI DNR Following Federal delisting, wolf translocated depredators. Furthermore, remains committed to ensuring a viable depredation control in Michigan would none of the past 24 translocated wolf population above a level that be carried out according to the Michigan depredators have remained near its would trigger Federal relisting as either

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15297

threatened or endangered in the future State wildlife. These protections require wolves dispersing into northern Illinois (MI DNR 2006). specific provisions—seasons and will continue to be protected from Similar to Wisconsin, Michigan regulations—be established prior to human take by State law. livestock owners are compensated when initiating any form of legal take. Thus, The extreme northern portions of they lose livestock as a result of a the State could choose to implement a Indiana and northwestern Ohio are confirmed wolf depredation. Currently hunting or trapping season; however, included within this proposed DPS, and there are two complementary absent some definitive action to any wolves that are found in this area compensation programs in Michigan, establish a season, wolves would remain would not be federally protected under one funded by the MI DNR and protected. Once Federally delisted, any the Act. The State of Ohio classifies the implemented by Michigan Department verified depredating wolves would gray wolf as ‘‘extirpated,’’ and there are of Agriculture (MI DA) and another set likely be trapped and killed by the no plans to reintroduce or recover the up through donations and held by the USDA–APHIS–Wildlife Services species in the State. The species lacks International Wolf Center (IWC), a non- program (Scott Larson, USFWS, Pierre, State protection, but State action is profit organization. From the inception SD, in litt., 2005). Therefore, following likely to apply some form of protection of the program to 2000, MI DA has paid Federal delisting, non-depredating if wolves begin to disperse into the State 90 percent of full market value of wolves in North and South Dakota (Caldwell, in litt. 2005). Indiana DNR depredated livestock value at the time of would continue to receive protection by lists the gray wolf as extirpated in the loss. The IWC account was used to pay the States’ wildlife protection statutes State, and the species would receive no the remaining 10 percent from 2000 to unless specific action is taken to open State protection under this classification 2002 when MI DA began paying 100 a hunting or trapping season or if Federal protection is removed. The percent of the full market value of otherwise remove existing protections. only means to provide State protection depredated livestock. Neither of these would be to list them as State- Post-Delisting Depredation Control in endangered, but that is not likely to programs provide compensation for pets North and South Dakota or for veterinary costs to treat wolf- occur unless wolves become resident in inflicted livestock injuries. The MI DNR Since 1993, five incidents of verified Indiana (Scott Johnson, IN DNR, in litt. plans to continue cooperating with MI wolf depredation have occurred in 2005 and 2006). Thus, Federally DA and other organizations to maintain North Dakota, with the most recent delisted wolves that might disperse into the wolf depredation compensation occurring in September 2003, and two Indiana and Ohio would lack State program (Pat Lederle, MI DNR, pers. more in December 2005. There have protection there, unless these two States comm. 2004). been no verified wolf depredations in take specific action to provide new The complete text of the Wisconsin, South Dakota in recent decades. Upon protections. Michigan, and Minnesota wolf plans, as Federal delisting it is likely that lethal Because the portions of Iowa, Illinois, well as our summaries of those plans, control of a small number of Indiana, and Ohio within the WGL DPS can be found on our Web site (see FOR depredating wolves will occur in one or do not contain suitable habitat or both of these States. Lethal control of FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section currently established packs, depredation above). depredating wolves may have adverse control in these States will not affect the impacts on the ability of wolves to continued viability of the WGL DPS Regulatory Assurances in Other States occupy any small areas of suitable or wolf populations. and Tribal Areas Within the WGL DPS marginally suitable habitat that may Tribal Management and Protection of exist in the States. However, lethal North Dakota and South Dakota Gray Wolves control of depredating wolves in these North Dakota lacks a State endangered two States will have no adverse affects Native American tribes and multi- species law or regulations. Any gray on the long-term viability of wolf tribal organizations have indicated to wolves in the State currently are populations in the WGL DPS as a whole. the Service that they will continue to classified as furbearers, with a closed conserve wolves on most, and probably season. If wolves in all or part of the Other States in the Proposed DPS all, Native American reservations in the State are Federally delisted, North This proposed DPS includes the core recovery areas of the WGL DPS. Dakota Game and Fish Department is portion of Iowa that is north of Interstate The wolf retains great cultural unlikely to change the species’ State Highway 80, which is approximately 60 significance and traditional value to classification. Wolves are included in percent of the State. The Iowa Natural many Tribes and their members the State’s July 2004 list of 100 Species Resource Commission currently lists (additional discussion is found in Factor of Conservation Concern as a ‘‘Level 3’’ gray wolves as furbearers, with a closed E), and to retain and strengthen cultural species. Level 3 species are those season (Daryl Howell, Iowa DNR, in litt. connections, many tribes oppose ‘‘having a moderate level of 2005). If the State retains this listing unnecessary killing of wolves on conservation priority, but are believed following Federal delisting of this reservations and on ceded lands, even if to be peripheral or do not breed in proposed DPS, wolves dispersing into wolves were to be delisted in the future North Dakota.’’ Placement on this list northern Iowa will be protected by State (Eli Hunt, Leech Lake Tribal Council, in gives species greater access to law. litt. 1998; Mike Schrage, Fond du Lac conservation funding, but does not The portion of Illinois that is north of Resource Management Division, in litt. afford any additional regulatory or Interstate Highway 80, less than one- 1998a; James Schlender, Great Lakes legislative protection (Bicknell in litt. fifth of the State, is included in this Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 2005). proposed DPS, and would be part of the in litt. 1998). Some Native Americans Currently any wolves that may be in geographic area where wolves are view wolves as competitors for deer and South Dakota are not State listed as delisted and removed from Federal moose, whereas others are interested in threatened or endangered, nor is there a protection. Gray wolves are currently harvesting wolves as furbearers hunting or trapping season for them. If protected in Illinois as a threatened (Schrage, in litt. 1998a). Many tribes wolves are Federally delisted in all or species under the Illinois Endangered intend to sustainably manage their part of South Dakota, they would fall Species Protection Act (520 ILCS 10). natural resources, wolves among them, under general protections afforded all Thus, following Federal delisting, to ensure that they are available to their

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15298 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

descendants. Traditional natural The Red Lake Band of Chippewa tracking of the wolves. Although by resource harvest practices, however, Indians (Minnesota) has indicated that it early 2005 the last of these wolves died often include only a minimum amount is likely to develop a wolf management on the reservation, the tribal of regulation by the Tribal government plan that will be very similar in scope conservation department continues to (Hunt in litt. 1998). and content to the plan developed by monitor another pair that has moved Although the Tribes with wolves that the MN DNR. The Band’s position on onto the Reservation, as well as other visit or reside on their reservations do wolf management is ‘‘wolf preservation wolves near the reservation (Wydeven not yet have management plans specific through effective management,’’ and the in litt. 2006). to the gray wolf, several Tribes have Band is confident that wolves will Several Midwestern tribes (e.g., the informed us that they have no plans or continue to thrive on their lands Bad River Band of Lake Superior intentions to allow commercial or (Lawrence Bedeau, DNR Director, Red Chippewa Indians and the Little recreational hunting or trapping of the Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, in litt. Traverse Bay Bands of Indians) species on their lands after Federal 1998). The Reservation currently has have expressed concern regarding the delisting. The Service has recently nine packs with an estimated 15–30 possibility of Federal delisting resulting provided the Little Traverse Bay Band of wolves within its boundaries (Jay in increased mortality of gray wolves on Odawa Indians (Michigan) with a grant Huseby, Red Lake Band of Chippewa reservation lands, in the areas funding to develop a gray wolf Indians, pers. comm.. 2006). immediately surrounding the monitoring and management plan. The The Fond du Lac Band (Minnesota) reservations, and in lands ceded by Service has also awarded a grant to the believes that the ‘‘well being of the wolf treaty to the Federal Government by the Ho-Chunk Nation to identify wolf is intimately connected to the well Tribes (Kiogama and Chingwa in litt. habitat on reservation lands. being of the Chippewa People’’ (Schrage 2000). At the request of the Bad River As a result of many past contacts in litt. 2003). In 1998, the Band passed Tribe of Lake Superior Chippewa with, and previous written comments a resolution opposing Federal delisting Indians, we are currently working with from, the Midwestern Tribes and their and any other measure that would their Natural Resource Department and permit trapping, hunting, or poisoning WI DNR to develop a wolf management off-reservation natural resource of the gray wolf (Schrage in litt. 1998b, agreement for lands adjacent to the Bad management agencies—the Great Lakes in litt. 2003). If this prohibition is River Reservation. The Tribe’s goal is to Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission rescinded, the Band’s Resource reduce the threats to reservation wolf (GLIFWC), the 1854 Authority, and the Management Division will coordinate packs when they are temporarily off the Chippewa Ottawa Treaty Authority with State and Federal agencies to reservation. Other Tribes have (CORA)—it is clear that their ensure that any wolf hunting or trapping expressed interest in such an agreement. predominant sentiment is strong would be ‘‘conducted in a biologically If this and similar agreements are support for the continued protection of sustainable manner’’ (Schrage in litt. implemented, they will provide wolves at a level that ensures that viable 2003). additional protection to certain wolf wolf populations remain on reservations The Red Cliff Band (Wisconsin) packs in the midwestern United States. and throughout the treaty-ceded lands strongly opposes State and Federal The Great Lakes Indian Fish and surrounding the reservations. While delisting of the gray wolf. Current Tribal Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) has several Tribes stated that their members law protects gray wolves from harvest, stated its intent to work closely with the may be interested in killing small although harvest for ceremonial States to cooperatively manage wolves numbers of wolves for spiritual or other purposes would likely be permitted in the ceded territories in the core areas, purposes, this would be carried out in after delisting (Matt Symbal, Red Cliff and will not develop a separate wolf a manner that would not impact Natural Resources Department, in litt. management plan (Schlender in litt. reservation or ceded territory wolf 2003). 1998). Furthermore, the Voigt Intertribal populations. The Keweenaw Bay Indian Task Force of GLIFWC has expressed its The Tribal Council of the Leech Lake Community (Michigan) will continue to support for strong protections for the Band of Minnesota Ojibwe (Council) list the gray wolf as a protected animal wolf, stating ‘‘ [delisting] hinges on approved a resolution that describes the under the Tribal Code even if it is whether wolves are sufficiently restored sport and recreational harvest of gray Federally delisted, with hunting and and will be sufficiently protected to wolves as an inappropriate use of the trapping prohibited (Mike Donofrio, ensure a healthy and abundant future animal. That resolution supports limited Keweenaw Bay Indian Community for our brother and ourselves’’ harvest of wolves to be used for Biological Services, pers. comm. 1998). (Schlender, in litt. 2004). traditional or spiritual uses by enrolled Furthermore, the Keweenaw Bay According to the 1854 Authority, Tribal members if the harvest is done in Community plans to develop a ‘‘attitudes toward wolf management in a respectful manner and would not Protected Animal Ordinance that will the 1854 Ceded Territory run the gamut negatively affect the wolf population. address gray wolves (Donofrio in litt. from a desire to see total protection to The Council is revising the Reservation 2003). unlimited harvest opportunity.’’ Conservation Code to allow Tribal While we have not received any past However, the 1854 Authority would not members to harvest some wolves after written comments from the Menominee ‘‘implement a harvest system that would Federal delisting (George Googgleye, Jr. Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, the Tribe has have any long-term negative impacts to Leech Lake Band Tribal Council shown a great deal of interest in wolf wolf populations’’ (Andrew Edwards, Chairman, in litt. 2004). In 2005, the recovery and protection in recent years. 1854 Authority Biological Services, in Leech Lake Reservation was home to an In 2002 the Tribe offered their litt. 2003). In comments submitted for estimated 75 gray wolves, the largest Reservation lands as a site for our 2004 delisting proposal for a larger population of wolves on a Native translocating seven depredating wolves Eastern DPS of the gray wolf, the 1854 American reservation in the 48 that had been trapped by WI DNR and Authority stated that the Authority does conterminous States (Steve Mortensen, Wildlife Services. Tribal natural not have a wolf management plan for Leech Lake Reservation, pers. comm. resources staff participated in the soft the 1854 Ceded Territory, but is 2006; Peter White, Leech Lake Tribal release of the wolves on the Reservation ‘‘confident that under the control of Council, in litt. 2003). and helped with the subsequent radio- state and tribal management, wolves

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15299

will continue to exist at a self-sustaining Forest, the standards and guidelines park’s management policies require that level in the 1854 Ceded Territory * * * specifically include the protection of ‘‘native animals will be protected Sustainable populations of wolves, their den sites and key rendezvous sites, in against harvest, removal, destruction, prey and other resources within the agreement with the WI Wolf Recovery harassment, or harm through human 1854 Ceded Territory are goals to which Plan. The trapping of depredating action.’’ No population targets for the 1854 Authority remains committed. wolves would likely be allowed on wolves will be established for the NP As such, we intend to work with the national forest lands under the (Holbeck, in litt. 2005). To reduce State of Minnesota and other tribes to guidelines and conditions specified in human disturbance, temporary closures ensure successful state and tribal the respective State wolf management around wolf denning and rendezvous management of healthy wolf plans. However, there are relatively few sites will be enacted whenever they are populations in the 1854 Ceded livestock raised within the boundaries discovered in the park. Sport hunting Territory’’ (Sonny Myers, Executive of national forests, so wolf depredation will continue to be prohibited on park Director, 1854 Authority, in litt. 2004). and lethal control of wolves is not likely lands, regardless of what may be While there are few written Tribal to be a frequent occurrence, nor allowed beyond park boundaries protections currently in place for gray constitute a significant mortality factor, (Barbara West, National Park Service, in wolves, the highly protective and for the national forest wolf populations. litt. 2004). A radiotelemetry study reverential attitudes that have been Similarly, in keeping with the practice conducted between 1987–91 of wolves expressed by Tribal authorities and for other State-managed game species, living in and adjacent to the park found members have assured us that any post- any public hunting or trapping season that all mortality inside the park was delisting harvest of reservation wolves for wolves that might be opened in the due to natural causes (e.g., killing by would be very limited and would not future by the States would likely other wolves), whereas all mortality adversely impact the delisted wolf include hunting and trapping within the outside the park was human-induced populations. Furthermore, any off- national forests (Ed Lindquist, Superior (e.g., shooting and trapping) (Gogan et reservation harvest of wolves by Tribal NF, in litt. 11/18/05; Alan Williamson, al. 1997). If there is a need to control members in the ceded territories would Chippewa NF, in litt. 11/17/05; Kirk depredating wolves outside the park, be limited to a portion of the harvestable Piehler, Hiawatha NF, in litt. 11/23/05; which seems unlikely due to the current surplus at some future time. Such a Robert Evans, Ottawa NF, in litt. 11/21/ absence of agricultural activities harvestable surplus would be 05). The continuation of current adjacent to the park, the park would determined and monitored jointly by national forest management practices work with the State to conduct control State and Tribal biologists, and would will be important in ensuring the long- activities where necessary (West in litt. be conducted in coordination with the term viability of gray wolf populations 2004). Service and the Bureau of Indian in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The wolf population in Isle Royale Affairs, as is being successfully done for Gray wolves regularly use four units National Park is described above (see the ceded territory harvest of inland and of the National Park System in the WGL Recovery of the Gray Wolf in the Great Lakes fish, deer, bear, moose, and DPS and may occasionally use three or Western Great Lakes). The NPS has furbearers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and four other units. Although the National indicated that it will continue to closely Michigan. Therefore, we conclude that Park Service (NPS) has participated in monitor and study these wolves. This any future Native American take of the development of some of the State wolf population is very small and delisted wolves will not significantly wolf management plans in this area, isolated from the other WGL DPS gray impact the viability of the wolf NPS is not bound by States’ plans. wolf populations; it is not considered to population, either locally or across the Instead, the NPS Organic Act and the be significant to the recovery or long- WGL DPS. NPS Management Policy on Wildlife term viability of the gray wolf (USFWS generally require the agency to conserve 1992). Federal Lands natural and cultural resources and the Two other units of the National Park The five national forests with resident wildlife present within the parks. System, Pictured Rocks National wolves (Superior, Chippewa, Generally, National Park Service Lakeshore and St. Croix National Scenic Chequamegon-Nicolet, Ottawa, and management policies require that native Riverway, are regularly used by wolves. Hiawatha National Forests) in species be protected against harvest, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is a Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan removal, destruction, harassment, or narrow strip of land along Michigan’s are all operating in conformance with harm through human action, although Lake Superior shoreline. Lone wolves standards and guidelines in their certain parks may allow some harvest in periodically use, but do not appear to be management plans that follow the 1992 accordance with State management year-round residents of, the Lakeshore. Recovery Plan’s recommendations for plans. Management emphasis in If denning occurs after delisting, the the Eastern Timber Wolf (USFWS 1992). National Parks after delisting would Lakeshore would protect denning and Delisting is not expected to lead to an continue to minimize the human rendezvous sites at least as strictly as immediate change in these standards impacts on wolf populations. Thus, the MI Plan recommends (Karen Gustin, and guidelines; in fact, the Regional because of their responsibility to Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, in Forester for U.S. Forest Service Region preserve all native wildlife, units of the litt. 2003). Harvesting wolves on the 9 is expected to maintain the National Park System are often more Lakeshore may be allowed (i.e., if the classification of the gray wolf as a protective of wildlife than are State Michigan DNR allows for harvest in the Regional Forester Sensitive Species for plans and regulations. In the case of the State), but trapping would continue to at least 5 years after Federal delisting gray wolf, the NPS Organic Act and NPS be prohibited. The St. Croix National (Randy Moore, Regional Forester, U.S. policies will continue to provide Scenic Riverway, in Wisconsin and Forest Service, in litt. 2003). Under protection even after Federal delisting Minnesota, is also a mostly linear these standards and guidelines, a has occurred. ownership. At least 18 wolves from 6 relatively high prey base will be Management and protection of wolves packs use the Riverway. The Riverway maintained, and road densities will be in Voyageurs National Park, along is likely to limit public access to limited to current levels or decreased. Minnesota’s northern border is not denning and rendezvous sites and to On the Chequamegon-Nicolet National likely to change after delisting. The follow other management and protective

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15300 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

practices outlined in the respective subunits, and even for three completely eliminate protections for gray wolves in State wolf management plans, although isolated wolf populations. These State the Federally delisted area. However, trapping is not allowed on NPS lands plans provide a very high level of because these States constitute only except possibly by Native Americans assurance that wolf populations in these about one-third of the land area within (Robin Maercklein, National Park three States will not approach nonviable the proposed DPS, and contain virtually Service, in litt. 2003). levels in the foreseeable future. no suitable habitat of sufficient size to Gray wolves occurring on NWRs in Furthermore, current work on updating host viable gray wolf populations within the WGL DPS will be monitored, and and revising the Wisconsin and the DPS, it is clear that even complete refuge habitat management will Michigan plans, respectively, is being protection for gray wolves in these areas maintain the current prey base for them conducted in a manner that will not would not provide any significant for a minimum of 5 years after delisting. reduce the States’ commitments to benefits to wolf recovery in the DPS, nor Trapping or hunting by government maintain viable wolf populations after to the long-term viability of the trappers for depredation control will not Federal delisting. While these State recovered populations that currently be authorized on NWRs. Because of the plans recognize there may be a need to reside in the DPS. Therefore, although relatively small size of these NWRs, control or even reduce wolf populations current and potential future regulatory however, most or all of these packs and at some future time, none of the plans mechanisms may allow the killing of individual wolves also spend significant include a public harvest of wolves. gray wolves in these six states, these amounts of time off of these NWRs. If delisted, most wolves in Minnesota, threats, and the area in which they Gray wolves also occupy the Fort Wisconsin, and Michigan will continue would be manifest, will not significantly McCoy military installation in to receive protection from general impact the recovered wolf populations Wisconsin. In 2003, one pack containing human persecution by State laws and in the DPS now or in the foreseeable five adult wolves occupied a territory regulations. Michigan has met the future. that included the majority of the criteria established in their management Finally, although to our knowledge no installation; in 2004, the installation plan for State delisting and, during that Tribes have completed wolf had one pack with two adults. delisting process, intends to amend the management plans at this time, based on Management and protection of wolves Wildlife Conservation Order to grant communications with Tribes and Tribal on the installation will not change ‘‘protected animal’’ status to the gray organizations, wolves are very likely to significantly after Federal and/or State wolf. That status would ‘‘prohibit take, be adequately protected on Tribal lands. delisting. Den and rendezvous sites establish penalties and restitution for Furthermore, the numerical recovery would continue to be protected, hunting violations of the Order, and detail criteria in the Federal Recovery Plan seasons for other species (i.e. coyote) conditions under which lethal would be achieved and maintained would be closed during the gun-deer depredation control measures could be (based on the population and range of season, and current surveys would implemented’’ (Rebecca Humphries, MI off-reservation wolves) even without continue, if resources are available. Fort DNR, in litt. 2004). Following State Tribal protection of wolves on McCoy has no plans to allow a public delisting in Wisconsin, the wolf will be reservation lands. In addition, on the harvest of wolves on the installation classified as a ‘‘protected wild animal,’’ basis of information received from other (Danny Nobles, Department of the with protections that provide for fines of Federal land management agencies in Army, in litt. 2004). $1,000 to $2,000 for unlawful hunting. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, The protection afforded to resident Minnesota DNR will consider we expect National Forests, units of the and transient wolves, their den and population management measures, National Park System, and National rendezvous sites, and their prey by five including public hunting and trapping, Wildlife Refuges will provide national forests, four National Parks, but not sooner than 5 years after Federal protections to gray wolves after delisting and numerous National Wildlife delisting (MN DNR 2001). In the Refuges in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and that will match, and in some will cases meantime, wolves in Zone A could only exceed, the protections provided by Michigan would further ensure the be legally taken in Minnesota for conservation of wolves in the three State wolf management plans and State depredation management or public protective regulations. States after delisting. In addition, safety, and Minnesota plans to increase wolves that disperse to other units of its capability to enforce laws against E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors the National Refuge System or the take of wolves (MN DNR 2001). Affecting Its Continued Existence National Park System within the WGL Other States within the DPS either Taking of Wolves by Native Americans DPS will also receive the protection currently have mechanisms in place to for Religious, Spiritual, or Traditional afforded by these Federal agencies. kill depredating wolves (North Dakota Cultural Purposes However, because these additional and South Dakota) or can be expected to lands will only afford small islands of develop mechanisms following Federal As noted elsewhere in this proposal, protection, suitable habitat, and delisting of the DPS, in order to deal the wolf has great significance to many adequate wild prey, they will not with wolf-livestock conflicts in areas Native Americans in the Western Great contribute significantly to maintaining a where wolf protection is no longer Lakes area, especially to Wolf Clan viable wolf population in the WGL DPS. imposed by the Act. Aside from this members, and has a central role in their In summary, following Federal change, wolves are likely to remain creation stories. The wolf, Ma’’ingan, is delisting of gray wolves in the WGL otherwise protected by various State viewed as a brother to the Anishinaabe DPS, there will be varying State and designations in these portions of the people, and their fates are believed to be Tribal classifications and protections proposed DPS for the immediate future, linked. Ma’’ingan is a key element in provided to wolves. The wolf except for the very small portions of many of their beliefs, traditions, and management plans currently in place for Indiana and Ohio within the DPS. ceremonies, and wolf pack systems are Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan Because none of these States has used as a model for Anishinaabe will be more than sufficient to retain sufficient habitat within the DPS families and communities. We are not viable wolf populations in each State boundary to restore wolves, it is aware of any takings of wolves in the that are above the Federal recovery possible that most, or all, of these six Midwest for use in these traditions or criteria for wolf metapopulation States will eventually reduce or ceremonies while the wolf has been

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15301

listed as a threatened or endangered Native American tribes, and other wolves, they were clearly less tolerant of species. While wolves have been listed factors. wolves than livestock producers as threatened in Minnesota, we have We have seen indications of a change (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003). In instructed Wildlife Services to provide, in public attitudes toward the wolf over addition to social group and previous upon request, gray wolf pelts and other the last few decades. Public attitude losses of animals to wolves or other parts from wolves killed during surveys in Minnesota and Michigan predators, education level, gender, age, depredation control actions to Tribes in (Kellert 1985, 1990, 1999), as well as the rural residence, and income have all order to partially serve these traditional citizen input into the wolf management been found to influence attitudes needs. plans of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and towards wolves (Williams et al. 2002). Some Tribal representatives, as well Michigan, have indicated strong public Williams et al. (2002) also suggests that as the Great Lakes Indian Fish and support for wolf recovery if the adverse attitudes of individuals may not be Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), have impacts on recreational activities and changing, but the attitudes of various indicated that following delisting there livestock producers can be minimized segments of society may change as their is likely to be some interest in the taking (MI DNR 1997, MN DNR 1998, WI DNR older cohorts are replaced by others of small numbers of wolves for 1999). In Michigan, a public attitude whose attitudes were created during a traditional ceremonies (George King, survey was conducted in 2002, to time when public attitudes were Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, in identify attitude changes that had generally more positive toward wolves. litt. 2003; Peter White, Leech Lake Band occurred between the time there were The Minnesota DNR recognizes that to of Ojibwe, in litt. 2003). This take could only about 10 wolves in the UP to the maintain public support for wolf occur on reservation lands where it current wolf population of about 278 on conservation it must work to ensure that could be closely regulated by a Tribe to the UP. This survey suggested that the people are well informed about wolves ensure that it does not affect the majority of Michigan residents still and wolf management in the State. viability of the reservation wolf support wolf recovery efforts. However, Therefore, MN DNR plans to provide population. Such takings might also Upper Peninsula residents’ support for ‘‘timely and accurate information about occur on off-reservation treaty lands on wolf recovery has declined substantially wolves to the public, to support and which certain Tribes retained hunting, since the 1990 Kellert survey (Mertig facilitate wolf education programs, and fishing, and gathering rights when the 2004). At the same time, respondents to encourage wolf ecotourism,’’ among land was ceded to the Federal from across the State have increased other activities (MN DNR 2001). their support for killing individual Similarly, the Wisconsin and Michigan government. Native American taking of problem wolves; support for lethal wolf management plans emphasize the wolves from ceded lands would only be control of problem wolves ranges from need for long-term cooperative efforts done as part of a harvestable surplus of 70 percent in the Southern Lower with private educational and wolves that is established by the States Peninsula to 85 percent in the UP environmental groups to develop and in coordination with the Tribes. Such (Mertig 2004). distribute educational and informational taking will not occur until such time as It is unclear whether increased materials and programs for public use a harvestable surplus has been flexibility of depredation control after (MI DNR 1997, WI DNR 1999). We fully documented based on biological data, delisting would affect public attitudes expect organizations such as the and regulations and monitoring have towards wolves (i.e., decrease International Wolf Center (Ely, MN), the been established by the States and opposition to the local presence of Timber Wolf Alliance (Ashland, WI), Tribes to ensure a harvest can be carried wolves), due to the strong influence of Timber Wolf Information Network out in a manner that ensures the other factors. A survey of 535 rural (Waupaca, WI), the Wildlife Science continued viability of the wolf Wisconsin residents, for example, found Center (Forest Lake, MN), and other population in that State. that attitudes towards wolves were organizations to continue to provide If requested by the Tribes, multitribal largely dependent on social group, and educational materials and experiences natural resource agencies, and/or the persons who were compensated for with wolves far into the future, States, the Service or other appropriate losses to wolves were not more tolerant regardless of the Federal status of Federal agencies will work with these of wolf presence than those who were wolves. parties to help determine if a refused compensation for reported harvestable surplus exists, and if so, to losses (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003). Summary of Our Five-Factor Analysis of assist in devising reasonable and Although social group was the Potential Threats appropriate methods and levels of overriding factor in determining As required by the ESA, we harvest for delisted wolves for tolerance for wolves, previous history considered the five potential threat traditional cultural purposes. with depredation also negatively factors to assess whether wolves are threatened or endangered throughout all Public Attitudes Toward the Gray Wolf affected tolerance; persons who had lost an animal to a wolf or other predator or a significant portion of their range in An important determinant of the long- were less tolerant of wolves (Naughton- the WGL DPS and therefore, whether term status of gray wolf populations in Treves et al. 2003). However, the survey the WGL DPS should be listed as the United States will be human did not directly address the question of threatened or endangered. In regard to attitudes toward this large predator. whether control of problem wolves the WGL DPS, a significant portion of These attitudes are based on the affected or changed individual attitudes the wolf’s range is an area that is conflicts between human activities and toward wolves or local wolf presence. In important or necessary for maintaining wolves, concern with the perceived an analysis of data collected in 37 a viable, self-sustaining, and evolving danger the species may pose to humans, surveys of public attitudes toward representative meta-population in order its symbolic representation of wolves on three continents, Williams et for the WGL DPS to persist for the wilderness, the economic effect of al. (2002) found that hunters and foreseeable future. While wolves livestock losses, the emotions regarding trappers had significantly more positive historically occurred over most of the the threat to pets, the conviction that the attitudes towards wolves than farmers proposed DPS, large portions of this species should never be a target of sport and ranchers. In Wisconsin, however, area are no longer able to support viable hunting or trapping, wolf traditions of where bear hunters have lost hounds to wolf populations, and the wolf

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15302 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

population in the WGL DPS will remain all or a significant portion of its range After a thorough review of all centered in Minnesota, Michigan, and within the DPS. available information and an evaluation Wisconsin. Post-delisting wolf protection, of the previous five factors specified in While we recognize that gray wolves management, and population and health section 4(a)(1) of the Act, as well as in the WGL DPS do not occupy all monitoring by the States, Tribes, and consideration of the definitions of portions of their historical range, Federal land management agencies— ‘‘threatened’’ and ‘‘endangered’’ including some potentially suitable especially in Minnesota Zone A, contained in the Act and the reasons for areas with low road and human density Wisconsin Zone 1, and across the Upper delisting as specified in 50 CFR and a healthy prey base within the WGL Peninsula of Michigan—would ensure 424.11(d), we conclude that removing DPS, wolves in this DPS no longer meet the continuation of viable wolf the WGL DPS from the list of the definition of a threatened or populations above the Federal recovery Endangered and Threatened Wildlife endangered species. Although there may criteria for the foreseeable future. Post- (50 CFR 17.11) is appropriate. Gray have been historic habitat, many of delisting threats to wolves in Zone B in wolves have recovered in the WGL DPS these areas are no longer suitable and Minnesota, Zones 3 and 4 in Wisconsin, as a result of the reduction of threats as are not important or necessary for and in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan described in the analysis of the five maintaining a viable, self-sustaining, would be more substantial, and may categories of threats. and evolving representative wolf preclude the establishment of wolf population in the WGL DPS into the packs in most or all of these areas. Available Conservation Measures foreseeable future, and are not a Similarly, the lack of sufficient areas of Conservation measures provided to significant portion of the range of the suitable habitat and weaker post- species listed as endangered or WGL DPS. We have based our delisting protections in those parts of threatened under the ESA include determinations on the current status of, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, recognition, recovery actions, and future threats likely to be faced by, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio that are requirements for Federal protection, and existing wolf populations within the within the WGL DPS are expected to prohibitions against certain practices. WGL DPS. preclude the establishment of viable Recognition through listing encourages The number of wolves in the WGL populations in these areas, although and results in conservation actions by DPS greatly exceeds the recovery dispersing wolves and packs may Federal, State, and private agencies, criteria (USFWS 1992) for (1) a secure temporarily occur in some of these groups, and individuals. The ESA wolf population in Minnesota, and (2) a areas. However, wolf numbers in these provides for possible land acquisition second population of 100 wolves for 5 areas will have no impact on the and cooperation with the States and successive years. Thus, based on the continued viability of the recovered requires that recovery actions be carried criteria set by the Eastern Wolf Recovery wolf metapopulation in Minnesota Zone out for all listed species. Most of these Team in 1992, the DPS contains A, Wisconsin Zone 1, and the Upper measures have already been sufficient wolf numbers and distribution Peninsula of Michigan. Reasonably successfully applied to gray wolves in to ensure their long-term survival foreseeable threats to wolves in all parts the conterminous 48 States. within the DPS. The maintenance and of the WGL DPS are not likely to Effects of the Rule expansion of the Minnesota wolf threaten wolf population viability in population has maximized the genetic Minnesota, Wisconsin, or the Upper If finalized, this rule would remove diversity that remained in the WGL DPS Peninsula of Michigan for the the protections of the Act from the WGL when its wolves were first protected in foreseeable future. DPS. The protections of the Act would 1974. Furthermore, the Wisconsin- In summary, we find that the threat of still continue to apply to the gray Michigan wolf population has even habitat destruction or degradation or a wolves outside the WGL DPS, where achieved the numerical recovery criteria reduction in the range of the gray wolf; appropriate. for an isolated population. Therefore, overutilization by humans; disease, This proposal, if finalized, would even if this two-State population was to parasites, or predatory actions by other remove the special regulations under become totally isolated and wolf animals or humans; inadequate section 4(d) of the Act for wolves in immigration from Minnesota or Ontario regulatory measures by State, Tribal, Minnesota. These regulations currently ceased, it would still remain a viable and Federal agencies; or other threats are found at 50 CFR 17.40(d). population for the foreseeable future. will not individually or in combination Critical habitat was designated for the Finally, the wolf populations in be likely to cause the WGL DPS of the gray wolf in 1978 (43 FR 9607, March Wisconsin and Michigan each have gray wolf to be in danger of extinction 9, 1978). That rule (codified at 50 CFR separately exceeded 200 animals for 7 in the foreseeable future. Ongoing 17.95(a)) identifies Isle Royale National and 6 years respectively, so if they each effects of recovery efforts over the past Park, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf somehow were to become isolated, they decade, which resulted in a significant management zones 1, 2, and 3, as are already above viable population expansion of the occupied range of delineated in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(1), as levels, and each State has committed to wolves in the WGL DPS, in conjunction critical habitat. Wolf management zones manage its wolf population at 200 with future State, Tribal, and Federal 1, 2, and 3 comprise approximately wolves or above. The wolf’s numeric agency wolf management across that 25,500 km2 (9,845 mi2) in northeastern and distributional recovery in the WGL occupied range, will be adequate to and northcentral Minnesota. This DPS clearly has been achieved and ensure the conservation of the WGL proposed rule, if finalized, would greatly exceeded. The wolf’s recovery in DPS. These activities will maintain an remove the designation of critical numbers and distribution in the WGL adequate prey base, preserve denning habitat for gray wolves in Minnesota DPS, together with the status of the and rendezvous sites and dispersal and on Isle Royale, Michigan. threats that remain to, and are likely to corridors, monitor disease, restrict This notice does not apply to the be experienced by, the wolf within the human take, and keep wolf populations listing or protection of the red wolf DPS, indicates that the gray wolf is not well above the numerical recovery (Canis rufus) or change the regulations likely to be in danger of extinction, nor criteria established in the Federal for the three non-essential experimental likely to become an endangered species Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber populations. It is important to note that within the foreseeable future throughout Wolf (USFWS 1992). the protections of the gray wolf under

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15303

the Act do not extend to gray wolf-dog if the population of gray wolves within scientific community, industry, or any hybrids. the DPS warrants expanded monitoring, other interested party concerning this additional research, consideration for proposed rule are hereby solicited. Post-Delisting Monitoring relisting as threatened or endangered, or Comments particularly are sought Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in emergency listing. concerning: the 1988 reauthorization, requires us to Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (1) Biological, commercial trade, or implement a system, in cooperation DNRs have monitored wolves for several other relevant data concerning any with the States, to monitor for not less decades with significant assistance from current or likely future threat, or lack than 5 years the status of all species that numerous partners, including the U.S. thereof, to gray wolves in the WGL DPS; have recovered and been removed from Forest Service, National Park Service, (2) Additional information concerning the Lists of Endangered and Threatened USDA–APHIS—Wildlife Services, the range, distribution, population size, Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and Tribal natural resource agencies, and the population trends, and threats with 17.12). The purpose of this post- Service. To maximize comparability of respect to gray wolves in the WGL DPS; delisting monitoring (PDM) is to verify future PDM data with data obtained (3) Current or planned activities in the that a species delisted due to recovery before delisting, all three State DNRs WGL DPS and their possible impacts on remains secure from risk of extinction have committed to continue their the gray wolf and its habitat; after it no longer has the protections of previous wolf population monitoring (4) Information concerning the the Act. To do this, PDM generally methodology, or will make changes to adequacy of the recovery criteria focuses on evaluating (1) demographic that methodology only if those changes described in the 1992 Recovery Plan for characteristics of the species, (2) threats will not reduce the comparability of pre- the Eastern Timber Wolf; to the species, and (3) implementation and post-delisting data. (5) The extent and adequacy of of legal and/or management In addition to monitoring population Federal, State, and Tribal protection and commitments that have been identified numbers and trends, the PDM will management that would be provided to as important in reducing threats to the evaluate post-delisting threats, in the gray wolf in the WGL DPS as a species or maintaining threats at particular human-caused mortality, delisted species; and sufficiently low levels. We are to make disease, and implementation of legal (6) The proposed geographic prompt use of the emergency listing and management commitments. If at any boundaries of the WGL DPS, and authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the time during the monitoring period we scientific and legal supporting Act to prevent a significant risk to the detect a significant downward change in information for alternative boundaries well-being of any recovered species. the populations or an increase in threats that might result in a larger or smaller Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly to the degree that population viability DPS, and including information on the requires cooperation with the States in may be threatened, we will evaluate and discreteness and significance of the development and implementation of change (intensify, extend, and/or proposed and alternative DPS. PDM programs, but we remain otherwise improve) the monitoring If you wish to comment, you may responsible for compliance with section methods, if appropriate, and/or consider submit your comments and materials 4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively relisting the WGL DPS, if warranted. concerning this proposal by any one of engaged in all phases of PDM. We also Changes to the monitoring methods, for several methods (see ADDRESSES will seek active participation of other example, might include increased section). Please submit Internet e-mail entities that are expected to assume emphasis on a potentially important comments without any form or responsibilities for the species’ threat or a particular geographic area. At encryption and avoid the use of special conservation, after delisting. the end of the monitoring period, we characters. Please include ‘‘WGL Gray We are developing a PDM plan for the will decide if relisting, continued Wolf Delisting; RIN 1018–AU54’’ in gray wolves in the WGL DPS with the monitoring, or ending monitoring is your e-mail subject header and your assistance of the Eastern Gray Wolf appropriate. If data show a significant name and return address in the body of Recovery Team. Once completed, we population decline or increased threats, your message. Note that the Internet e- will make that document available on but not to the level that relisting is mail address for submitting comments our web site (See FOR FURTHER warranted, we will consider continuing will be closed at the termination of the INFORMATION CONTACT section). At this monitoring beyond the specified period public comment period. time, we anticipate the PDM program and may modify the monitoring Our practice is to make comments, will be a continuation of State program based on an evaluation of the including names and home addresses of monitoring activities similar to those results of the initial monitoring. respondents, available for public which have been conducted by We anticipate that this Service review. Individual respondents may Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan monitoring program will extend for 5 request that we withhold their home DNR’s in recent years. These States years beyond the delisting date of the addresses from the rulemaking record, comprise the core recovery areas within DPS. At the end of the 5-year period we which we will honor to the extent the DPS and were the only States with and the Recovery Team will conduct allowable by law. There also may be numerical recovery criteria in the another review and post the results on circumstances in which we may Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992). These our web site. In addition to the above withhold from the rulemaking record a activities will include both population considerations, that review will respondent’s identity, as allowable by monitoring and health monitoring of determine whether the PDM program law. If you wish us to withhold your individual wolves. During the PDM should be terminated or extended. name and/or address, you must state period, the Service and the Recovery this prominently at the beginning of Team annually will conduct a review of Public Comments Solicited your comment. We will not consider the monitoring data and program. We We intend that any final action anonymous comments, however. We will consider various relevant factors resulting from this proposal will be as will make all submissions from (including but not limited to mortality accurate and as effective as possible. organizations or businesses, and from rates, population changes and rates of Therefore, comments, new information, individuals identifying themselves as change, disease occurrence, range or suggestions from the public, other representatives or officials of expansion or contraction) to determine concerned governmental agencies, the organizations or businesses, available

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 15304 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules

for public inspection in their entirety. proposed peer review plan on our web posed to, or identical reporting, We anticipate a large public response to site at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ recordkeeping, or disclosure this proposed rule. After the comment Science/. Public comments on our peer requirements imposed on, 10 or more period closes, we will organize the review were obtained through March 11, persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR comments and materials received and 2006, after which we finalized our peer 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ‘‘ten or more make them available for public review plan and selected peer persons’’ refers to the persons to whom inspection, by appointment, during reviewers. We will provide those a collection of information is addressed normal business hours at the following reviewers with copies of this proposal by the agency within any 12-month Ecological Services offices: as well as the data used in the proposal. period. For purposes of this definition, • Twin Cities, Minnesota Ecological Peer reviewer comments that are employees of the Federal Government Services Field Office, 4101 E. 80th received during the public comment are not included. The Service may not Street, Bloomington, MN; 612–725– period will be considered as we make conduct or sponsor, and you are not 3548 our final decision on this proposal, and required to respond to, a collection of • Green Bay, Wisconsin Ecological substantive peer reviewer comments information unless it displays a Services Field Office, 2661 Scott will be specifically discussed in the currently valid OMB control number. Tower Dr., New Franken, WI; 920– final rule. This rule does not include any collections of information that require 866–1717 Required Determinations • East Lansing, Michigan Ecological approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. As proposed under the Services Field Office, 2651 Coolidge Clarity of the Rule Post-delisting Monitoring section above, Road, Suite 101, East Lansing, MI; Executive Order 12866 requires gray wolf populations in the Western 517–351–2555 agencies to write regulations that are Great Lakes DPS will be monitored by We will consider all comments and easy to understand. We invite your the States of Michigan, Minnesota, and information received during the comments on how to make this proposal Wisconsin in accordance with their gray comment period on this proposed rule easier to understand including answers wolf State management plans. There during preparation of a final to questions such as the following: (1) may also be additional voluntary rulemaking. Accordingly, the final Is the discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY monitoring activities conducted by a decision may differ from this proposal. INFORMATION section of the preamble small number of tribes in these three helpful to your understanding of the Public Hearings States. We do not anticipate a need to proposal? (2) Does the proposal contain request data or other information from The ESA provides for public hearings technical language or jargon that 10 or more persons during any 12- on this proposed rule. We have interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the month period to satisfy monitoring scheduled four public hearings on this format of the proposal (groupings and information needs. If it becomes proposed rule as specified above in order of sections, use of headings, necessary to collect information from 10 DATES and ADDRESSES. paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its or more non-Federal individuals, Public hearings are designed to gather clarity? What else could we do to make groups, or organizations per year, we relevant information that the public may the proposal easier to understand? Send will first obtain information collection have that we should consider in our a copy of any comments on how we approval from OMB. rulemaking. Before each hearing, we could make this rule easier to will hold an informational meeting to understand to: Office of Regulatory Executive Order 13211 present information about the proposed Affairs, Department of the Interior, On May 18, 2001, the President issued action. During the hearing, we invite the Room 7229, 1849 C. Street, NW., Executive Order 13211 on regulations public to submit information and Washington, DC 20240. You may also e- that significantly affect energy supply, comments. Interested persons may also mail the comments to this address: distribution, and use. Executive Order submit information and comments in [email protected]. 13211 requires agencies to prepare writing during the open public Statements of Energy Effects when National Environmental Policy Act comment period. We encourage persons undertaking certain actions. As this wishing to comment at the hearing to We have determined that an proposed rule is not expected to provide a written copy of their Environmental Assessment or an significantly affect energy supplies, statement at the start of the hearing. Environmental Impact Statement, as distribution, or use, this action is not a Public hearings will allow all interested defined under the authority of the significant energy action and no parties to submit comments on the National Environmental Policy Act of Statement of Energy Effects is required. proposed rule for the gray wolf. 1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted Government-to-Government Peer Review pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We Relationship With Tribes In accordance with the December 16, published a notice outlining our reasons In accordance with the President’s 2004, Office of Management and for this determination in the Federal memorandum of April 29, 1994, Budget’s ‘‘Final Information Quality Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations Bulletin for Peer Review,’’ we will 49244). with Native American Tribal obtain comments from at least three Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive independent scientific reviewers Paperwork Reduction Act Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we are regarding the scientific data and Office of Management and Budget coordinating this proposed rule with the interpretations contained in this (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320 affected Tribes. Throughout several proposed rule. The purpose of such implement provisions of the Paperwork years of development of earlier related review is to ensure that our delisting Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). rules and this proposed rule, we have proposal provides to the public, and our The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) endeavored to consult with Native delisting decision is based on, define a collection of information as the American tribes and Native American scientifically sound data, assumptions, obtaining of information by or for an organizations in order to both (1) and analyses. We have posted our agency by means of identical questions provide them with a complete

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / Proposed Rules 15305

understanding of the proposed changes, posted on our Web site (see FOR FURTHER I, title 50 of the Code of Federal and (2) to understand their concerns INFORMATION CONTACT section above). Regulations, as set forth below: with those changes. We will conduct Author additional consultations with Native PART 17—[AMENDED] American tribes and multitribal The primary author of this rule is 1. The authority citation for part 17 organizations subsequent to this Ronald L. Refsnider, U.S. Fish and continues to read as follows: publication. We will fully consider all Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, of their comments on this proposal Minnesota, Regional Office (see FOR Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. submitted during the public comment FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– period and will attempt to address those above). 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. concerns to the extent allowed by the List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, entry for ‘‘Wolf, gray’’ under Endangered and threatened species, and other applicable Federal statutes. ‘‘MAMMALS’’ in the List of Endangered Exports, Imports, Reporting and and Threatened Wildlife to read as References Cited recordkeeping requirements, follows: Transportation. A complete list of all references cited § 17.11 Endangered and threatened in this document is available upon Proposed Regulation Promulgation wildlife. request from the Ft. Snelling, Accordingly, we hereby propose to * * * * * Minnesota, Regional Office and is amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter (h) * * *

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

MAMMALS

******* Wolf, gray ..... Canis lupus ...... Holarctic ...... U.S.A., conterminous (lower 48) States, ex- E 1, 6, 13, NA N/A. cept: (1) Where listed as an experimental 15, 35, population below, and (2) Minnesota, Wis- 561, 562, consin, Michigan, eastern North Dakota 631, 745 (that portion north and east of the Missouri River upstream to Lake Sakakawea and east of Highway 83 from Lake Sakakawea to the Canadian border), eastern South Dakota (that portion north and east of the Missouri River), northern Iowa, northern Illi- nois, and northern Indiana (those portions of IA, IL, and IN north of Interstate High- way 80), and northwestern Ohio (that por- tion north of Interstate Highway 80 and west of the Maumee River at Toledo); Mexico. Do ...... do ...... do ...... U.S.A. (WY and portions of ID and MT—see XN 561, 562, NA 17.84(i). 17.84(i) and (n). 745 17.84(n). Do ...... do ...... do ...... U.S.A. (portions of AZ, NM, and TX—see XN 631 N/A 17.84(k). 17.84(k))..

*******

* * * * * § 17.95 [Amended] Dated: March 1, 2006. H. Dale Hall, § 17.40 [Amended] 4. Amend § 17.95(a) by removing the critical habitat entry for ‘‘Gray Wolf Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3. Amend § 17.40 by removing and (Canis lupus).’’ [FR Doc. 06–2802 Filed 3–24–06; 8:45 am] reserving paragraph (d). BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:33 Mar 24, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27MRP2.SGM 27MRP2 wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS2