15804 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section three distinct population segments under the heading Need for Immediate (DPSs), and we also discuss how this Fish and Wildlife Service Implementation. listing affects wolves in captivity and ADDRESSES: The complete file for this their role in wolf recovery. 50 CFR Part 17 rule is available for inspection, by We next describe the differences RIN 1018–AF20 appointment, during normal business between our July 13, 2000, proposal (65 hours at our Midwest Regional Office: FR 43450) and this final rule. In our Endangered and Threatened Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal proposal, we identified a variety of and Plants; Final Rule To Reclassify Building, 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, alternative actions that we considered and Remove the Gray Wolf From the MN 55111–4056. Call 612–713–5350 to but did not propose, and we explained List of Endangered and Threatened make arrangements. The comments and the reasons for selecting the proposed Wildlife in Portions of the materials we received during the action. We also requested comments on Conterminous United States; comment period are also available for those alternatives. Those alternatives Establishment of Two Special public inspection, by appointment, will not be discussed in this rule except Regulations for Threatened Gray during normal business hours at this in the cases where they were adopted or Wolves and other Regional Offices and several partially adopted in our final decision, or were otherwise addressed in AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, of our Ecological Services field offices. Use the contact information in the next substantive comments that we received. Interior. Separate sections explain the two paragraph to obtain the addresses of ACTION: Final rule. special regulations that are being those locations. adopted and how these special SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Direct all regulations are consistent with the Service (Service or we) hereby changes questions or requests for additional conservation of the gray wolf within the classification of the gray wolf (Canis information to the Service using the their respective DPSs. We also explain lupus) under the Endangered Species Gray Wolf Phone Line—612–713–7337, the conservation measures that are being Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We facsimile—612–713–5292, the general provided to the species by this rule. The establish three distinct population gray wolf electronic mail address— text of the regulatory changes for the segments (DPS) for the gray wolf in the [email protected], or write gray wolf is found at the end of this conterminous United States. Gray to: GRAY WOLF QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish document. wolves in the Western DPS and the and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, Eastern DPS are reclassified from 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, MN A. Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves endangered to threatened, except where 55111–4056. Additional information is Gray wolves are the largest wild already classified as threatened or as an also available on our World Wide Web members of the Canidae, or dog family, experimental population. Gray wolves site at http://midwest.fws.gov/wolf. with adults ranging from 18 to 80 in the Southwestern DPS retain their Individuals who are hearing-impaired or kilograms (kg)(40 to 175 pounds (lb)) previous endangered or experimental speech-impaired may call the Federal depending upon sex and subspecies population status. All three existing Relay Service at 1–800–877–8337 for (Mech 1974). The average weight of gray wolf experimental population TTY assistance. male wolves in Wisconsin is 35 kg (77 designations are retained and are not SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: lb) and ranges from 26 to 46 kg (57 to affected by this rule. Gray wolves are 102 lb), while females average 28 kg (62 removed from the protections of the Act Background lb) and range from 21 to 34 kg (46 to 75 in all or parts of 16 southern and eastern This rule begins with discussions on lb) (Wisconsin Department of Natural States where the species historically did the biology, ecology, taxonomy, and the Resources (WI DNR) 1999a). In the not occur. We establish a new special historical range of the gray wolf. We northern U.S. Rocky Mountains, adult regulation under section 4(d) of the Act then describe previous Federal listing male gray wolves average just over 45 kg for the threatened Western DPS to actions taken for the gray wolf. Next we (100 lb), while the females weigh increase our ability to respond to wolf- provide information concerning specific slightly less. Wolves’ fur color is human conflicts outside the two issues related to this rulemaking, frequently a grizzled gray, but it can experimental population areas in the including our Vertebrate Population vary from pure white to coal black. Western DPS. A second section 4(d) Policy, experimental population Wolves may appear similar to coyotes special regulation applies provisions designations, and wolf-dog hybrids. We (Canis latrans) and some domestic dog similar to those previously in effect in conclude this introductory section with breeds (such as the German shepherd or Minnesota to most of the Eastern DPS. a discussion on the recovery of the gray Siberian husky) (C. familiaris). We find that these special rules are wolf. However, wolves’ longer legs, larger necessary and advisable to provide for We next provide a summary of the feet, wider head and snout, and straight the conservation of the Western DPS many and diverse comments and tail distinguish them from both coyotes and the Eastern DPS. The classification, recommendations on the proposal. All and dogs. under the Act, of captive gray wolves is substantive issues that were raised Wolves primarily are predators of determined by the location from which during that comment period are medium and large mammals. Wild prey they, or their ancestors, were removed described, and we present our response species in North America include white- from the wild. This final rule does not to each of those issues. tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and affect the protection currently afforded A detailed discussion is then mule deer (O. hemionus), moose (Alces by the Act to the red wolf (Canis rufus), presented for the five listing factors as alces), elk (Cervus canadensis), a separate species found in the required by the Act. We analyze these woodland caribou (Rangifer caribou) southeastern United States that is listed factors for the reclassification of certain and barren ground caribou (R. arcticus), as endangered. populations in response to the current bison (Bison bison), muskox (Ovibos DATES: This rule becomes effective April status of the species, which moschatus), bighorn sheep (Ovis 1, 2003. The explanation of the need for encompasses present and future threats canadensis) and Dall sheep (O. dalli), an immediate effective date is found in and conservation efforts. We designate mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus),

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15805

beaver (Castor canadensis), and The gray wolf historically occurred separate species that is listed as snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), across most of North America, Europe, endangered throughout its range in the with small mammals, birds, and large and Asia. In North America, gray wolves southeastern United States and invertebrates sometimes being taken formerly occurred from the northern extending west into central Texas. The (Mech 1974, Stebler 1944, WI DNR reaches of Alaska, Canada, and red wolf is the subject of a separate 1999a). In the Midwest, during the last Greenland to the central mountains and recovery program. This final rule does 22 years, wolves have also killed the high interior plateau of southern not affect the current listing status or domestic animals including horses Mexico. The only areas of the protection of the red wolf. conterminous United States that (Equus caballus), cattle (Bos taurus), B. Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in the apparently lacked gray wolf populations sheep (Ovis aries), goats (Capra hircus), Eastern United States llamas (Lama glama), pigs (Sus scrofa), since the last glacial events are parts of geese (Anser sp.), ducks (Anas sp.), California and portions of the eastern Both the 1978 and 1992 versions of turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo), chickens and southeastern United States (an area the Recovery Plan for the Eastern (Gallus sp.), pheasants (Phasianus occupied by the red wolf). In addition, Timber Wolf were developed to recover colchicus), dogs, and cats (Felis catus) wolves were generally absent from the the gray wolf subspecies Canis lupus (Paul 2001, Wydeven et al. 2001a). extremely arid deserts and the lycaon, commonly known as the eastern Since 1987, wolves in the northern mountaintops of the western United timber wolf. C. l. lycaon was believed to Rocky Mountains of Montana, Idaho, States (Young and Goldman 1944, Hall be the gray wolf subspecies historically and Wyoming have also killed domestic 1981, Mech 1974, Nowak 2000). (Refer occurring throughout the northeastern animals, including llamas, horses, to the Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in the quarter of the United States east of the cattle, sheep, and dogs (Service et al. Eastern United States section below for Great Plains (Young and Goldman 1944, 2002). additional discussion.) Hall 1981, Mech 1974). Since the European settlers in North America publication of those recovery plans, Wolves are social animals, normally and their cultures often had various studies on the subspecific living in packs of 2 to 12 wolves. superstitions and fears of wolves. Their taxonomy of the gray wolf have been However, 2 packs within Yellowstone attitudes, coupled with perceived and conducted with conflicting results National Park (NP) had 22 and 27 real conflicts between wolves and (Nowak 1995, 2000; Wayne et al. 1995; members in 2000, and Yellowstone’s human activities along the frontier, led Wilson et al. 2000). Druid Peak pack increased to 37 to widespread persecution of wolves. At the time we prepared the July 13, members in 2001 (Service et al. 2001, Poisons, trapping, and shooting-spurred 2000, gray wolf reclassification 2002). Packs are primarily family groups by Federal, State, and local government proposal, new information had recently consisting of a breeding pair, their pups bounties-resulted in extirpation of this become available that called into from the current year, offspring from the once widespread species from more question the identity of the large canid previous year, and occasionally an than 95 percent of its range in the 48 in southeastern Canada, an area with an unrelated wolf. Packs typically occupy, conterminous States. At the time of the extant wolf population adjacent to the and defend from other packs and passage of the Act, likely only several northeastern United States. However, individual wolves, a territory of 50 to hundred wolves occurred in we believed that the preponderance of 550 square kilometers (sq km) (20 to 214 northeastern Minnesota and on Isle available data supported the position square miles (sq mi)). However, in the Royale, Michigan, and possibly a few that the historical canid in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains scattered wolves in the Upper Peninsula northeastern United States was a territories tend to be larger, usually from of Michigan, Montana, and the subspecies of the gray wolf, probably 520 to 1,040 sq km (200 to 400 sq mi), American Southwest. Canis lupus lycaon. and in Wood Buffalo National Park in Researchers have learned a great deal An alternative position advanced by Canada, territories of up to 2,700 sq km about gray wolf biology, especially Wilson et al. (2000) appears to be (1,042 sq mi) have been recorded regarding the species’ adaptability and gaining wider acceptance. That view is (Carbyn in litt. 2000). Normally, only its use of nonwilderness habitats. Public that the wolf currently occurring in the top-ranking (‘‘alpha’’) male and appreciation of the role of predators in Algonquin Provincial Park, and possibly female in each pack breed and produce our ecosystems has increased, and we the ancestral wolf of southeastern pups. Litters are born from early April believe that the recovery of the species Canada and the northeastern United into May; they can range from 1 to 11 is widely supported. Most importantly, States, is a smaller form of wolf that is pups, but generally include 4 to 6 pups within the last decade the prospects for similar to or indistinguishable from the (Michigan Department of Natural gray wolf recovery in several areas of red wolf (C. rufus). Still others argue Resources (MI DNR) 1997; Service their former historical United States that ecologically, the ancestral wolf in 1992a; Service et al. 2001). Normally a range have greatly increased. In the northern Maine, New Hampshire, and pack has a single litter annually, but western Great Lakes area, wolves have Vermont, where moose and woodland producing 2 or 3 litters in one year has dramatically increased their numbers caribou were the predominant ungulate been documented in Yellowstone NP and occupied range. Gray wolf prey (Hall 1981), was likely to be a (Service et al. 2002). Yearling wolves reintroduction programs in the northern large-bodied C. lupus, rather than a frequently disperse from their natal U.S. Rocky Mountains have shown great smaller, deer-eating wolf such as the red packs, although some remain with their success. Additionally, the wolf (Daniel Harrison, University of natal pack. Dispersers may become reintroduction and recovery program of Maine, pers. comm.). nomadic and cover large areas as lone the Mexican wolf in the American The coyote is the dominant canid in animals, or they may locate suitable Southwest, although in its initial stages, the northeastern United States today, unoccupied habitat and a member of the is beginning to show similar progress although wolf genetic material is also opposite sex and begin their own after only a few years. present in these animals. Prey species’ territorial pack. Dispersal movements on The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is one of ranges in the Northeast have undergone the order of 800 km (500 mi) have been two North American wolf species significant changes in the last hundred- documented (Fritts 1983; James currently protected by the Act. The plus years as the whitetail deer has Hammill, Michigan DNR, in litt. 2001). other is the red wolf (C. rufus), a expanded north into Canada, while the

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15806 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

caribou has disappeared from the populations are southern and interior somewhat south of that shown by northeastern United States, and the Greenland, the coastal regions of Nowak (2000) and north of the range moose has repopulated northern and Mexico, all of Central America south of boundary shown by Young and central New England and are newly Mexico, coastal and parts of California, Goldman (1944) and Mech (1974). The reestablished in the Adirondacks of the extremely arid deserts and the historical range boundary we are using northern New York. Changes in prey mountaintops of the western United most closely approximates that given in base may trigger accompanying changes States, and parts of the eastern and Hall (1981). in the primary predator, because smaller southeastern United States (Young and D. Previous Federal Action canids and smaller canid social groups Goldman 1944, Hall 1981, Mech 1974, are able to subsist on deer, but are less and Nowak 1995). (However, some The eastern timber wolf (Canus lupus well suited to preying on caribou and authorities question the reported lycaon) was listed as endangered in moose. All of these changes have historical absence of gray wolves from Minnesota and Michigan, and the proceeded with surprising rapidity, as parts of California (Carbyn in litt. 2000, northern Rocky Mountain wolf (C. l. has the eastern expansion of the coyote. Mech in litt. 2000)). Authors are irremotus) was listed as endangered in Clearly, it becomes extremely difficult inconsistent on their views of the Montana and Wyoming in the first list to determine the genetic identity of the precise boundary of historical gray wolf of species that were protected under the wolf (or wolves) that occurred in the range in the eastern and southeastern 1973 Act, published in May 1974 (USDI Northeast prior to European settlement. United States. Some use Georgia’s 1974). A third gray wolf subspecies, the Bounty records, old trapper notes, and southeastern corner as the southern Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi), was listed discovery of heretofore unknown extent of gray wolf range (Young and as endangered on April 28, 1976, (41 FR mounted specimens may hold clues that Goldman 1944, Mech 1974); others 17740) with its known range given as will be investigated. However, the believe gray wolves didn’t extend into ‘‘Mexico, USA (Arizona, New Mexico, ranges of specific forms of wolf may the southeast at all (Hall 1981) or did so Texas).’’ On June 14, 1976, (41 FR have changed over time or intermingled to a limited extent, primarily at 24064) the subspecies C. l. monstrabilis along contact zones, and scientific somewhat higher elevations (Nowak was listed as endangered (using the consensus on one ancestral form of wolf 1995). The southeastern and mid- nonspecific common name ‘‘Gray for the Northeast may not be possible. Atlantic States have generally been wolf’’), and its range was described as Currently, the existing molecular recognized as being within the historical ‘‘Texas, New Mexico, Mexico.’’ To eliminate problems with listing genetic and morphological data suggest range of the red wolf, and it is not separate subspecies of the gray wolf and several plausible identities for the large known how much range overlap identifying relatively narrow geographic canid that historically occupied the historically occurred between these Northeast. Nowak’s morphological data areas in which those subspecies are competing canids. Recent protected, on March 9, 1978, we continue to support the contention that morphological work by Nowak (2000) Canis lupus lycaon, a subspecies of the published a rule (43 FR 9607) relisting supports extending the historical range the gray wolf at the species level (Canus gray wolf, occupied part of the of the red wolf into southern New Northeast and adjacent southeastern lupus) as endangered throughout the England or even further northward, conterminous 48 States and Mexico, Canada; however, his more recent work indicating that the historical range of suggests a smaller United States range except for Minnesota, where the gray the gray wolf in the eastern United wolf was reclassified to threatened (refer (and a possible hybrid origin) for that States may have been more limited than subspecies and a consequent larger to Map 1 below, located after the previously believed. Another possibility range for the red wolf (Nowak 1995, Changes from the Proposed Rules is that the respective ranges of several 2000). The recent molecular genetics section). In addition, critical habitat was wolf species expanded and contracted studies (Wilson et al. 2000) identify this designated in that rulemaking. In 50 in the eastern and northeastern United canid as something other than a gray CFR 17.95(a), we describe Isle Royale States, intermingling along contact wolf, which they tentatively refer to as National Park, Michigan, and Minnesota zones, in post-glacial times. C. lycaon. Under this scenario the wolf management zones 1, 2, and 3 historical northeastern United States The results of the recent molecular (delineated in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(1)) as wolf could either be the red wolf (C. genetic (Wilson et al. 2000) and critical habitat. We also promulgated rufus) or a separate subspecies of C. morphometric studies (Nowak 1995, special regulations under section 4(d) of lycaon. Due to the extreme uncertainty 2000) may help explain some of the past the Act for operating a wolf over wolf taxonomy, at this time we are difficulties in establishing the southern management program in Minnesota at adopting no final position on the boundary of the gray wolf’s range in the that time. The depredation control identity of the wolf (or wolves) that eastern United States. It may be shown portion of the special regulation was historically existed in the northeastern by additional genetics investigation that later modified (50 FR 50793; December United States. Instead, we are the red wolf, or another wolf species, 12, 1985); these special regulations are encouraging additional research on that historically populated the entire east found in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(2). question, and we are maintaining the coast of the United States, and the gray On November 22, 1994, we designated listing of the gray wolf in the wolf did not occur there at all. However, areas in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming northeastern United States because until additional data convincingly show as nonessential experimental there are insufficient data showing that that gray wolves did not historically populations in order to initiate gray listing to be in error. occur in the northeastern States, we will wolf reintroduction projects in central view the historical range of the gray Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area C. Historical Range of the Gray Wolf wolf as including those areas north of (59 FR 60252, 59 FR 60266). On January Until the molecular genetics studies the Ohio River, the southern borders of 12, 1998, a nonessential experimental of the last few years, the range of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and population was established for the gray wolf prior to European settlement southern Missouri; and west from Mexican gray wolf in portions of was generally believed to include most central Texas and Oklahoma. This Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas (63 FR of North America. The only areas that boundary is a reasonable compromise of 1752). These experimental population were believed to have lacked gray wolf several published accounts, being designations also contain special

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15807

regulations that govern take of wolves Since then, we have received a National Marine Fisheries Service, within these geographic areas (codified petition from Mr. Karl Knuchel on adopted a policy governing the at 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (k)). (Refer to behalf of the Friends of Northern recognition of distinct population Currently Designated Nonessential Yellowstone Elk Herd Inc. Mr. segments (DPSs) for purposes of listing, Experimental Populations of Gray Knuchel’s petition requested the reclassifying, and delisting vertebrate Wolves, section below, for more details.) delisting of gray wolves in the Rocky species under the Act (61 FR 4722). This We have received several petitions Mountains. Because the data review that policy, sometimes referred to as the during the past decade requesting would result from the processing of this ‘‘Vertebrate Population Policy,’’ guides consideration to delist the gray wolf in petition would be a subset of the review the Services in recognizing DPSs that all or part of the 48 conterminous States. begun by this rulemaking, we will not satisfy the definition of ‘‘species’’ under We subsequently published findings initiate action on this petition until after the Act. To be recognized as a DPS, a that these petitions did not present publication of this rule. group of vertebrate animals must satisfy substantial information that delisting tests of discreteness and significance. E. Summary of Issues Related to This gray wolves in all or part of the To be considered discrete, a group of Final Rule conterminous 48 States may be vertebrate animals must be markedly warranted (54 FR 16380, April 24, 1989; Purpose and Definitions of the Act separated from other populations of the 55 CFR 48656, November 30, 1990; 63 same taxon by physical, physiological, The primary purpose of the Act is to ecological, or behavioral factors or by an FR 55839, October 19, 1998). prevent animal and plant species On July 13, 2000, we published a international governmental boundary endangerment and extinction. One of that coincides with differences in proposal (65 FR 43450) to revise the the ways the Act does this is to require current listing of the gray wolf across control of exploitation, management of the Service to identify species that meet habitat, conservation status, or most of the conterminous United States the Act’s definitions of endangered and (Refer to Map 2 following Changes from regulatory mechanisms. A population threatened species, to add those species does not have to be completely isolated the Proposed Rules section below). That to the Federal Lists of Endangered and proposal also included recommended by such factors from other populations Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR of its parent taxon in order to be wording for 3 special regulations that 17.11 and 17.12, respectively), and to would apply to those wolves proposed considered discrete. plan and implement conservation The significance of a potential DPS is for reclassification to threatened status. measures to improve their status to the assessed in light of its importance to the The proposal was followed by a point at which they no longer need the taxon to which it belongs. Evidence of 4-month public comment period, during protections of the Act. When that significance includes, but is not limited which we held 14 public hearings and protection is no longer needed, we take to, the use of an unusual or unique many additional informational meetings steps to remove (delist) the species from ecological setting; a marked difference in those areas of the country where the Federal lists. If a species is listed as in genetic characteristics; or the wolves and people would be most endangered, we may first reclassify it to occupancy of an area that, if devoid of affected by the proposed changes. threatened status as an intermediate the species, would result in a significant Following the development of our step before its eventual delisting; gap in the range of the taxon. July 2000 proposal, but prior to its however, reclassification to threatened If a group of vertebrate animals is publication, we received petitions from status is not required prior to delisting. determined to be both discrete and Mr. Lawrence Krak, of Gilman, Section 3 of the Act provides the significant, it is then evaluated to Wisconsin, and from the Minnesota following definitions that are relevant to determine whether it meets the Conservation Federation. Mr. Krak’s this rule: definition of threatened or endangered petition requested the delisting of gray Endangered species—Any species based on the five listing factors (section wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and which is in danger of extinction 4(a)(1) of the Act). If it is recovered, a Michigan. The Minnesota Conservation throughout all or a significant portion of DPS can be delisted. Federation requested the delisting of its range; Although the Vertebrate Population gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes Threatened species—Any species Policy does not allow State or other DPS. Because the data reviews that which is likely to become an intra-national governmental boundaries would result from the processing of endangered species within the to be used in determining the these petitions would be a subset of the foreseeable future throughout all or a discreteness of a potential DPS, a State review begun by our July 2000 proposal, significant portion of its range; and boundary may be used as a boundary of we did not initiate separate reviews in Species—Includes any subspecies of convenience in order to clearly identify response to those two petitions. fish or wildlife or plants, and any the geographic area included within a Subsequent to our proposal, but after distinct population segment of any DPS designation when the State the close of the comment period, we species of vertebrate fish or wildlife boundary incidentally separates two received petitions from Defenders of which interbreeds when mature. (See DPSs that are judged to be discrete on Wildlife to list gray wolf DPSs in the additional discussion in the Distinct other grounds. southern Rocky Mountains, northern Population Segments Under Our It is important to note that a DPS is California—southern Oregon, and Vertebrate Population Policy section, a listed entity under the Act, and is western Washington, and to grant below.) treated the same as a listed species or endangered status to gray wolves in subspecies. It is listed, protected, those DPSs. Because wolves were Distinct Population Segments Under subject to interagency consultation, and already protected as endangered in Our Vertebrate Population Policy recovered just as any other threatened or those areas, we took no action on these The Act’s definition of the term endangered species or subspecies. A petitions. Additionally, there are no ‘‘species’’ includes ‘‘any distinct DPS frequently will have its own wolf populations in those areas, and a population segment of any species of recovery plan and its own recovery DPS cannot be designated for an area vertebrate fish or wildlife which goals. As with a species or subspecies, that is unoccupied by a population of interbreeds when mature.’’ On February a DPS recovery program is not required the species of concern. 7, 1996, we, in conjunction with the to seek restoration of the animal

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15808 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

throughout the entire geographic area of evaluate all wolves in the northern U.S. the formal section 7(a)(2) consultation the listed entity, but only to the point Rocky Mountains to determine if, and process. at which it no longer meets the where, gray wolf populations might The Secretary has designated three definition of a threatened or endangered exist. We determined that gray wolves nonessential experimental population species. in northwestern Montana qualified as a areas for the gray wolf, and wolves have wolf population under this definition subsequently been reintroduced into Distinct Population Segments and and that this population was these areas. These nonessential Experimental Populations geographically separated from the experimental population areas are the The Act does not provide a definition potential experimental population areas. Yellowstone Experimental Population for the term ‘‘population.’’ However, the We therefore designated the two Area, the Central Idaho Experimental Act uses the term ‘‘population’’ in two experimental population areas and Population Area, and the Mexican Wolf different concepts—distinct population began gray wolf reintroductions to Experimental Population Area. The first segments and experimental populations. establish the two experimental two of these are intended to further the These two concepts were added to the populations. recovery of gray wolves in the northern original Act at different times and are Because of these different purposes U.S. Rocky Mountains, and the third is used in different contexts. The term for experimental populations and part of our Mexican wolf recovery ‘‘distinct population segment’’ is part of distinct population segments, a DPS can program, as described in their respective the statutory definition of a ‘‘species’’ contain several experimental recovery plans (Service 1982, 1987) and is significant for listing, delisting, populations, or a combination of (Refer to Map 1, after the Changes from and reclassification purposes, under experimental and nonexperimental the Proposed Rules section below.) section 4 of the Act. Our Vertebrate populations. The Yellowstone Experimental Population Policy (61 FR 4722; February Refer to the Designation of Distinct Population Area consists of that portion 7, 1996) defines a DPS as one or more Population Segments section below, for of Idaho east of Interstate Highway 15; groups of members of a species or further discussion and analysis of how that portion of Montana that is east of subspecies within a portion of that our Vertebrate Population Policy has Interstate Highway 15 and south of the species’ or subspecies’ geographic been applied in this rule. Missouri River from Great Falls, distribution that meets established Montana, to the eastern Montana border; F. Currently Designated Nonessential criteria regarding discreteness and and all of Wyoming (59 FR 60252; Experimental Populations of Gray significance. Congress included the DPS November 22, 1994). Wolves concept in the Act, recognizing that a The Central Idaho Experimental listing, reclassification, or delisting Section 10(j) of the Act gives the Population Area consists of that portion action may, in some circumstances, be Secretary of the Interior the authority to of Idaho that is south of Interstate more appropriately applied over designate populations of listed species Highway 90 and west of Interstate 15; something less than the entire area in that are reintroduced outside their and that portion of Montana south of which a species or subspecies is found current range, but within their probable Interstate 90, west of Interstate 15, and or was known to occur in order to historical range, as ‘‘experimental south of Highway 12 west of Missoula protect and recover organisms in a more populations’’ for the purposes of (59 FR 60266; November 22, 1994). timely and cost-effective manner. promoting the recovery of those species The special regulations for these two In contrast, Congress added the by establishing additional wild experimental populations allow flexible experimental population concept to give populations. Such a designation management of wolves, including the Secretary another tool to aid in the increases our flexibility in managing authorization for private citizens to take conservation of ‘‘species’’ (i.e., species, reintroduced populations, because wolves in the act of attacking livestock subspecies, or DPSs) that have already experimental populations are treated as on private land. These rules also been listed under the Act. The Act also threatened species under the Act. provide a permit process that similarly requires that an experimental Threatened status, in comparison to allows the taking, under certain population must be geographically endangered status, allows somewhat circumstances, of wolves in the act of separate from existing populations of more liberal issuance of take permits for attacking livestock grazing on public the species. The term ‘‘population’’ as conservation and educational purposes, land. In addition, they allow used in the experimental population imposes fewer permit requirements on opportunistic noninjurious harassment program is necessarily a flexible recovery activities by cooperating of wolves by livestock producers on concept, depending upon the organism States, and allows the promulgation of private and public grazing lands, and involved and its biological requirements special regulations that are consistent designated government employees may for successfully breeding, reproducing, with the conservation of the species. perform lethal and nonlethal control and establishing itself in the For each experimental population, the efforts to remove problem wolves under reintroduction area. Secretary is required to determine specified circumstances. For purposes of gray wolf whether it is essential to the continued On January 12, 1998, we established reintroduction by means of existence of the species. If the Secretary a similar third nonessential experimental populations in central determines that an experimental experimental population area to Idaho and Yellowstone National Park, population is ‘‘nonessential,’’ then for reintroduce the Mexican gray wolf into we needed to examine the biological the purposes of section 7 of the Act its historical habitat in the southwestern characteristics of the species to (Interagency Cooperation), the States. The Mexican Gray Wolf determine if the reintroduced wolves population is treated as a species Nonessential Experimental Population would be geographically separate from proposed to be listed as a threatened or Area consists of that portion of Arizona other gray wolf populations. We defined endangered species, except when the lying south of Interstate Highway 40 and a wolf population to be two breeding population occurs within areas of the north of Interstate Highway 10; that pairs, each successfully raising two or National Wildlife Refuge System or the portion of New Mexico lying south of more young for two consecutive years in National Park System. Proposed species Interstate Highway 40 and north of a recovery area (Service 1994a). This are subject to the advisory section Interstate Highway 10 in the west and wolf population definition was used to 7(a)(4) conference process rather than north of the Texas-New Mexico border

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15809

in the east; and that part of Texas lying measures and procedures which are goals. For example, addressing the need north of U.S. Highway 62/180 (63 FR necessary to bring any endangered for redundancy and resiliency for 1752). species or threatened species to the nonmotile organisms, species of limited This final rule will not affect any of point at which the measures provided range (for example, island or insular these three existing nonessential pursuant to this Act are no longer species), or those species restricted to experimental populations for gray necessary.’’ Recovery is defined as linear features of the environment wolves, nor will it affect the existing ‘‘improvement in the status of listed (stream or shoreline species) should be special regulations that apply to them. species to the point at which listing is expected to result in recovery goals that G. Gray Wolf-Dog Hybrids no longer appropriate under the criteria are quite different from goals developed set out in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.’’ for habitat generalist, widely The many gray wolf-dog hybrids in Essentially, recover and conserve both distributed, and/or highly mobile North America have no value to gray mean to bring a species to the point at species. wolf recovery programs and are not which it no longer needs the protections Application of These Principles to the provided the protections of the Act. of the Act, because the species is no Gray Wolf DPSs Wolf-dog hybrids, when they escape longer threatened or endangered. from captivity or are intentionally Because this rule finalizes three new released into the wild, can interfere Important Principles of Conservation DPS listings for the gray wolf (see with gray wolf recovery programs in Biology ‘‘Designation of Distinct Population several ways. They are familiar with Representation, resiliency, and Segments’’ below), we evaluated what is humans, so they commonly are attracted redundancy are three principles of necessary for long-term extinction to the vicinity of farms and residences, conservation biology that are generally avoidance in each DPS, and the extent leading to unwarranted fears that they recognized as being necessary to of progress made to date toward that are wild wolves hunting in pastures and conserve the biodiversity of an area goal in each DPS. This examined yards. In such situations they may (Shaffer and Stein 2000). Although the whether recovery is underway across a exhibit bold behavior patterns and show Act is not a biodiversity conservation significant portion of each DPS to little fear of humans, leading to human statute, in some ways it functions as ensure long-term viability when that safety concerns. They generally have such on a single species level. Thus, we recovery is completed. Each DPS poor hunting skills; thus, they may can and should apply these principles evaluation used the principles of resort to preying on domestic animals, when establishing goals for individual conservation biology and focused on the while the blame for their depredations species’ recovery under the Act. size, number, makeup, and distribution is commonly and mistakenly placed on The principle of representation is the of wolves in the individual DPSs, and wild wolves. These behaviors, when need to preserve ‘‘some of everything’’— the threats manifest there, in order to reported in the media or spread by word every species, every habitat, and every determine if the gray wolf is in danger of mouth, can erode public support for biotic community—so biodiversity can of extinction throughout all or a wolf recovery efforts. In addition, be maintained. At the species level it significant portion of the respective although unlikely, feral wolf-dog also calls for preserving the genetic DPS. hybrids may mate with wild wolves, diversity that remains within a species, Eastern DPS resulting in the introduction of dog in order to maximize the species’ ability genes into wild wolf populations. For to cope with short-term environmental The original Recovery Plan for the these reasons, this rule does not extend variability and to adapt and evolve in Eastern Timber Wolf and the 1992 the protections of the Act to gray wolf- response to long-term environmental revision of that plan (Service 1978, dog hybrids, regardless of the change. 1992a) established and reiterated geographic location of the capture of Redundancy and resiliency both deal criteria to identify the point at which their pure wolf ancestors. with preserving ‘‘enough to last,’’ but long-term population viability would be In recovery programs for other they address it at distinctly different assured in the eastern United States threatened or endangered species, levels. Redundancy addresses the need (Recovery Plans for the gray wolf are hybrids and hybridization could for a sufficient number of populations of discussed in more detail below). perhaps play an important role. This a species, while resiliency deals with Although the 1978 Recovery Plan decision to not extend the protections of the necessary size (numerical and predated the scientific field of the Act to gray wolf-dog hybrids should geographic) of those individual conservation biology, it embodied not be taken as an indication of our populations that are needed for species’ conservation biology tenets in its position on the potential importance of persistence over time. Larger recovery criteria, and those criteria were hybrids and hybridization to recovery populations are more resilient to carried forward unchanged in the 1992 programs for other species. Determining environmental changes and other revised recovery plan. The Eastern the importance and treatment under the threats to their existence. The Timber Wolf Recovery Team was Act of hybrids requires a species-by- redundancy that comes from preserving subsequently queried by the Service in species evaluation. multiple populations provides 1997, and at that time the Eastern Team additional assurances of species’ reviewed the criteria and found them to H. Conservation and Recovery of the survival. (In the broader conservation be adequate and sufficient to ensure Gray Wolf biology context, these two principles are long-term population viability (Peterson Understanding the Service’s strategy also applied to biotic communities and in litt. 1997). for gray wolf recovery first requires an ecosystems.) The principles of representation, understanding of the meaning of Due to the vast array of life forms that resiliency, and redundancy are fully ‘‘recover’’ and ‘‘conserve’’ under the are potentially subject to the protections incorporated into the recovery criteria Act. ‘‘Conserve’’ is defined in the Act of the Act, and the variety of physical, developed by the Eastern Timber Wolf itself (section 3(3)) while ‘‘recovery’’ is biological, and cultural factors acting on Recovery Team. The need to maintain defined in the Act’s implementing them, these three principles must be the Minnesota wolf population is regulations at 50 CFR 402.02. Conserve applied on a species-by-species basis to believed to be vital, because the is defined, in part, as ‘‘the use of all determine the appropriate recovery remaining genetic diversity of gray

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15810 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

wolves in the eastern United States was individuals and their genetic diversity redundancy to ensure the species is no carried by the several hundred wolves from the other components of the longer endangered in the Western DPS who survived in the State into the early metapopulation. when those criteria are met. Large 1970s. The Eastern Team insisted that The close proximity to the larger numbers of wolves in three widely- the remnant Minnesota wolf population Minnesota population would allow spaced locations in the Northern U.S. must be maintained and expanded to wolves to move between the two Rockies achieve the desired resiliency achieve wolf recovery in the eastern populations and would provide and redundancy. Furthermore, the United States, and the successful growth substantial genetic and demographic recovery program is based on 3 founder of that remnant population has support for the smaller second populations from 3 different Canadian maximized the representation of that population. Therefore, the Recovery source populations having high levels of genetic diversity among Midwestern Team specified a lower recovery goal of genetic diversity (Forbes and Boyd gray wolves. Furthermore, the Eastern 100 wolves if a second population 1997, Fritts et al. 1997). This has Team specified that the Minnesota wolf would develop in a location that would achieved sufficient representation of the population would increase to 1250– allow it to be closely tied to (that is, less genetic diversity from the closest 1400 animals, which would increase the than 200 miles from) the Minnesota thriving wolf populations in Canada, likelihood of maintaining its genetic wolf population. Such a second wolf and allowed the Northern U.S. Rockies diversity over the long-term, and would population has developed in Wisconsin wolves to benefit from the local provide the resiliency to reduce the and the adjacent Upper Peninsula of adaptions of those source populations. adverse impacts of unpredictable Michigan. This second population is Additionally, the northwest Montana chance demographic and environmental less than 200 miles from the Minnesota population remains connected to the events. The Minnesota wolf population wolf population, and it has had a late Canadian wolf population, providing a currently is estimated to be double that winter population exceeding 100 conduit for continuing genetic exchange numerical goal. animals since 1994. with wolves farther to the north. This As described elsewhere in this final connection is exemplified by wolves The need for redundancy was clearly rule, there is no convincing evidence in recognized by the Eastern Team such as ‘‘Opal,’’ which was radio recent decades of another wild gray wolf collared in Banff National Park in members, and they specified that it be population in the United States east of Alberta, Canada, and subsequently accomplished by establishing a second Michigan, so the wolves in the western moved south and successfully raised population of gray wolves in the eastern Great Lakes States represents all the pups as the alpha female of the Boulder United States. They identified several known gray wolf genetic diversity found Pack in northwestern Montana. potential locations for the second in the Eastern DPS. In other words, the The three initially isolated gray wolf population. To ensure that the second area in the western Great Lakes States populations in northwestern Montana, population also had sufficient resiliency where the wolf currently exists central Idaho, and the Greater to survive chance demographic and represents the entire range of the species Yellowstone Area have expanded in environmental fluctuations, the within the Eastern DPS. Furthermore, range and increased in numbers to the Recovery Teams specified a minimum the number of wolves in the Eastern point that they are no longer isolated size that must be maintained for a DPS greatly exceeds the recovery goals from each other and the movement of minimum of five years by the second of (1) a secure wolf population in individual wolves from one to another population. If the second population Minnesota and (2) a second population is becoming more common. Wolf was isolated from the larger Minnesota of 100 wolves for 5 successive years, dispersal and interbreeding has been wolf population, the recovery criteria and thus contains sufficient numbers documented between all three core required that the second population and distribution (resiliency and recovery areas within the northern contain at least 200 wolves for a redundancy) to ensure the long-term Rocky Mountains (see Dispersal of minimum of 5 years. However, if it was survival of gray wolves within the DPS. Western Gray Wolves). They are now near the Minnesota wolf population, the The wolf’s progress toward recovery in functioning as a large metapopulation 2 populations would function as a the Eastern DPS, together with the rather than as three isolated metapopulation rather than as 2 threats that remain to the wolf within populations. The revised recovery separate and isolated populations; in the DPS, indicates that the gray wolf is criteria specify that at least 30 packs, that case the second population would not in danger of extinction in its entire comprising at least 300 wolves, should be viable if it maintained 100 wolves for range within the DPS. Moreover, the exist across the metapopulation’s range at least 5 years. A metapopulation is a progress towards recovery of each of the for a minimum of 3 years. Twenty packs conservation biology concept whereby two populations that comprise the (200 or more wolves) across the the spatial distribution of a population metapopulation within the western metapopulation for 3 years would has a major influence on its viability. In Great Lakes States demonstrates that the indicate the species is no longer nature many populations exist as species is not in danger of extinction in endangered in the DPS and should be partially isolated sets of subpopulations- any significant portion of the range of considered for reclassification to termed ‘‘metapopulations.’’ A the species within the DPS. We threatened status. There have been at metapopulation is widely recognized by therefore conclude that gray wolves are least 300 wolves in a minimum of 30 conservation biologists as being more no longer properly classified as packs since the end of 2000, and at the secure over the long-term than are endangered in the Eastern DPS. end of 2001 there were 563 wolves in 34 several isolated populations that contain packs in the Northern U.S. Rockies. the same total number of packs and Western DPS There have been over 200 wolves in at individuals (Service 1994a, Appendix 9, Similarly, the reclassification and least 20 packs since the end of 1997. Dr. Steven Fritts). This is because recovery criteria that were found in the The gray wolf’s substantial success in adverse affects experienced by one of its Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf meeting the revised recovery criteria for subpopulations resulting from genetic Recovery Plan (Service 1987) have been the Northern Rocky Mountains area drift, demographic shifts, and local subsequently revised following peer ensures the wolf’s long-term survival environmental fluctuations can be review (Bangs 2002) to provide within its range in the Western DPS (i.e., countered by occasional influxes of sufficient representation, resiliency, and the area inhabited by the

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15811

metapopulation of gray wolves in the has not achieved sufficient redundancy incomplete when the recovery plan is Northern Rocky Mountains). We and resiliency to assure the long-term prepared. The criteria are based on the conclude, based both on the wolf’s survival of the gray wolf in the best available scientific data and recovery progress, and on our Southwest and Mexico. We conclude analysis at the time the plan is assessment of the threats that will that the gray wolf continues to be in developed. However, as recovery remain once the wolf is reclassified as danger of extinction throughout all or a progresses and our knowledge of a threatened (including the continuation significant portion of its range in the species increases, we may need to of the nonessential experimental foreseeable future in the Southwestern reinterpret the original recovery goals, population designation and its special DPS, and it remains properly classified or even add or drop one or more regulations), that the gray wolf is not in as endangered in the DPS except where recovery criteria. If appropriate, and if danger of extinction throughout its part of a nonessential experimental funding and timing allow, we may range within the Western DPS. Because population. revise or update recovery plans to the three initially isolated populations reflect our new knowledge and modified I. Gray Wolf Recovery Plans in the Western DPS now function as a recovery criteria. However, revision of single large metapopulation, and Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to recovery plans or recovery criteria is not because there is no other population of develop and implement recovery plans a required precursor to species wolves within the DPS, this conclusion for listed species. In some cases, we reclassification or delisting. applies to all parts of the wolf’s range appoint recovery teams of experts to The first gray wolf recovery plan was in the DPS, and so we also conclude assist in the writing of recovery plans written for the eastern timber wolf, and that the wolf is not in danger of and oversight of subsequent recovery it was approved on May 2, 1978 (Service extinction within any significant efforts. Once a species no longer meets 1978). This recovery plan was later portion of its range in the DPS. The gray the definition of endangered or revised and was approved on January wolf therefore is no longer endangered threatened it is considered to be 31, 1992 (Service 1992a). The 1978 throughout all or a significant portion of recovered and must be delisted. Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber its range in the Western DPS. Therefore, the restoration of a species Wolf (Eastern Plan) and its revision throughout its historical range, or even were intended to recover the eastern Southwestern DPS throughout all the remaining suitable timber wolf, Canus lupus lycaon, The recovery program for the habitat, may not be necessary before a believed at that time to be the only gray Southwestern (Mexican) gray wolf is species may be delisted. wolf subspecies that historically based upon reintroductions of captive We initiated recovery programs for inhabited the United States east of the reared Mexican wolves to portions of the originally listed subspecies of gray Great Plains. Thus, the Eastern Plan their historical range in the wolves by appointing recovery teams covers a geographic triangle extending Southwestern U.S. and Mexico. These and developing and implementing from Minnesota to Maine and into captive-reared wolves are the products recovery plans. Recovery plans describe northeastern Florida. The recovery plan of a carefully managed breeding criteria that are used to assess a species’ for the eastern timber wolf was based on program designed to preserve the progress toward recovery, contain the best available information on wolf remaining genetic diversity of the specific prioritized actions believed taxonomy at the time of its publication. historical wolves in those areas and necessary to achieve the recovery Since the publication of those recovery maximize the genetic diversity in the criteria and objectives, and identify the plans, various studies have produced reintroduced population. This most appropriate parties to implement conflicting results regarding the identity propagation and reintroduction program the recovery actions. of the wolf that historically occupied ensures that the principle of Recovery plans contain criteria that the eastern States. Therefore, this representation is achieved in the are intended to trigger our consideration recovery program has focused on Mexican wolf recovery program. of the need to either reclassify (from recovering the gray wolf population that At this point, the Mexican wolf endangered to threatened) or to delist a survived in, and has expanded outward recovery program lacks a recovery goal. species due to improvements in its from, northeastern Minnesota, A prime objective of 100 self-sustaining status. Criteria are based upon factors regardless of its subspecific identity. wolves in the wild was set in the 1982 that can be measured or otherwise (See the Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan (Service objectively evaluated to document the Eastern United States section 1982), but the Plan states that goal is improvements in a species’ biological above). preliminary, and is focused more on status. Examples of the type of criteria The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf assuring the survival of wolves in the typically used are numbers of Recovery Plan (Rocky Mountain Plan) Southwest and Mexico, rather than on individuals, numbers and distribution was approved in 1980 and revised in recovering and delisting them. As more of subgroups or populations of the 1987 (Service 1980, 1987). The Rocky is learned about wolves and their species, rates of productivity of Mountain Plan states in its introduction conservation in the Southwest, the individuals and/or populations, that it should be understood to refer to Service will endeavor to develop protection of habitat, and reduction or ‘‘gray wolves in the northern Rocky reclassification (endangered to elimination of threats to the species and Mountains of the contiguous 48 States, threatened) and delisting criteria for the its habitat. rather than to a specific subspecies.’’ Mexican wolf. When delisting criteria The reclassification and recovery The Rocky Mountain Plan focuses are developed, they too will incorporate criteria contained in our recovery plans recovery efforts in Idaho, most of the principles of representation, must be viewed in terms of the other Montana, and Wyoming. resiliency, and redundancy to assure the currently available information. In some The Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan was long-term survival of the Mexican wolf. cases, new information will demonstrate approved in 1982 (Service 1982). Based However, at this time we believe their that reclassification or delisting is on a review of Southwestern (Mexican) geographic distribution, low numbers appropriate independent of the subspecies of the gray wolf by Bogan and population density, and relatively information in the recovery plan. For and Mehlhop (1983), the plan combines low rate of population increase indicate example, our knowledge of a species the historical ranges of Canus lupus that the Mexican wolf recovery program and its conservation needs may be baileyi, C. l. monstrabilis, and the

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15812 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

presumed extinct C. l. mogollonensis within the triangular Minnesota-Maine- late winter 1998–99 data (Beyer et al. (which historically occurred in parts of Florida land area covered by the Eastern 2001, Wydeven et al. 1999). New Mexico and Arizona) to define the plan, except on Isle Royale, Michigan The Eastern Plan has no goals or portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and within Minnesota. While the 1978 criteria for the gray wolf population on Texas, and Mexico where recovery of Eastern Plan identified potential gray the 546-sq km (210-sq mi) Isle Royale, the Mexican wolf would be appropriate. wolf restoration areas throughout the Michigan. This small and isolated wolf eastern States, extending as far south as population is not expected to make a J. Recovery Progress of the Eastern Gray significant numerical contribution to Wolf the Great Smoky Mountains and adjacent areas in Tennessee, North gray wolf recovery, although long-term The 1992 revised Eastern Plan has Carolina, and Georgia, the revised 1992 research on this wolf population has two delisting criteria. The first criterion Eastern Plan dropped from added a great deal to our knowledge of states that the survival of the wolf in consideration the more southern the species. Minnesota must be assured. We, and the potential restoration areas, because Over the last several years, the Eastern Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team recovery efforts for the red wolf were Timber Wolf Recovery Team has (Rolf Peterson, Eastern Timber Wolf being initiated in those areas (Service consistently recommended that we Recovery Team, in litt. 1997, 1998, 1978, 1992a). designate a DPS in the western Great 1999a, 1999b), believe that this first The 1992 Eastern Plan recommends Lakes area and proceed with delisting criterion remains valid. It reclassifying wolves in Wisconsin and reclassification of wolves in that DPS to identifies a need for reasonable Michigan from endangered to threatened status as soon as possible. assurances that future State and tribal threatened status separately, recognizing The Eastern Team recommended that wolf management practices and that progress towards recovery may the DPS include a wide buffer around protection will maintain a viable the existing populations of wolves in occur at differing rates in these two recovered population of gray wolves Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. States. The Plan specifies that wolves in within the borders of Minnesota for the This buffer was described as lands that Wisconsin could be reclassified to foreseeable future. While there is no may not be regularly occupied by threatened if the population within the specific numerical recovery criterion for wolves but which may be temporarily State remained at or above 80 wolves the Minnesota wolf population, the used by dispersing wolves. Thus, the (late winter estimates) for 3 consecutive Eastern Plan identified State subgoals Eastern Team suggested the DPS also years. The Plan does not contain a for use by land managers and planners. include the States of North Dakota, reclassification criterion for Michigan The Eastern Plan’s subgoal for South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, wolves. Instead, it states that if Minnesota is 1,251 to 1,400 wolves. and Ohio (Peterson in litt. 1997, 1998, Wisconsin wolves reached their The second delisting criterion in the 1999a, 1999b). Eastern Plan states that at least one reclassification criterion, consideration viable wolf population should be should also be given to reclassifying Minnesota reestablished within the historical range Michigan wolves. However, with the During the pre-1965 period of wolf of the eastern timber wolf outside of subsequent increase in Michigan wolf bounties and legal public trapping, Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. numbers, it has frequently, but wolves persisted in the more remote The Eastern Plan provides two options unofficially, been assumed that the ‘‘80 northeastern areas of Minnesota. for reestablishing this second viable wolves for 3 years’’ criterion also would Estimates of population levels of wolf population. If it is located more be applied to Michigan. In other words, Minnesota wolves prior to listing under than 100 miles from the Minnesota wolf each State could be considered for the Act in 1974 include 450 to 700 in population, it would be considered reclassification if its wolf population 1950–53 (Fuller et al. 1992, Stenlund ‘‘isolated,’’ and the frequency of reached 80 individuals or more for 3 1955), 350 to 700 in 1963 (Cahalane movement of individuals and genetic successive years. The Eastern Timber 1964), 750 in 1970 (Leirfallom 1970), material from one population to the Wolf Recovery Team used these criteria 736 to 950 in 1971–72 (Fuller et al. other would likely be low or in its recommendation that the gray 1992), and 500 to 1,000 in 1973 (Mech nonexistent. Such an isolated wolf in the western Great Lakes States and Rausch 1975). While these population, in order to be self- be reclassified to threatened as soon as estimates were based upon varying sustaining, should consist of at least 200 possible (Peterson in litt. 1997, 1998, methodologies and are not directly wolves for at least 5 years (based upon 1999a, 1999b). comparable, they all agree in estimating late winter population estimates) to be The Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery the wolf population in Minnesota, the considered viable. Alternatively, if the Team clarified the second population only significant population in the Lower second population is located within 100 delisting criterion, which considers the 48 States during those time-periods, at miles of a self-sustaining wolf wolves in northern Wisconsin and the 1,000 or fewer animals preceding their population (for example, the Minnesota adjacent Upper Peninsula of Michigan listing under the Act. wolf population), a reestablished to be a single population. The Recovery Various population estimates in population having a minimum of 100 Team stated that the numerical delisting Minnesota have indicated increasing wolves for at least 5 years would be criterion for the Wisconsin-Michigan numbers after the wolf was listed as considered viable. Such a smaller population will be achieved when 6 endangered under the Act. A population population would be considered to be successive late winter wolf surveys of 1,000 to 1,200 was estimated by L. viable, because its proximity would document that the population equaled David Mech for 1976 (Service 1978), allow frequent immigration of or exceeded 100 wolves (excluding Isle and 1,235 wolves in 138 packs were Minnesota wolves to supplement it Royale wolves) for 5 consecutive years estimated for the winter of 1978–79 numerically and genetically. (Rolf Peterson, in litt. 1998). Because the (Berg and Kuehn 1982). The Eastern Plan does not specify Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population In 1988–89, the Minnesota where in the eastern United States the was first known to have exceeded 100 Department of Natural Resources (MN second population should be wolves in the late winter 1993–94 DNR) repeated the 1978–79 survey, and reestablished. Therefore, the second survey, the numerical delisting criterion also used a second method to estimate population could be located anywhere was satisfied in early 1999, based upon wolf numbers in the State. The resulting

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15813

independent estimates were 1,500 and et al. 1992), an increase of 65 percent In 1995, wolves were first 1,750 wolves in at least 233 packs over the primary range calculated for documented in Jackson County, (Fuller et al. 1992). 1978–79. The 1997–98 study concluded Wisconsin, an area well to the south of During the winter of 1997–98, a that the contiguous wolf range had the northern Wisconsin area occupied Statewide wolf population and expanded to 88,325 sq km (33,971 sq by other Wisconsin wolf packs. The distribution survey was repeated by MN mi), a 47 percent increase in 9 years number of wolves in this central DNR, using methods similar to those of (Berg and Benson 1999). The wolf Wisconsin area has dramatically the two previous surveys. Field staff of population in Minnesota has recovered expanded since that time. During the Federal, State, tribal, and county land to the point that its contiguous range winter of 2000–2001, there were 34 management agencies and wood covered approximately 40 percent of the wolves in 9 packs, plus 3 lone wolves, products companies were queried to State during 1997–98. in and around Jackson County identify occupied wolf range in (Wydeven et al. 2001a). Minnesota. Data from five concurrent Wisconsin During the winter of 2000–2001, 10 radio telemetry studies tracking 36 Wolves were considered to have been wolves occurred on Native American packs, representative of the entire extirpated from Wisconsin by 1960. No reservations in Wisconsin, and this Minnesota wolf range, were used to formal attempts were made to monitor increased to at least 13 wolves in the determine average pack size and the State’s wolf population from 1960 winter of 2001–2002 (WI DNR 2002, territory area. Those figures were then until 1979. From 1960 through 1975 Wydeven pers. comm. 2002). These used to calculate a Statewide estimate of individual wolves and an occasional animals were on the Bad River (8) and pack numbers and the overall wolf wolf pair were reported. However, no Lac Courte Oreilles Reservations (5). population in the occupied range, with evidence exists of any wolf There also is evidence of individual single (nonpack) wolves factored into reproduction occurring in Wisconsin, wolves on the Lac du Flambeau and the estimate (Berg and Benson 1999). and the wolves that were reported may Menominee Reservations, with a high The 1997–98 survey concluded that have been dispersing animals from likelihood of wolf packs developing on approximately 2,445 wolves existed in Minnesota. these reservation in the near future about 385 packs in Minnesota during Wolf population monitoring by the WI (Wydeven pers. comm. 2002). that winter period. This figure indicates DNR began in 1979 and estimated a Wolf numbers in Wisconsin alone the continued growth of the Minnesota Statewide population of 25 wolves at greatly surpassed the second population wolf population at an average rate of that time. This population remained goal of 200 animals identified in the about 3.7 percent annually. The relatively stable for several years, then Eastern Plan and exceeded its Minnesota wolf population has shown declined slightly to approximately 15 to reclassification criterion several years approximately this average annual rate 19 wolves in the mid-1980s. ago. Although population growth nearly of increase since 1970 (Berg and Benson In the late 1980s, the Wisconsin wolf stalled between 1999–2000 and 2000– 1999, Fuller et al. 1992). No rigorous population began an increase that 2001, a resumption of the steady survey of the Minnesota wolf continues today. WI DNR intensively upward trend was again quite apparent population has been conducted since monitors its wolf population, using a in the preliminary late-winter 2001– the winter of 1997–98, but biologists combination of aerial, ground, and 2002 estimate of 320. (Refer to the generally accept that the population has satellite radio telemetry, snow tracking, Disease or predation section below for increased, and will continue to increase, and wolf sign surveys (Wydeven et al. additional discussion.) perhaps at a slower rate and with 1995, 2001a). The number of wolves in Michigan occasional fluctuations (Mech 1998, each pack is estimated based on the Paul 2001). totality of ground and aerial Michigan wolves were extirpated as a Simultaneous with the increase in observations made of the individual reproducing population long before they wolf numbers in Minnesota there has packs over the winter. During the winter were listed as endangered in 1974. Prior been a parallel expansion of the area in of 2000–01, 30 of Wisconsin’s 66 wolf to 1991, and excluding Isle Royale, the which wolves are routinely found. packs (45 percent) had members last known breeding population of wild During 1948–53 the major wolf range carrying active radio transmitters much Michigan wolves occurred in the mid- was estimated to be about 31,080 sq km of the season. Twenty-seven of these 1950s. As wolves began to reoccupy (11,954 sq mi) (Stenlund 1955). A 1970 monitored wolves were located 20 or northern Wisconsin, the Michigan questionnaire survey resulted in an more times during the mid-September to Department of Natural Resources (MI estimated wolf range of 38,400 sq km mid-April period. Five additional radio- DNR) began noting single wolves at (14,769 sq mi) (calculated by Fuller et tracked wolves were loners, and one various locations in the Upper al. 1992 from Leirfallom 1970). Fuller et was in an adjacent Minnesota pack. Peninsula of Michigan. In the late al. (1992), using data from Berg and Minimum wolf population estimates 1980s, a wolf pair was verified in the Kuehn (1982), estimated that Minnesota (late-winter counts) for 1994 through central Upper Peninsula and produced primary wolf range included 36,500 sq 2001 are 57, 83, 99, 148, 178, 205, 248, pups in 1991. Since that time, wolf km (14,038 sq mi) during winter 1978– and 257 animals, comprising 14, 18, 28, packs have spread throughout the Upper 79. By 1982–83, pairs or breeding packs 35, 47, 57, 66, and 66 packs respectively Peninsula, with immigration occurring of wolves were estimated to occupy an (Wydeven et al. 2001a). WI DNR from both Wisconsin on the west and area of 57,050 sq km (22,000 sq mi) in preliminarily estimated that about 320 Ontario on the east. They now are found northern Minnesota (Mech et al. 1988). wolves in 70 to 80 packs were in the in every county of the Upper Peninsula. That study also identified an additional State in late winter 2001–2002 (WI DNR The MI DNR annually monitors the 40,500 sq km (15,577 sq mi) of 2002, Wydeven et al. 2002). Because the wolf population in the Upper Peninsula peripheral range, where habitat monitoring methods focus on wolf by intensive late winter tracking surveys appeared suitable but no wolves or only packs, it is believed that lone wolves are that focus on each pack. Pack locations lone wolves existed. The 1988–89 study undercounted in Wisconsin, and that, as are derived from previous surveys, produced an estimate of 60,200 sq km a result, these population estimates are citizen reports, and ground tracking of (23,165 sq mi) as the contiguous wolf probably slight underestimates of the radio-collared wolves. During the winter range at that time in Minnesota (Fuller actual wolf population within the State. of 2000–2001 at least 50 wolf packs

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15814 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

were resident in the Upper Peninsula. Northeastern United States and dense human developments that Approximately 40 percent of these Wolves were extirpated from the may preclude the movement of a packs had members with active radio northeastern United States by 1900. Few sufficient number of wolves from tracking collars (Hammill pers. comm. credible observations of wolves were Canada into Maine (Harrison and 2002.) Care is taken to avoid double- reported in the Northeast during most of Chapin 1997). counting wolves, and a variety of the 20th century. However, in 1993 a In the study on the feasibility of wolf evidence is used to distinguish adjacent single female wolf was killed in western reintroduction in the Adirondacks, packs and accurately count their Maine, and in 1996 a second wolf or Paquet et al. (1999) found that suitable members (Beyer et al. 2001). wolf-like canid was trapped and killed habitat for sustaining a small population These annual surveys have in central Maine. Another wolf-like of gray wolves is present, but that habitat fragmentation within the documented the following minimum canid was mistaken for a coyote and late winter estimates of wolves Adirondack Park and the lack of killed in 1997 in northern Vermont. In occurring in the Upper Peninsula from linkages to occupied wolf areas to the early 2002 a 29 kg (64 lb) apparent wolf 1994 through 2001: 57 wolves in 1994, north suggest that wolves would not was killed by a trapper in southeastern 80 in 1995, 116 in 1996, 112 in 1997, persist there without periodic human Quebec, 20 miles from the New 140 in 1998, 174 in 1999, 216 in 2000, intervention. As a result, the authors Hampshire border; tissue samples are and 249 in 2001. In recent years the conclude that the ecological conditions undergoing genetic analysis. These annual rate of increase has been about in the Adirondack Park dictate against records and other observations and 24 percent (MI DNR 1997, 1999a, 2001). a successful reintroduction of gray signs of large, unidentified canids in The MI DNR estimated a minimum of wolves. Maine during recent years led to 278 wolves in the Upper Peninsula in Other Areas in the Eastern United States late winter 2001–2002 (MI DNR 2002). speculation that wolves may be The Upper Peninsula Michigan wolf dispersing into the northeastern United The increasing numbers of wolves in population has exceeded the unofficial States from nearby occupied habitat in Minnesota and the accompanying criterion of 80 animals for Canada. Many of the characteristics of expansion of their range westward and reclassification from endangered to the unidentified canids are consistent southwestward in the State have led to threatened status. Similar to the with an animal intermediate between an increase in dispersing, mostly young, situation in Wisconsin, the Upper the eastern coyote and the gray wolf. wolves that have been documented in Peninsula wolf population by itself has Private conservation organizations, the North and South Dakota in recent years. surpassed the goal of 200 wolves for a Maine Department of Inland Fisheries An examination of skull morphology of second population, as specified in the and Wildlife, the New York Department North and South Dakota wolves Eastern Plan. of Environmental Conservation, and the indicates that of eight examined, seven During the winter of 1997–98, one Service are continuing to seek evidence likely had dispersed from Minnesota; wolf pack composed of four animals of the presence of wild wolves in the eighth probably came from lived on lands of the Keewenaw Bay northern New York and New England. Manitoba, Canada (Licht and Fritts Indian Community. No other wolves are However, at this time there is no firm 1994). Genetic analysis of an additional known to be primarily using tribal lands evidence that a breeding population of gray wolf killed in 2001 in extreme in Michigan (Hammill in litt. 1998). wolves or wolf-like animals exists in the northwestern South Dakota indicates The wolf population of Isle Royale northeastern United States. that it, too, originated from the National Park, Michigan, is not A recent Geographic Information Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf considered to be an important factor in System analysis evaluated the potential population (Straughan and Fain 2002). the recovery or long-term survival of for wolf dispersal from southern Quebec The low potential for the establishment wolves in the western Great Lakes and Ontario into the northeastern of a viable and self-sustaining wolf States. This population is small, varying United States (Harrison and Chapin population in North and South Dakota, from 12 to 29 animals over the last 15 1998). The study also estimated the and the belief that all or most wolves in years, and is almost completely isolated amount of suitable wolf habitat present the Dakotas are biologically part of the from other wolf populations (Peterson et in northern New York and other New Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf al. 1998, pers. comm. 1999). For these England States, and with Wydeven et al. population, leads us to conclude that reasons, the Eastern Plan does not (1998) evaluated the likelihood of any wolves in these States should be include these wolves in its recovery natural wolf colonization from existing included in the Eastern Gray Wolf DPS. criteria and recommends only the occupied wolf range in Canada. These In October 2001, a wolf was killed in continuation of research and complete studies, and Mladenoff and Sickley north-central Missouri by a farmer who protection for these wolves (Service (1998), found that sufficient suitable believed it was a coyote. The wolf’s ear 1992a). wolf habitat is available in the tag identified it as having originated Although there have been reports of Adirondack Park region of New York from the western portion of Michigan’s wolf sightings in the Lower Peninsula of and in Maine and northern New Upper Peninsula, where it had been Michigan, including a 1997 report of 2 Hampshire. However, the New York captured as a juvenile in July of 1999. large canids believed to be wolves on habitat is relatively isolated, and the Wolves like these and others the ice west of the Mackinaw Bridge, authors concluded that natural described below in the Western DPS are there is no evidence that there are recolonization is unlikely to occur there. expected to continue to disperse from resident wolves in the Lower Peninsula. Furthermore, while there are relatively the core recovery populations and move However, recognizing the likelihood narrow potential dispersal corridors into areas where wolf numbers are that small numbers of gray wolves will connecting expansive wolf habitat in extremely low or nonexistent. Unless eventually move into the Lower Maine and New Hampshire with they return to a core recovery Peninsula, MI DNR has begun a revision existing wolf populations north of population and join or start a pack of its Wolf Management Plan to Quebec City, there are significant there, they are unlikely to contribute to incorporate provisions for wolf barriers to dispersal, including about 18 wolf recovery. While it is possible for management there (see issue U, ‘‘State km (11 mi) of the St. Lawrence River, an them to disperse and encounter another Wolf Management Plans’’). adjacent four lane highway, rail lines, wolf, mate, and even reproduce,

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15815

throughout much of the Midwest the National Park area as an experimental their opinions about wolves and wolf lack of large expanses of unfragmented population. Additionally, if natural management from an informed public land will make it difficult for recovery has not resulted in at least two perspective. wolf packs to persist in new areas packs becoming established in central In 1995 and 1996, we reintroduced without causing significant conflicts Idaho within 5 years, the Rocky wolves from southwestern Canada to with agricultural and other human Mountain Plan states that other remote public lands in central Idaho activities. measures, including reintroduction, and Yellowstone National Park (Bangs Because gray wolf recovery in the would be considered to recover wolves and Fritts 1996, Fritts et al. 1997, Bangs eastern United States can be achieved in that area. The goals identified in the et al. 1998). We designated these wolves by restoring the species to Minnesota, Rocky Mountain Plan are intended to as nonessential experimental Wisconsin, and Michigan, we do not ensure a well distributed and viable populations to increase management intend to undertake wolf recovery population in the Rocky Mountains, flexibility and address local and State programs in other areas of the Midwest. goals that could be met in a variety of concerns (59 FR 60252 and 60266; However, we may provide technical ways while still adhering to the November 22, 1994). Wolves in assistance to States and tribes who wish ‘‘biological intent’’ of the recovery plan. northwestern Montana remain listed as to develop wolf recovery plans beyond Gray wolf populations were endangered, the most protective those which we have undertaken. eliminated from Montana, Idaho, and category under the Act; they are not Wyoming, as well as adjacent included within the nonessential K. Recovery Progress of the Rocky southwestern Canada by the 1930s experimental population areas. (Refer to Mountain Gray Wolf (Young and Goldman 1944). After the Currently Designated Nonessential In 1974, an interagency wolf recovery human-caused mortality of wolves in Experimental Populations of Gray team was formed, and it completed the southwestern Canada was regulated in Wolves section above, for additional Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf the 1960s, populations expanded details.) Recovery Plan in 1980 (Service 1980). southward (Carbyn 1983). Dispersing The reintroduction of wolves to The Rocky Mountain Plan focuses wolf individuals occasionally reached the Yellowstone National Park and central recovery efforts on the large contiguous northern Rocky Mountains of the United Idaho in 1995 and 1996 greatly blocks of public land from western States (Ream and Mattson 1982, Nowak expanded the numbers and distribution Wyoming through Montana to the 1983), but lacked legal protection there of wolves in the northern Rocky Canadian border. until 1974 when they were listed as Mountains of the United States. Because The revised Rocky Mountain endangered. of the reintroduction, wolves soon Recovery Plan (Service 1987) identifies In 1982, a wolf pack from Canada became established throughout central a recovery criterion of 10 breeding pairs began to occupy Glacier National Park Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area. of wolves (defined as a male and female along the United States-Canada border. In 1995, an estimated 8 breeding pairs capable of reproduction) for 3 In 1986, the first litter of pups (using the Environmental Impact consecutive years in each of the 3 documented in over 50 years was born Statement (EIS) definition of a male and recovery areas—(1) northwestern in the Park. In recognition of the female successfully raising 2 pups until Montana (Glacier National Park; the ongoing natural recovery of wolves December 31), within a total population Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Lincoln arising from these Canadian dispersers, of about 101 individual wolves, Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and the Rocky Mountain Plan was revised in produced pups in the northern Rocky adjacent public lands), (2) central Idaho 1987 (Service 1987). The revised Rocky Mountains. By 1996, a total population (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Mountain Plan recommends that of 152 wolves containing 14 breeding Church River of No Return, and recovery be focused in areas with large pairs were producing pups. In 1997, 213 Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and blocks of public land, abundant native wolves with 20 breeding pairs produced adjacent, mostly Federal, lands), and (3) ungulates, and minimal livestock. Three pups. In 1998, there were 275 wolves the Yellowstone National Park area recovery areas were identified— and 21 breeding pairs. In 1999 there (including the Absaroka-Beartooth, northwestern Montana, central Idaho, were 322 wolves with 24 breeding pairs. North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton and the Greater Yellowstone Area. December 1999 ended the third Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public Promotion of natural recovery was successive year in which over 20 wolf lands). The Plan states that if one of advocated for Montana and Idaho breeding pairs successfully produced these recovery areas maintains a (unless no breeding pairs formed in pups in the northern U.S. Rocky population of 10 breeding pairs for 3 Idaho within 5 years), but recovery in Mountains. In 2000 there were 433 successive years, wolves in that the Yellowstone area was believed to wolves with 30 breeding pairs. As of recovery area can be reclassified to require a reintroduction program. December 2001 the wolf population was threatened status. If 2 recovery areas By 1989, we formed an interagency about 563 wolves, with 34 breeding maintain 10 breeding pairs (totaling wolf working group, composed of pairs producing pups (Service et al. about 200 adult wolves) for 3 successive Federal, State, and tribal agency 2002). years, gray wolves across the coverage personnel. The group conducted four The presence of 20 breeding pairs area of the Rocky Mountain Plan can be basic recovery tasks, in addition to the (using the EIS definition of a male and reclassified to threatened status. It also standard enforcement functions female successfully raising 2 pups) states that if all 3 recovery areas associated with any take of listed distributed in 3 recovery areas for 3 maintain 10 breeding pairs for 3 species. These tasks were—(1) monitor successive years, exceeded the successive years, the Northern Rocky wolf distribution and numbers, (2) biological criteria of having 10 breeding Mountain wolf population can be control wolves that attacked livestock pairs (defining as a male and female considered as fully recovered and can by either moving or killing them, (3) capable of reproduction) in only 2 be delisted. The wolf population would research wolves’ relationships to recovery areas as recommended in the be about 300 adult wolves upon ungulate prey, livestock, and people, 1987 recovery plan. For this reason the attainment of full recovery. The Plan and (4) provide accurate information to Service proposed to reclassify the wolf also recommends that wolves be the public through reports and mass population in the northern Rocky reintroduced into the Yellowstone media so that people could develop Mountains and adjacent States in July

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15816 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

2000. Because the wolf population has Central Idaho will attempt to colonize areas of private continued to expand since that time, it In January 1995, 15 young adult land used for livestock production. This no longer warrants listing as wolves captured in Alberta, Canada, geographic expansion of wolf presence endangered. were released in central Idaho (Bangs will also increase the amount of needed and Fritts 1996, Fritts et al. 1997, Bangs agency wolf control, particularly lethal Northwestern Montana control. Wolves that disperse southward et al. 1998). During January 1996, an in central Idaho and the Greater Reproduction first occurred in additional 20 wolves from British Yellowstone Area will increasingly northwestern Montana in 1986. The Columbia were released. In 1998 the encounter the full range of domestic natural ability of wolves to find and population consisted of a minimum of livestock, including sheep, which are 114 wolves, including 10 packs that quickly recolonize empty habitat and more susceptible to predation and produced pups (Bangs et al. 1998). In the interagency recovery program multiple-mortality incidents than are 1999 it had grown to about 141 wolves combined to effectively promote an other domestic livestock (Bangs et al. in 10 reproducing packs. By 2000 Idaho increase in wolf numbers. By 1993 the 1995, Fritts et al. 1992). number of wolves had grown to about had 192 wolves in 10 breeding pairs and We predicted that these three 55 wolves in 4 packs. However, since in 2001 the population was about 261 populations eventually would expand 1993 the number of breeding groups and wolves in 14 breeding pairs (Service et and begin to overlap, resulting in one number of wolves has slowed or al. 2002). meta-population of gray wolves in the perhaps stabilized, varying from 5 to 7 Greater Yellowstone Area northern U.S. Rocky Mountains. In 1994 packs and from 48 to 84 wolves. The we believed that the most likely In January 1995, 14 wolves from reasons for this are unknown, but are direction for wolf dispersal and Alberta, representing three family being investigated. The lack of population growth would be from groups, were placed in 3 pens in continuing steady growth in northwestern Montana southward into Yellowstone National Park (Bangs and documented wolf numbers may be due the experimental areas. Wolves most Fritts 1996, Fritts et al. 1997). The commonly disperse toward other wolves to a dramatic reduction of white-tailed groups were released in late March. Two deer numbers throughout northwestern even when separated by great distances, of the three groups produced young in and we speculated that the presence of Montana (Caroline Sime, Montana Dept. late April. In January 1996, this Fish, Wildlife and Parks, pers. comm. reintroduced wolves in the central procedure was repeated with 17 wolves Idaho and Yellowstone experimental 1998) due to the severe winter of 1996– from British Columbia, representing 4 97, which we believe was responsible areas would increase the likelihood for family groups, for release in early April. wolf dispersal into those areas from for the record high level of livestock Two of those groups produced pups in northwestern Montana. At that time, we depredations and correspondingly high late April. Furthermore, as the result of believed that wolves in the level of wolf control in northwestern a September 1996 wolf control action in northwestern Montana recovery area Montana during summer 1997. Our northwestern Montana, 10 5-month-old would be the first to reach 10 breeding 1998 estimate was a minimum of 49 pups were transported to a pen in the pairs. We now believe that the severe wolves in 5 reproducing packs. In 1999, Park. These pups and 3 adults from the winter of 1996–97 temporarily and again in 2000, 6 breeding pairs Greater Yellowstone Area, which were depressed the number of wolves in appear to have produced pups, and the originally reintroduced from Canada, northwestern Montana and limited the northwestern Montana population were released in spring 1997. By 1998, number of dispersal-aged wolves in that increased to about 63 wolves. In 2001, the Greater Yellowstone Area area (Service 1994a, Bangs et al. 1998). there were an estimated 84 wolves in 7 population consisted of 112 wolves, In contrast, the wolves reintroduced breeding pairs (Service et al. 2002). including 6 packs that produced 10 into central Idaho and Yellowstone have Wolf conflicts with livestock have litters of pups. The 1999 population increased their numbers greatly, and increased with the growing wolf consisted of 118 wolves, including 8 nearly two-thirds of those wolves are breeding pairs. In 2000 Yellowstone had population and with fluctuations in young, dispersal-aged animals that may 177 wolves, including 14 breeding pairs, prey populations. For example, in 1997, move from those areas over the next and there were 218 wolves, including 13 following a severe winter that reduced several years. We now believe that breeding pairs, in 2001 (Service et al. white-tailed deer populations, wolf wolves that are offspring of the 2002). reintroduced animals will increasingly conflicts with livestock increased disperse into northwestern Montana and dramatically. That year alone accounted Dispersal of Western Gray Wolves elsewhere. A recent study of wolf for nearly 50 percent of all the wolf Significant numbers of pups (9 in genetics among wolves in northwestern livestock depredations that were 1995, 25 in 1996, 99 in 1997, and Montana and the reintroduced confirmed and subsequent lethal wolf steadily increasing to about 150 in 2000, populations found that wolves in those control actions that were taken in and nearly 200 in 2001 and 2002) born areas were as genetically diverse as their northwestern Montana during the to reintroduced wolves are becoming source populations in Canada and that period 1987–1999 (Bangs et al. 1998). sexually mature and are dispersing from genetic diversity was not a wolf Wolf numbers should increase as prey their natal packs. Because dispersing conservation issue in the northern numbers rebound, but, for now, the wolves may travel extensively and often Rocky Mountains at this time (Forbes need for wolf control measures has settle in areas without resident packs, and Boyd 1997). To date, from radio subsided. Unlike Yellowstone National we expect that these wolves will telemetry monitoring we have Park or the central Idaho Wilderness, continue to initiate significant documented routine wolf movement northwestern Montana lacks a core expansion in the number and between wolves in Canada and refugia that also contains overwintering distribution of wolf packs in the northwestern Montana, occasional wolf ungulates. Therefore, wolf numbers are northern Rocky Mountains. Dispersal movement between wolves in Idaho and not ever likely to be as high in will increase management costs and Montana, and at least two wolves that northwestern Montana as they are in controversy, because many of these have traveled into Idaho from central Idaho and northwest Wyoming. wolves will not be radio-collared and northwestern Wyoming. Additionally,

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15817

in 2001–2002 a wolf from Yellowstone While habitat that could support ‘‘Thirty or more breeding pairs dispersed 240 km (150 mi) into wolves certainly exists in several areas, comprising some +300 wolves in a northwestern Montana, and a wolf from we have no plans to initiate new wolf metapopulation with genetic exchange Idaho dispersed over 480 km (300 mi) restoration efforts for any areas in the between subpopulations should have a to northwestern Wyoming. Since two- western United States outside of those high probability of long-term thirds of the wolf population is not already underway in Montana, Idaho, persistence.’’ Further, Fritts stated, ‘‘My radio-collared, additional dispersal has Wyoming, and the southwestern States. conclusion is that the 1987 wolf undoubtedly occurred in addition to However, this final rule continues the recovery plan’s population goal of 10 that documented by radio-collared protections of the Act for any wolves in breeding pairs of wolves in 3 separate wolves. Because of the long dispersal the wild within all States that are recovery areas for 3 consecutive years is distances and the relative speed of included within the boundaries of the reasonably sound and would maintain a natural wolf movement between Western DPS. Therefore, any new gray viable wolf population into the Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, we wolf restoration programs undertaken foreseeable future. The goal is somewhat anticipate that wolves will continue to by States or tribes within the boundaries conservative, however, and should be maintain high genetic diversity in the of the DPS would benefit from the considered minimal.’’ In his review, a three States. If significant genetic protections of the Act as long as the DPS breeding pair was defined as ‘‘An adult concerns do arise at some future time, remains listed as threatened. male and an adult female wolf that have our experience with wolf relocation While we have no plans to actively produced at least 2 pups that survived shows that we could effectively remedy pursue wolf restoration in other areas of until December 31 of the year of their those concerns with occasional wolf the Western DPS, we will not act to birth, during the previous breeding relocation actions. routinely prevent natural wolf season.’’ His review was based upon We also anticipate additional recolonization in such areas. Wolves abutting recovery areas that were much movement of wolves from the northern that naturally disperse into other States larger than those recommended in the U.S. Rockies and Canada into western will be managed on a case-by-case basis, 1987 plan. This proximity would allow Washington and Oregon and into the and we have the authority to manage wolves to occasionally move from one Cascade Range. For example, one radio- these wolves. Generally, if there are no recovery population to another, thus collared wolf from northwestern conflicts with human activities, such producing the metapopulation structure Montana was found dead in 1994 from wolves will likely not be returned to the that was inherent to Fritts’ analysis, but area of their origin. If wolves move unknown causes in eastern Washington, was absent from the 1987 Recovery Plan outside of the recovery areas and and a radio-collared young female wolf goal. depredate livestock, they will be killed The Service (Bangs 2002) conducted from central Idaho dispersed into rather than moved. In addition, States or another review of what constitutes a eastern Oregon in early 1999. She was tribes considering wolf restoration recovered wolf population in late 2001 recaptured and returned to the Central planning for lands under their and early 2002. Relevant literature was Idaho Recovery Area where she would jurisdiction may request us to provide reviewed, and responses were received have a better opportunity to find a mate. technical assistance for those efforts. and evaluated from 50 of 88 experts Since 1999, 2 other dead wolves (1 contacted. That review showed that radio-collared in Idaho and one not Reclassification and Recovery Goals for there is a wide variety of professional the Northern U.S. Rocky Mountains radio-collared) were found in eastern opinion about wolf population viability. Oregon. These wolves were killed by a The criteria for threatened and However, that review supported and vehicle collision and an illegal shooting, recovered wolf populations in the reaffirmed Fritts’ earlier conclusions respectively. Furthermore, suitable northern Rocky Mountains have been that 30 breeding pairs of wolves (using habitat and prey conditions exist in the subject of intense interest and Fritts’ definition of a breeding pair) other areas to which wolves may be able several peer review efforts (Fritts and widely distributed in a metapopulation to disperse from current populations. Carbyn 1995). The 1987 Northern Rocky structure (that is, populations within Given that wolves in the northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan (Service dispersal distance to promote movement Mountains have dispersed over 800 km 1987) defined a recovered wolf between recovery populations) (500 mi), it is reasonable to assume that population as securing and maintaining throughout the mountainous portions of occasional but routine wolf dispersal a minimum of 10 breeding pairs in each Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming for 3 will continue to occur within 400 km of 3 recovery areas for a minimum of 3 successive years would exceed the (250 mi) of the current boundaries of the successive years. A breeding pair was minimum biological requirements of a wolf population. defined as ‘‘Two wolves of opposite sex viable and recovered wolf population. Observation data indicate that the and adequate age, capable of producing The experts also compared the 1987 wolves outside of the core recovery offspring.’’ Recovery areas were recovery plan recommendation of a areas mostly occur as individuals, relatively small and separate areas in recovered wolf population with Fritts’ although several wolf family units have northern Montana, central Idaho, and recommendation and concluded that been reported in the North Cascades the Greater Yellowstone Area. Fritts’ definition was more likely to (Almack and Fitkin 1998). However, The 1994 environmental impact define a viable wolf population than the because efforts to locate family units statement (EIS) review (Appendix 9, in 1987 recovery plan definition. have been unsuccessful, we are not sure Service 1994a) indicated that the 1987 Therefore, in place of the 1987 whether wolves are reproducing in the recovery goal was, at best, a minimal Recovery Plan goal, we have adopted North Cascades. Under this final rule, recovery goal, and that modifications the definition of wolf population any animals outside the core recovery were warranted on the basis of more viability and recovery developed in the areas are protected by the Act as recent information about wolf 1994 EIS (Service 1994a). That threatened wolves, and we will distribution, connectivity, and numbers. definition is ‘‘Thirty breeding pairs of continue to provide protection Fritts (Appendix 9, in Service 1994a) wolves (defined as an adult male and an recommendations for den and specifically reviewed the issue of a adult female that raise at least 2 pups rendezvous sites to Federal agencies on viable wolf population in the EIS on until December 31 of the year of their a site-specific basis. wolf reintroduction. He concluded that birth), comprising some +300

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15818 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

individuals in a metapopulation with establishment of a wild population of at requires that we consider the concepts some genetic exchange between least 100 wolves. This area includes all of ‘‘discreteness’’ and ‘‘significance’’ subpopulations, for three successive of the Apache and Gila National Forests when deciding if a vertebrate years.’’ in eastern Arizona and western New population meets the requirements for a A minimum of 30 breeding pairs was Mexico. DPS designation. If the population is first documented in 2000, and a Re-establishment of a wild population determined to be discrete and minimum of 34 breeding pairs was began with the release of 13 captive- significant, then we evaluate the documented in 2001. We fully expect to reared Mexican gray wolves in eastern conservation status of the population to confirm in early 2003 that the wolf Arizona in 1998. Releases have occurred determine if it is threatened or population in the northern Rocky each year since then, and as of August endangered. The discussion of Mountains will have again exceeded 30 2002, an additional 61 wolves, discreteness and significance for each breeding pairs in 2002, thus achieving including uncollared pups, had been DPS follows the descriptions of the the wolf population recovery goal. At released in the BRWRA. A minimum of geographic area included in each DPS. that point the Service could propose to 24 Mexican wolves representing 8 packs Based on the Vertebrate Population delist the wolf population. were free-ranging in the wild as of Policy, this rule reclassifies the gray The 1987 recovery plan recommended January 2003. During 2002, we wolf by establishing the following 3 that wolves be downlisted to threatened documented surviving wild-conceived DPSs within the conterminous 48 States status throughout the northern Rocky offspring from the past 3 breeding (Map 3). Mountains at the time each of 2 seasons and documented the production Eastern Gray Wolf Distinct Population recovery areas had maintained a of the first second-generation wild- Segment. Consisting of gray wolves minimum of 10 breeding pairs for 3 conceived, wild-born offspring. Efforts within the States of North Dakota, South successive years. In 2000, when the are ongoing to capture uncollared Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Service proposed to reclassify these wolves living in the population. The Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, wolves to threatened status, the year documentation of the birth of second- Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 2000 was the fourth successive year of generation wild-born offspring and New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, having 20 or more breeding pairs in the breeding pairs forming on their own are Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, northern Rocky Mountains. The Service both key signs that a Mexican wolf New Hampshire, and Maine; and those considered this to fully meet the intent population is establishing itself in the gray wolves in captivity that originated of the downlisting goal. Since that time, BRWRA. Additional releases are from, or whose ancestors originated the wolf population has continued to planned to occur as they are needed to from, this geographic area. This DPS grow even larger and should no longer reach the current goal of a wild includes all the areas that we proposed be considered endangered. population of 100 wolves. This in July 2000 for the Western Great Lakes DPS and the Northeastern DPS, as well L. Recovery Progress of the reintroduced population of wolves, like as 12 additional States. Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolf those in central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area, has been designated Western Gray Wolf Distinct The objectives of the Mexican Wolf nonessential experimental (63 FR 1752– Population Segment. The exterior Recovery Plan (Service 1982) are to 1772, January 12, 1998); these wolves boundary of the Western DPS maintain a captive breeding program can be legally killed by ranchers if the encompasses the States of California, and to reestablish a population of at wolves attack livestock on private land. Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, least 100 Mexican wolves within its Other provisions of the special Washington, Wyoming, Utah north of historical range. The plan contains no regulation designating the population as U.S. Highway 50, and Colorado north of numerical criteria that would support nonessential experimental give agency Interstate Highway 70. Gray wolves in either revision of the endangered status managers flexibility to address wolf- this geographic area are included in the of the Mexican wolf to threatened or human conflicts. Defenders of Wildlife, Western DPS, except for gray wolves delisting. We consider the current a private conservation organization, that are part of an experimental recovery plan objective for the wild compensates ranchers whose livestock population. Gray wolves in captivity population to be an essential first step are killed by these wolves. that originated from, or whose ancestors toward the eventual recovery of the originated from, this geographic area are Mexican wolf. A revised recovery plan Designation of Distinct Population also included in the Western DPS. for the Mexican wolf will contain Segments Southwestern Gray Wolf Distinct numerical criteria for reclassifying to a Previously, the gray wolf was listed as Population Segment. The exterior threatened status and for delisting. threatened in Minnesota and as boundary of the Southwestern DPS Because recovery of the Mexican wolf is endangered in the other 47 encompasses the States of Arizona, New in its very early stages, we are conterminous States, effectively Mexico, Utah south of U.S. Highway 50, establishing a Southwestern Gray Wolf establishing a Minnesota DPS that was Colorado south of Interstate Highway DPS, but we are making no changes to delimited by State boundaries in the 70, those parts of Oklahoma and Texas the protective legal status of the absence of any other indications of west of Interstate Highway 35, and Mexican gray wolf at this time. discreteness (Map 1). This separate Mexico. Gray wolves in this geographic Through managed breeding, the designation of Minnesota gray wolves as area are included in the Southwestern captive population of Southwestern threatened was established in 1978, DPS, except for gray wolves that are part (Mexican) gray wolves had increased to before our adoption of the 1996 of an experimental population. Gray 247 animals as of August 2002. Forty- Vertebrate Population Policy (61 FR wolves in captivity that originated from, five zoos and wildlife sanctuaries 4722, February 7, 1996); this final rule or whose ancestors originated from, this throughout the United States and brings the current listing of the gray geographic area are also included in the Mexico cooperate in the maintenance wolf into compliance with the policy. Southwestern DPS. and breeding of the captive wolves. The As discussed above in the Distinct Discreteness. To date, we have no Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area Population Segments Under Our evidence that any wolves from any of (BRWRA), an 18,000-sq km (7000-sq mi) Vertebrate Population Policy section, these DPSs have dispersed across these area, has been designated for the re- our Vertebrate Population Policy DPS boundaries, although we expect

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15819

such dispersals to occur. The current Policy—significant range gaps and Eastern United States section, we do not gray wolf populations within each of genetic characteristics. have sufficient data on the identity of these DPSs are separated from the gray In our Vertebrate Population Policy, historical northeastern United States wolf populations in the other DPS by example 2 states that ‘‘evidence that loss wolves or the current existence of large areas that are not occupied by of the discrete population segment wolves in the Northeast to support the breeding populations of resident wild would result in a significant gap in the designation of a DPS there. However, we gray wolves. Although small numbers of range of a taxon’’ shows that the are retaining the listing of gray wolves dispersing individual gray wolves have population meets the significance in these States under the Act in order to been seen in some of these unoccupied criterion. Loss of the discrete wolf preserve the ability to protect wolves areas, and it is possible that individual populations in either the Eastern DPS, that may occur there. Because a separate dispersing wolves can completely cross the Western DPS, or the Southwestern DPS cannot be designated in the some of these gaps between occupied DPS would clearly produce huge gaps in Northeast due to the lack of evidence of areas and may therefore join another current gray wolf distribution in the 48 an extant wolf population, this area is wolf population, we believe that the States. being combined with the proposed existing geographic isolation of wolf Our Vertebrate Population Policy also Western Great Lakes DPS and with other populations in each of these three DPSs states (example 4) that ‘‘[E]vidence that States, and is being designated as part from the other far exceeds the Vertebrate the discrete population segment differs of the Eastern Gray Wolf DPS. The Population Policy’s criterion for markedly from other populations of the future possibility of establishing a discreteness of each DPS. (Refer to the species in its genetic characteristics’’ is Service wolf recovery program in the Change to the Boundary Between the another indication that the population Northeast remains possible if it is Western DPS and the Southwestern DPS satisfies the significance test. Although demonstrated to be necessary for the section, below, for additional discussion genetic studies are continuing, and the recovery of a wolf ‘‘species,’’ as defined on establishing these DPS boundaries.) subspecific taxonomy of the gray wolf in the Act. The Vertebrate Population Policy remains to be conclusively determined, We emphasize that the expansion of several studies agree that these three allows us to use international borders to the boundaries of these three DPSs from recovery programs are recovering delineate the boundaries of a DPS even our July 2000 proposal does not reflect different evolutionary lineages of the if the current distribution of the species any intent of the Service to expand our gray wolf (Bogan and Mehlhop 1983, extends across that border. Therefore, current gray wolf recovery programs Nowak 1995, Wilson et al. 2000). Even we will continue to use the United beyond their current geographic areas, various gray wolf subspecies maps, States-Canada border to mark the or to initiate new gray wolf restoration which show vastly different numbers northern portions of the boundaries of efforts in these DPSs. and ranges of subspecies and are still the Western and Eastern DPSs due to being disputed, all agree that the wolves Peer Review the difference in control of exploitation, currently being recovered in the In accordance with our longstanding conservation status, and regulatory Midwest, the northern U.S. Rockies, and practice and with our July 1, 1994 (59 mechanisms between the two countries. in the Southwest are of different FR 34270), Interagency Cooperative In general, wolf populations are more subspecific origins (Bogan and Mehlhop Policy on Peer Review (Peer Review numerous and wide-ranging in Canada; 1983, Hall 1981, Nowak 1995, 2000, Policy), we requested the expert therefore, wolves are not protected by Young and Goldman 1944). At a opinions of independent specialists Federal laws in Canada and are publicly minimum, even if these three groups of regarding pertinent scientific or trapped in most Canadian provinces. gray wolves are not separate subspecies, commercial data and assumptions Along our border with Mexico, the strong indications suggest that they are relating to supportive biological and situation is quite different. Gray wolves separate reservoirs of diversity that ecological information in the proposed have been extirpated, or nearly so, from differ from each other and therefore are rule. The purpose of such review is to Mexico. However, the captive animals significant to the species (Bogan and ensure that our decision is based on that have been used to start the Mexican Mehlhop 1983, Nowak 1995, Wilson et scientifically sound data, assumptions, wolf recovery program in the United al. 2000). and analyses, including input from States are of Mexican origin, and The existence of large areas of appropriate experts and specialists. Mexico is closely cooperating with the potentially suitable wolf habitat and Our Peer Review Policy requires that Service in the Mexican wolf recovery prey resources in parts of northern New we solicit expert opinions of three program in a number of ways. The York and northern New England, independent specialists. Because of the current Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan occurrence records of a few wolves or complexity, geographic scope, and (1982) is a bi-national recovery plan, wolf-like canids during the 1990s, and expected controversial nature of the signed by both the U.S. and Mexico. the presence of wolf populations in proposed actions, we requested reviews This bi-national recovery effort will neighboring areas of eastern Canada from 14 independent experts and continue with plans for Mexico and the caused us to propose a DPS for the gray received comments from 11 of them Service to jointly revise the bi-national wolf in the Northeast (Map 2). At the during the comment period. We recovery plan for the Mexican wolf. time of the proposal, we had limited contacted individuals who possess Because of the cooperative gray wolf information on extant wolves in the expertise on gray wolf biology and conservation efforts we have with Northeast, and we specifically requested ecology, threats to wolves, and wolf Mexico across our southern border, our additional data and other information health and diseases. In order to adhere Southwestern DPS does not end at the on Northeastern wolves. However, no to the Policy’s requirement for Mexican border, but rather it includes new data were provided to substantiate independent reviewers, this peer review all historical gray wolf range in Mexico. that a wolf population exists in the did not use employees of the Service, or Significance. We further believe that Northeast. of States that have a significant stake in all three of these wolf populations A wolf population must exist in an the outcome of this rulemaking. The satisfy the significance criterion of the area in order for us to designate it as a reviewers that we chose are from Alaska Vertebrate Population Policy under DPS. Therefore, as discussed above in and Canada, as well as from across wolf examples 2 and 4, as provided in the the Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in the range in the conterminous States. They

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15820 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

were asked to review the proposed rule parts of the proposal that needed reflect comments and information we and the supporting data, and to point clarification. received during the comment period. In out any mistakes in our data or analysis, The recommendations of the peer the following paragraphs we address the and to identify any relevant data that we reviewers, as well as the comments we substantive comments that we received might have overlooked. We have received from other sources during the concerning various aspects of the incorporated their comments into the comment period, are discussed in the proposed rule. Comments of a similar final rule, as appropriate, and have following section. We also provide nature are grouped together under briefly summarized their observations explanations for why the subject headings (referred to as ‘‘Issues’’ below. recommendations were, or were not, for the purpose of this summary) below, Of the peer reviewers who specifically adopted in our final decision. along with our response to each. In expressed support for, or opposition to, Summary of Comments and addition to the following discussion, our various proposed actions, all Recommendations refer to the Changes from the Proposed supported the DPS approach, that is, Rule section (also below) for more dividing the current listing into smaller In our July 13, 2000, proposed rule details. geographic units that better reflect and associated notifications, we recovery progress and recovery needs, requested that all interested parties A. Technical and Editorial Comments and providing the protections that are submit comments, data, or other Issue 1: Numerous technical and appropriate to that progress and those information that might aid in our editorial comments and corrections needs. All but one supported decisions or otherwise contribute to the were provided by respondents, reclassification of the wolves in the development of this final rule. The including the peer reviewers. western Great Lakes area to threatened comment period for the proposed rule Clarification and consistent usage of status, and that dissenting reviewer was open from July 13, 2000, through terms such as ‘‘public lands,’’ ‘‘tamed,’’ recommended that we go a step further November 13, 2000. During that period ‘‘domesticated,’’ and ‘‘breeding pair’’ and delist those wolves instead of we publicized and conducted 14 public was recommended. hearings and numerous public reclassifying them. Most peer reviewers Response: We have corrected and supported reclassification of the informational meetings in order to explain the proposal, respond to updated numbers and other data Northern Rocky Mountain wolf wherever appropriate. Wolf population population to threatened, but one questions concerning gray wolf protection and recovery, and receive estimates made during 1999 have been questioned whether this is appropriate replaced with the final numbers before the reclassification criteria of the input from interested parties. We contacted appropriate Federal, State, calculated in late December 2001. We 1984 Recovery Plan have been achieved. also clarified numerous discussion Another reviewer supported and tribal agencies, scientific organizations, agricultural points and have provided clearer reclassification of the Western DPS, but terminology in several locations. We stated that delisting should not occur organizations, outdoor user groups, have substituted ‘‘domesticated’’ for until each of the 3 recovery segments environmental organizations, animal ‘‘tamed’’ and have standardized our use exceed 10 breeding pairs. One reviewer rights groups, and other interested of the phrase ‘‘breeding pair.’’ suggested reducing the recovery goal for parties and requested that they northwestern Montana to fewer than 10 comment on the proposal. We Issue 2: Commenter pointed out breeding pairs. conducted two national press inconsistencies between the text of the Of those who specifically commented conferences to promote wide coverage proposed Western DPS 4(d) rule, the on it, all peer reviewers supported the of our proposed rule in the print media, text explaining that proposed rule, and proposed establishment of a separate and we published legal notices in many the table that compared it to the Northeastern DPS. There was general newspapers across the range of the gray experimental populations special rules support for gray wolf delisting in areas wolf announcing the proposal and and the normal protections of the Act. where wolf restoration was not hearings, and inviting comments. We In addition, the phrase ‘‘public land’’ is necessary and not feasible, but there posted the proposal and numerous used several times in the table but is not was some disagreement on where those background documents on our Web site, defined there. areas were. Delisting in the Southeast and we provided copies upon request by Response: We have revised the table, was supported, but delisting in mail or E-mail and at our hearings and the explanatory text, and the wording of California and Nevada was opposed by informational meetings. We established that 4(d) rule to make sure they are two reviewers. Delisting the Dakotas several methods for interested parties to consistent. For example, as defined in (instead of reclassifying to threatened, provide comments and other materials, the 4(d) rule, the term public lands as we proposed) was recommended by including verbally or in writing at refers only to federally administered one reviewer. Five of the reviewers also public hearings, by letter, E-mail, lands unless specifically defined recommended that the southern Rocky facsimile, or on our Web site. otherwise in State or tribal wolf Mountains (Colorado, Utah, and the During the 4-month comment period management plans (see issue U, ‘‘State northern parts of Arizona and New and at our 14 public hearings we Wolf Management Plans’’). Other public Mexico) either be established as a received nearly 16,000 separate lands such as city, county, or State separate DPS, or be included in the comments, including comments from lands would be treated the same as proposed endangered Southwestern 329 individuals who spoke at public private land for the purposes of wolf (Mexican) DPS rather than in the hearings and comments from 11 peer management under the Western DPS threatened Western DPS. One reviewer reviewers. We also received form letters 4(d) rule. recommended that a Northwestern DPS and ‘‘petitions’’ with over 27,000 B. Compliance With Laws, Regulations, be established, composed of California additional signatures. Comments and Policies and the western halves of Washington originated from addresses in all 50 and Oregon. States, including the District of Issue 1: Commenters expressed Numerous suggestions for technical Columbia. concern that the proposal was not in corrections were provided by the peer We revised and updated the proposed compliance with the Act and reviewers, and they also pointed out rule in order to make the final rule implementing regulations.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15821

Response: We have carefully reviewed criteria that must be met for a vertebrate have now reached a point where several the requirements of the Act and its group to qualify as a DPS, but it does of those wolf populations no longer implementing regulations. We believe not require that we designate a DPS in qualify for protection as endangered, so this final rule, as well as the process by all cases where a vertebrate group meets we are reclassifying them to threatened. which it was developed and finalized, the DPS criteria. The Service has the Congress, through its enactment of the complies with all provisions of the Act discretion to list, reclassify, or delist at Endangered Species Act of 1973, stated and applicable regulations. The Act the subspecies or species level instead that such programs benefit our nation requires that we identify and protect of the DPS level, as we believe to be and the American people. Furthermore, species that are endangered or most appropriate to carry out our listing we have provided extensive threatened, develop and implement and recovery programs. opportunities and numerous pathways recovery programs for those species, and Issue 4: The Service should reclassify for all interested parties to become delist them when they are no longer and delist the wolf on a State-by-State involved in the reclassification process. threatened or endangered. These actions basis. Issue 6: A commenter believes that are not discretionary, but are mandated Response: The previous listing of the the proposal is not in compliance with by the Act. We do this to the extent gray wolf, in which wolves in our National Policy Issuance 96–06, possible under the funds appropriated Minnesota were listed as threatened which is also known as the ‘‘10-point to us each year and in accordance with while wolves in adjacent States, Plan for the Endangered Species Act.’’ priorities established by Congress, and including Wisconsin, are endangered, Response: The relevant points in this by us pursuant to the provisions of the was done prior to our 1996 Vertebrate March 6, 1995 policy are these: base our Act. However, the Act does not require Population Policy, and that previous listing/delisting decisions on sound and us to restore a species across its listing did not conform to the 1996 objective science; minimize social and historical range, or to all remaining Policy. The Policy states that listings not economic impacts of our actions; treat areas of suitable habitat. Rather, we in conformance with the Policy will be landowners fairly and with restore it to the point that the threats to brought into conformance whenever the consideration; promptly recover and its continued existence are reduced to listing status of that taxon is changed. delist threatened and endangered the point that it no longer is threatened While the policy allows us to use species; and provide State, tribal and or endangered. Our detailed analysis of boundaries between States as local governments with opportunities to the threats for each DPS is found in the boundaries of convenience between two play a greater role in carrying out the Summary of Factors Affecting the populations if those populations are provisions of the Act. To the extent Species section below. already discrete in relation to each allowed by the Act and other Federal Issue 2: A number of commenters other, we cannot use a boundary laws and regulations, we have stated that establishing numerical between States to subdivide a single conducted gray wolf recovery and quotas for endangered or threatened biological population in an effort to reclassification in a manner that fully species is contrary to the intent of the artificially create a discrete population. adheres to the points of this Policy. We Act and that we should not use such Thus, although Minnesota wolves were have used the best available scientific quotas in reclassification or delisting listed separately in the past, we no data, we have developed special decisions for the gray wolf. longer list, or delist, them separately regulations and depredation control Response: The Act (section 4(f)(1)) from the Wisconsin-Michigan wolf programs that reduce social and requires us to develop recovery plans population because they are not economic impacts, we are reclassifying that contain ‘‘objective, measurable biologically discrete. By reclassifying and intend to delist at the appropriate criteria’’ that we are to use in making wolves throughout the Midwest from time, and we have provided State, tribal, our determination of whether a species endangered to threatened status and and other governments many is recovered or is making significant joining them into a single DPS, we have opportunities to participate in wolf progress toward recovery. Our brought the listing into conformance recovery and in this rulemaking. In longstanding practice is to include with the Vertebrate Population Policy many ways, gray wolf recovery and this numerical criteria in our recovery plans and given the overall Midwest wolf reclassification is an excellent example as one means to trigger consideration of population a threatened designation, of following National Policy Issuance delisting or reclassification. However, which is biologically more appropriate 96–06. we agree with the commenters that than is an endangered designation. Issue 7: The proposal was not in these numerical criteria should not be Issue 5: One respondent believes that compliance with National Policy the sole basis for delisting or the proposal was in conflict with our Issuance 95–03 and Director’s Order No. reclassification decisions. As required mission statement, which is ‘‘working 110, both dealing with using the by the Act (section 4(a)(1)), we also with others, to conserve, protect and ‘‘ecosystem approach.’’ conduct an evaluation of the factors enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and Response: This 1995 Policy and 1999 (threats) that currently affect the species their habitats for the continuing benefit Order state that the Service will apply and the factors that would impact the of the American people.’’ an ecosystem approach in carrying out species, or would increase their impact, Response: We believe the proposal our programs for fish and wildlife if the species were to be delisted or portrays an example of doing exactly conservation. The goal of an ecosystem reclassified. what is intended by our mission approach is for the Service, when Issue 3: Other commenters questioned statement. Gray wolf recovery programs carrying out its various mandates and our compliance with the Vertebrate involve many partners in the private functions, to strive to contribute to the Population Policy and stated that we and public sector, at all levels of effective conservation of natural must list more DPSs in order to comply government, and include numerous biological diversity through with that Policy. Federal agencies. The wolf recovery perpetuation of dynamic, healthy Response: The Act gives us the successes described in the proposal ecosystems. authority to list by species, subspecies, resulted from working with others to Preserving and recovering endangered or DPS. However, Congress directed that conserve, protect, and enhance gray and threatened species is one of the we use our authority to list by DPS wolf populations in several areas across more basic aspects of an ecosystem sparingly. The DPS policy identifies the their historical range. Those successes approach to conservation. Successful

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15822 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

recovery of a rare species requires that Response: Critical habitat was Response: The Act requires that we the necessary components of its habitat designated in 1978 for the gray wolf in provide at least a 60-day comment and ecosystem be conserved, and that parts of northeastern and north-central period and that we conduct one public diverse partnerships be developed to Minnesota and on Isle Royale, Michigan hearing if we are requested to do so. We ensure the long-term protection of those (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). We are not recognized that the proposal would be components. Thus, the recovery success making any changes to the currently controversial, would require more demonstrated for gray wolves is also a designated critical habitat, because we explanation than most of our proposals, demonstration of the ecosystem do not believe it is appropriate to do so. and would result in a large number of approach, including the various The Endangered Species Act comments. Therefore, we went well partnerships that are needed for success. amendments of 1982 specified that, for beyond the basic requirements of the Issue 8: The Service has not any critical habitat designation for a Act and other Federal rulemaking adequately consulted with Native species already listed as threatened or procedures. We established a comment American tribes, as required by endangered at the time of enactment of period that was twice the required Secretarial Order 3206. (Refer to issue V, the 1982 amendments, the procedures length. We prearranged 14 hearings Native American Concerns, below, for for revisions to critical habitat would from Maine to Washington State. We additional Native American concerns.) apply (Pub. L. 97–304, section 2(b)(2)). conducted two national press Response: During the development of Consequently, designation of critical conferences and two Congressional the proposal and this final rule, we habitat for the gray wolf is subject to the briefings. We conducted multiple endeavored to consult with Native procedures for revisions to critical informational meetings. We provided a American tribes and Native American habitat. As such, it is not mandatory for variety of informational materials at organizations in order both to provide the Service to designate critical habitat hearings and meetings, by mail and e- them with a complete understanding of for the gray wolf. Section 4(a)(3)(B) mail, and on our Web site. We the proposed changes and also to enable provides that the Service ‘‘may’’ make established mechanisms for interested ourselves to gain an appreciation of revisions to critical habitat ‘‘from time- parties to ask questions and to submit their concerns with those changes. to-time * * * as appropriate’’ (16 U.S.C. comments verbally, in writing, by e-mail Although we must base the decision on 1533(a)(3)(B)). The Service has or fax, and on our Web site. whether a species should be listed, determined that there currently are no Finally, while the Service sometimes reclassified, or delisted under the Act likely benefits to be derived from uses the postmark date to determine purely on scientific data concerning the additional critical habitat designations, whether comments were received before threats and commercialization of the and it therefore is not appropriate to a deadline in rulemakings, our normal designate additional critical habitat. practice is to use the date of receipt, and species, the manner in which we carry Wolf populations in both the Eastern our intent to use that cutoff method at out listing, reclassification, or delisting and Western DPSs are at their numerical the close of the 4-month comment vary so that we can address the cultural recovery goals as a result of past and period was clearly stated in all our and spiritual importance of a species to current protections, but the currently documents that referred to comment Native Americans. As we have become designated critical habitat played a submission. We believe we provided aware of Native American concerns negligible role in wolf recovery. This is extensive, varied, and sufficient through consultation with them, we attributable to the fact that gray wolves opportunities for interested partied to have tried to address those concerns to are habitat generalists, and their ask questions, obtain additional the extent allowed by the Act, the numbers and range are not limited by a information, and provide input for our Administrative Procedures Act, and lack of suitable habitat or by any consideration. other Federal statutes. degradation of any essential habitat Issue 11: The Service should conduct For example, the proposed 4(d) rule features. Designating critical habitat Population Viability Analyses (PVA) for lethal control of depredating wolves would be an inappropriate use of our before reclassifying anywhere. in Wisconsin and Michigan has caused limited listing funds if done for a Response: The Act requires that we concern among several tribes that have, species that is successfully recovering use the best scientific data available or expect to soon have, wolves living on without such designation, and at a time when we make decisions to list, their reservations. We are currently when we have determined that it is reclassify, or delist a species. The working with the Bad River Band and more appropriate to reduce, rather than Service recognizes that PVAs are a tool the WI DNR to develop a Memorandum increase, the Federal protections for the that can provide some insight into the of Understanding for the cooperative species. vulnerability of species, and we have management of wolves in the area It should also be noted that the Act conducted PVAs for a number of surrounding the Bad River Reservation (section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii)) prohibits us from species, usually as an aid in establishing (Wisconsin), in order to minimize the designating critical habitat for the recovery goals or identifying the most impacts that off-reservation depredation nonessential experimental populations critical gaps in our knowledge in order control actions by the WI DNR might established in the Western DPS and the to prioritize research needs. While we have on reservation wolves. This Southwestern DPS. Furthermore, 50 have found PVAs to be useful in some agreement may serve as a prototype for CFR 424.12(h) prohibits the designation circumstances, in other cases the other tribes and States. of critical habitat in foreign countries. analyses provided little or no new We acknowledge that our early Issue 10: The Service should have information, or the outcome was not consultation efforts could be improved. conducted additional public meetings considered to be reliable. Early consultation efforts were and hearings, or extended the comment PVAs can be a valuable as a tool to hampered primarily by the geographic period to provide additional help us understand the population scope and complexity of the proposal. opportunities to learn more about the dynamics of a rare species (White 2000). We tried to remedy this issue by making proposal and to provide comments. We They can be useful in identifying gaps additional efforts to contact and inform should have used the postmark date, in our knowledge of the demographic tribes during the comment period. rather than the received date, to parameters that are most important to a Issue 9: The Service should propose determine whether comments were species’ survival, but they cannot tell us critical habitat for the gray wolf. made during the open comment period. how many individuals are necessary to

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15823

avoid extinction. The difficulty of resultant significant change in the risk Issue 15: One commenter stated that applying PVA techniques to wolves has of extinction. we cannot use wolves in experimental been discussed by Fritts and Carbyn Finally, we note that none of the 11 populations to count toward recovery or (1995). Problems include our inability to peer reviewers of the proposal indicated reclassification goals, because such provide accurate input information for that there was any need for the Service populations can only be used for the probability of occurrence of, and to conduct a PVA or minimum viable research purposes. impact from, catastrophic events (such population analysis for the 2 gray wolf Response: The term ‘‘experimental’’ is as a major disease outbreak or prey base populations for which we proposed used in the Act to describe these collapse; we know of no catastrophic changes in July 2000. One reviewer populations; however, this designation events that have significantly impacted stated that PVAs are of little value and does not mean these populations may large wolf populations except for human may even be misleading. only be used for research purposes. persecution), providing realistic inputs Issue 12: The Service should prepare Reintroductions of plants and animals for the influences of environmental an Environmental Impact Statement for are often experimental in the sense that variation (such as annual fluctuations in this rule. they may use techniques that are newly winter severity and the resulting Response: As stated in the proposal, developed, untested on that species or impacts on prey abundance and the question of whether environmental locality, or uncertain in success rate for vulnerability), temporal variation, and assessments or environmental impact other reasons. The authority to individual heterogeneity, as well as statements need to be prepared was designate and establish experimental dealing with the spatial aspects of addressed by our previous populations was added to the Act for extreme territoriality and the long- determination (48 FR 49244; October 25, the specific purpose of assisting the distance dispersals shown by wolves. 1983) in which we stated that such Service in establishing additional Each of these factors can be a powerful documents do not have to be prepared populations to further the recovery of determinant of the outcome of a gray for regulations developed under section the species. We have used this authority wolf PVA, and relatively minor changes 4(a) of the Act. for many species to help achieve in any of these input values can result Issue 13: A better notification process recovery goals by expanding occupied in vastly different outcomes. is needed for our public hearings. range. In the case of the two PVAs are also useful for studying nonessential experimental populations Response: We did a great deal to alert small populations. In a small- (NEPs) in the northern U.S. Rockies, the interested parties to the details of public population study, the modeling exercise final rule establishing those two NEPs hearings. Public hearing times and can provide clues to which indicated specifically that they were locations were announced in the demographic, genetic, or environmental being established to help achieve the Federal Register, posted on our Web parameters may have the greatest Western Plan’s goals to establish viable site, publicized in local and national likelihood of influencing a species’ wolf populations in central Idaho and press releases, and, in some areas of the survival, and thus possible insight into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. areas where initial conservation actions Midwest, advertised on local radio C. Comments Regarding the Number of should be focused. However, for stations. Notification letters were sent to Distinct Population Segments and obviously recovering entities like the numerous organizations so they could Recovery Programs Necessary for Gray gray wolf populations of the Northern alert their memberships. In addition, Wolf Recovery U.S. Rocky Mountains and the Midwest, parties who requested to be added to PVA modeling exercises may largely be our wolf electronic mailing list received Issue: A large number of comments an exercise in quantifying the recovery information on hearings and public expressed the opinion that additional of a species whose increases, and the meetings electronically. However, we gray wolf DPSs should be established, reasons for them, are already acknowledge that, despite all these and that the Service should initiate qualitatively quite apparent. In the case efforts, some interested parties did not additional recovery programs in order to of species like the gray wolf—a species learn of the hearings in time to attend. achieve gray wolf recovery as mandated that has been well studied and is well We are interested in receiving ideas to by the Act. Additional DPSs and along the road to recovery—generally further improve our efforts to publicize recovery programs were suggested for little is to be learned from a PVA. our public hearings in the future. Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa; The WI DNR conducted a PVA for the However, in this case there were Virginia and Kentucky; the Carolinas, State’s wolf population several years ago numerous avenues, in addition to public Georgia, and Tennessee; California and when its wolf population was hearings, for interested individuals to Nevada; Colorado, Utah, and the considerably smaller than it is today. obtain information and submit northern portions of New Mexico and Most scenarios that were modeled by WI comments on the proposal. All Arizona; Oregon and Washington; the DNR (varying the probability of comments received during the comment Pacific Coast; the Cascade Range; West catastrophic events, reproductive rates, period, whether presented at a public Virginia; Missouri; Florida; and Utah. In and environmental variability) resulted hearing or provided in another manner, addition, some respondents in very low probabilities of extinction received the same review and recommended that gray wolves should even with the maximum wolf consideration. be reintroduced and recovered population limited to only 500 animals Issue 14: The Service should consider throughout their historical range or ‘‘in (WI DNR 1999a). The model treated the how to delist nonessential experimental all States.’’ Wisconsin wolf population as a totally populations. Response: These comments appear to isolated population (that is, with no Response: For the gray wolf, the reflect a misunderstanding of the possibility of wolf immigration from nonessential experimental populations purpose of the Act and confusion Minnesota or Michigan), so even those in the Northern Rocky Mountains are regarding the meaning of ‘‘recover’’ low extinction probabilities were part of a larger recovery program that under the Act. The purpose of the Act overestimates. Because this also includes the northwestern Montana is to provide for the conservation of reclassification reduces Federal wolves. They will be delisted at endangered and threatened species. protection of wolves only slightly, a whatever time the Western DPS is Conservation is defined as the use of all PVA would not be expected show any delisted. methods and procedures which are

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15824 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

necessary to bring any endangered or Southwestern (Mexican) gray wolf diminished ability to survive as new threatened species to the point at which recovery program, but they will be environmental conditions develop. The the measures provided pursuant to the designed to ensure long-term viability of three current gray wolf recovery Act are no longer necessary. When a that wolf population.) The currently programs are preserving all of what species no longer meets the definition of occupied areas of the Eastern and remains of the species’ genetic diversity an endangered or threatened species Northern Rockies populations are in the 48 States and Mexico. The current under the Act, it is recovered, and we separated by approximately 1000 genetic diversity of the wolves in the are to delist it. kilometers (600 mi), and a similar western Great Lakes is a product of the The meaning given to ‘‘recover’’ in distance currently separates the Greater remnant wolf population that survived common conversational usage is ‘‘to Yellowstone Area wolf packs from the in northeastern Minnesota, Canadian restore to a previous, or to the original, reintroduced wolves in the Southwest. wolves from southwestern Ontario and condition.’’ However, incorrectly Each of these gray wolf populations will Manitoba that moved into Minnesota, as ascribing this common meaning to be viable and self-sustaining when their well as southern Ontario wolves that ‘‘recover’’ as used in the Act has led recovery programs are completed, and moved into the eastern portion of some individuals to mistakenly believe the distances between them, while not Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The the Act functions as a biodiversity providing total isolation, will provide a Northern Rockies wolf population is a restoration program. The goal of the great deal of protection from multi- mixture of southern Canadian wolves Act—preventing species extinctions—is population catastrophic events. that repopulated the Glacier National much narrower that the rangewide wolf Both the Northern Rocky Mountain Park area and wolves from Alberta and restoration and biodiversity restoration and Eastern gray wolf recovery British Columbia, Canada that were goals implicit in these comments. programs—when all recovery goals are brought into central Idaho and We have evaluated, in light of the achieved—will each cover sufficient Yellowstone National Park. These two conservation biology principles geographic area and have enough recovery programs are preserving all the discussed previously, our three wolves in a population or remaining genetic material of the gray continuing recovery programs for the metapopulation structure to be wolves that formerly inhabited those gray wolf in the context of its previous sufficiently resilient to respond to areas. Both the Midwestern and listing across the 48 conterminous adverse factors that may arise in the Northern Rockies wolf populations are States and Mexico. We have concluded future. The Southwestern (Mexican) believed to contain sufficient genetic that sufficient redundancy and gray wolf recovery program, when a diversity to survive over the long term, resiliency will be achieved by final recovery goal is established and even if they were to become completely establishing three separate viable wolf attained, similarly will have sufficient and permanently isolated from populations or metapopulations in distribution and number of wolves. neighboring wolves across the Canadian widely spaced areas of that geographic Thus, the conservation biology principle border. area. If each of these three populations of resiliency is satisfied by the The reintroduced Southwestern contains enough reproducing packs so achievement of the respective recovery (Mexican) gray wolf population that it is a viable and self-sustaining goals of these 3 recovery programs. population, its numerical size and Commenters suggested that additional originated from small captive geographic extent will provide the gray wolf populations should be populations composed of individuals resilience needed for it to bounce back established in the western United States captured in the wild in Mexico and from newly developing or expanding in order to maximize the species’ long- identified in captive facilities in Mexico adverse factors (e.g., disease, massive term survival and minimize the and the United States (Hedrick et al. wildfire, or the temporary decline of a likelihood of extinction. However, the 1997). Detailed records and careful prey species’ population) in the Act does not mandate maximizing selection of captive breeding pairs has foreseeable future. Furthermore, if these species survival, nor does it require ensured the conservation of this three populations are widely spaced and undertaking widespread species founding Mexican wolf genome. This somewhat isolated from one another it restorations to minimize extinction risk. recovery program is utilizing all the is very unlikely that all three Rather, as discussed above, its mandate remaining genetic material that has been populations would simultaneously, or is to recover species to the point that preserved from the wild Southwestern in rapid sequence, suffer from the same they are ‘‘not likely’’ to become in and Mexican wolf population, and catastrophic event. danger of extinction in the foreseeable when completed, it will ensure the long- Once they are completed, the future. We believe the ‘‘not likely’’ term survival of that unique genetic Service’s three current gray wolf standard will be exceeded by diversity and maximize the ability of recovery programs will result in wolf establishing three geographically this isolated population to cope with, populations of sufficient size and widespread gray wolf populations that adapt to, and evolve in response to relative isolation to provide the are independently viable, because it is environmental change. necessary resiliency and redundancy. highly unlikely that future threats will Thus, our three current wolf recovery For example, the Northern Rocky endanger multiple widely separated programs are doing all that can be done Mountain gray wolf population—now at wolf populations. Thus, the to preserve the remaining genetic recovery levels—exceeded 560 animals conservation biology principle of material from the gray wolves that at the end of 2001, and preliminary redundancy is satisfied by our three previously occupied the 48 results from the end of 2002 indicate a current recovery programs. conterminous States and Mexico. population of approximately 660 wolves The concept of representation, when Establishing additional populations (Tom Meier, Service, in litt. 2003). The applied to the conservation of the gray would provide no additional genetic Midwestern gray wolf population— wolf, argues that we should preserve benefits to wolf recovery under the Act which has exceeded the numerical goals enough of its remaining genetic (with the possible exception of the of the Eastern Gray Wolf Recovery diversity so that future genetic problems Northeast; see below). Therefore, the Plan—is estimated to be over 3000 are unlikely to lead to its extinction. conservation biology principle of wolves. (Final recovery goals have not These problems may include genetic representation is satisfied by these three yet been established for the drift, inbreeding depression, and gray wolf recovery programs.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15825

Based upon the above points, the authority sparingly. The Service has the Distinct Population Segments Under Act’s mandate to recover the gray wolf discretion to list, reclassify, or delist at Our Vertebrate Population Policy will be satisfied by the restoration of the subspecies, species, or DPS level, as section above. Also refer to the Distinct three viable populations of the species, we believe to be most appropriate to Population Segments and Experimental located in the Midwest, Northern U.S. carry out our listing and recovery Populations section above for additional Rockies, and Southwest. Therefore, in programs. discussion of the purposes of these order to recover the gray wolf, the As described in the Taxonomy of designations. Service intends to continue focusing its Gray Wolves in the Eastern United Response: A DPS is a listed entity that gray wolf recovery activities in the States section above, there is a great is usually described geographically current core areas (i.e., Minnesota, deal of uncertainty regarding the rather than biologically. Nothing in the Wisconsin, Upper Peninsula of identity of the large canid (or canids) Act or in our Vertebrate Population Michigan, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, that occurred historically in the Policy requires DPS boundaries to New Mexico, and Arizona) of those Northeastern States. At the time our correspond to recovery plans, habitat recovery programs. proposal was developed, we believed characteristics, or physical barriers. DPS We do not intend to initiate new gray that the canid was likely a gray wolf, boundaries identify a geographic area wolf recovery programs in any area— although we were uncertain as to its that includes and surrounds a vertebrate except possibly the Northeast, pending subspecific identity. However, biological grouping that has a separate ongoing genetic and taxonomic studies subsequent molecular genetic and listing under the Act. The DPS and efforts to locate a listable and morphometric information has cast boundaries must contain the biological recoverable wolf population there— doubt on that interpretation of the grouping and cannot subdivide it, but because new recovery programs are not evolutionary relationship of North they do not have to precisely necessary to achieve recovery of the American canids. Although far from correspond with its present location, gray wolf under the Act either as certain at this time, increasing scientific suitable habitat, or other features of the formerly listed in the 48 States and evidence suggests that the historical environment. In general, DPSs can be Mexico or under the new listings large canid in the Northeastern States better understood, protected, recovered, established by this final rule. was more closely related to the red wolf and administered if their boundaries are Once wolf recovery goals are achieved than to the gray wolf. We will reevaluate placed beyond the area currently in any one of the DPSs, we will proceed our retained listing of the gray wolf in occupied by the biological grouping of to delist the entire DPS, even if some of the Northeastern States at such time that concern, and even beyond the areas they the States within the DPS lack wild gray we consider delisting Midwestern gray are most likely to disperse into or wolves. The presence or absence of gray wolves, and at any time prior to that if colonize in the foreseeable future. Such wolves outside of core recovery areas is significant new data become available. boundary placement minimizes the not likely to have a bearing on the long- potential confusion caused by D. Boundaries of Distinct Population term viability of the three wolf individual wolves frequently crossing Segments populations after their recovery goals the boundaries and thereby changing have been achieved, and therefore such Issue: We received comments their legal status and protection under presence or absence will not be a factor expressing concerns with several the Act, and provides more consistent in our consideration of delisting each aspects of the boundaries of the 4 protection to dispersers that may DPS. proposed DPSs. Some commenters ultimately return to their original core We have determined that the level of wanted the DPS boundaries to conform recovery area and contribute to recovery threats faced by wolf populations in the exactly with the geographic coverage of there. Eastern DPS and in the Western DPS the existing gray wolf recovery plans, While the Vertebrate Population warrant reclassification of each DPS to while other commenters wanted the Policy prohibits our use of boundaries threatened. These threatened DPS boundaries expanded beyond those we between States to subdivide an existing listings, along with the three retained proposed. Other commenters biological population to establish nonessential experimental population recommended that the boundaries be ‘‘discrete’’ populations, it does not designations and the retained based solely on suitable wolf habitat prohibit our use of boundaries between endangered listing for the Southwestern and on physical barriers believed to States or other cultural features as DPS, will continue to provide the Act’s subdivide that habitat. We also received ‘‘boundaries of convenience’’ to identify protections to all wild gray wolves. comments suggesting that the boundary the area within which the DPS’s legal Furthermore, we believe that the between the Southwestern and Western designation applies. By using delisting criteria for the Eastern DPS DPSs should be moved northward so boundaries between States (or other and the Western DPS can be achieved that parts or all of Utah and Colorado features such as major highways) that without establishment of additional are within the Southwestern DPS. are located beyond the area currently populations within each DPS. Comments that deal with the number occupied by wolf populations, we are The Act gives us the authority to list of DPSs are addressed above in issue C, able to clearly identify the geographic by species, subspecies, or DPS. The DPS ‘‘Comments Regarding the Number of extent of the DPS listing (and thereby policy identifies the criteria that must Distinct Population Segments and facilitate law enforcement and promote be met in order for a vertebrate group to Recovery Programs Necessary for Gray public understanding of the listing) qualify as a DPS. In order for us to Wolf Recovery’’; those dealing with while avoiding splitting the existing designate a DPS, a population must delisting wolves outside of DPSs are biological unit that we intend to exist. Most of the States have no wolves addressed below in issue E, ‘‘The recover. or in the States that do have some Service Should Not Delist Outside of Our proposed DPS boundaries were wolves, those wolves are part of a Distinct Population Segments’’; and intended to serve two purposes. The metapopulation. However, our DPS those dealing specifically with the first purpose was to include the core policy does not require that we boundaries of the proposed areas where the respective wolf designate a DPS in all cases where a Northeastern DPS are covered below in population is recovering, as well as a vertebrate group meets the DPS criteria; issue S, ‘‘Use of Scientific Data.’’ For a substantial surrounding ‘‘buffer area’’ in Congress directed that we use our DPS detailed discussion of DPSs, refer to the which wolves dispersing from the core

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15826 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

areas were reasonably likely to occur in of the boundaries of the proposed DPSs. boundaries and an interstate highway as the foreseeable future. The second The commenters recommended that the boundaries around this delisted area purpose was to remove Federal gray gray wolves should not be delisted in to facilitate law enforcement efforts and wolf protection in some areas of the 48 areas where they have not recovered public understanding of the areas now States where we believed restoration of and do not currently exist. included and excluded in the three gray wolves was unnecessary. Thus, our Response: Our proposed delisting wolf DPSs. proposed DPS boundaries were outside of the proposed DPS boundaries F. The Service Should Delist Gray designed to include the areas into which was based on our belief that, because Wolves in Additional Areas most, but not all, gray wolf dispersal restoration of gray wolves in these areas was expected to occur. For example, is unnecessary, and because we have no Issue 1: A large number of comments most dispersing Midwest wolves have plans to restore gray wolves in those recommended that we delist gray moved into the Dakotas, which were areas, there was no reason to maintain wolves in areas that we proposed for included in the proposed Western Great the Act’s protection for any gray wolves inclusion in one of the proposed DPSs, Lakes DPS. The Michigan Upper that might turn up there. We believed it and thus would remain listed as Peninsula wolf that recently dispersed was reasonable and appropriate to threatened, endangered, or part of an to northern Missouri moved well remove any unnecessary Federal experimental population and subject to outside of the proposed boundary for its regulatory burden, and any perception the protective regulations that apply to DPS, but it is the only Midwestern wolf of such a burden, by removing the it. The reasons for the delisting known to have moved beyond the listing in those areas. Furthermore, we recommendations include: wolves are proposed DPS boundary. thought it would be desirable to common elsewhere (in other areas of the However, as discussed in issue E eliminate any uncertainty in those areas 48 States or in Alaska and Canada) so (below), we have now expanded the regarding Federal protection for escaped they are not threatened or endangered; areas covered by these gray wolf or released captive gray wolves, wolf- wolves have recovered (in that area or listings. These new boundaries will dog hybrids, or feral dogs that are elsewhere) so they should be delisted; provide continued protection under the mistaken for wolves. wolves are extirpated from the State; Act to all gray wolves that disperse to However, further analysis of the Act and a State can manage a resident any location within the species’ and implementing regulations has led to species better than the Federal historical range in the conterminous 48 our conclusion that the Act does not government. States. A portion of the boundary provide for delisting a species in parts Response: The Act mandates that we between the Western DPS and the of its listed historical range because identify, list, and protect those species, Southwestern DPS has been moved restoration of wolves in these areas is subspecies, plant varieties, and distinct northward to a location approximately unnecessary, even if wolf recovery is vertebrate population segments that are midway between the core recovery proceeding successfully in other areas. threatened or endangered, and that we populations in the northern Rockies and Delisting can occur only when a species maintain the listing and protection until the Southwest, in order to be consistent (or subspecies or DPS) is recovered, the entity is recovered or goes extinct, with existing gray wolf dispersal data. when it is extinct, or when the original or until we determine that the original These final boundaries continue to serve data or analysis that led to the listing listing was done in error. Unless and our purpose of including the core was in error (50 CFR 424.11(d)). until one of these occurs, the entity recovery areas along with those areas Therefore, we have modified those must remain a threatened or endangered into which wolves from the respective portions of our proposal that would species. Full management authority core areas are most likely to disperse. have delisted the gray wolf in any part cannot be returned to States or tribes (Refer to the Changes from the Proposed of its historical range. This was done by until recovery has occurred or an Rules section below for additional expanding the boundaries of the erroneous listing is removed. discussion on DPS boundary changes.) remaining gray wolf DPSs so they now For vertebrate species, the Act, as The expansion of the DPS boundaries include all States within the historical implemented by way of our 1996 does not mean that we intend to range of the gray wolf. This has the Vertebrate Population Policy, allows us broaden our current gray wolf recovery biological benefit of continuing Federal to use international borders to limit the programs to additional areas within the protection for all long-distance geographic scope of the threats DPS boundaries or that we will initiate dispersers that remain within the evaluation that is done when we are new wolf restoration programs. The species’ historical range, thus providing considering a species for listing as expansion of these boundaries is being them a greater probability of surviving threatened or endangered. This is done solely because the Act requires and rejoining the core population in that appropriate, as it allows us to protect that we maintain the gray wolf’s listing area, or even joining the population in from extirpation within the United in these areas until the species or the another gray wolf recovery area. States those vertebrate species that DPS is recovered. Recovery within a As discussed above in the Historical might be more common elsewhere (e.g., DPS can be achieved by reestablishing Range of the Gray Wolf section, we have in Canada or Mexico). This approach gray wolves in a portion of the DPS at now delisted the gray wolf in 14 States has been successfully used for other a level and under circumstances that and in the eastern portions of Oklahoma species that are more common in ensure that the population will not and Texas. These southeastern and mid- Canada than in the United States, become in danger of extinction in the Atlantic States are not included within including the peregrine falcon, grizzly foreseeable future. the boundaries of any listed gray wolf bear, and bald eagle, and we are DPS, because they are outside the witnessing similar success with the gray E. The Service Should Not Delist generally recognized historical range of wolf. Outside of Distinct Population Segments the gray wolf (Hall 1981). These States In order to determine when a species Issue: We received comments from should not have been included when is recovered, we must evaluate the many individuals and organizations the gray wolf was listed at the species current status of the species in regarding our proposal to remove the level in 1978. Due to their close comparison to recovery goals Act’s protections for the gray wolf in all approximation of Hall’s historical range established for it in its recovery plan. or parts of 30 States that were outside boundaries, we have used State We must also analyze the threats that

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15827

still face the species, as well as the be delisted. First the recovery goal of wolves, including allowing certain threats that might increase or develop if having a minimum of 30 breeding pairs landowner harassment/control actions the species is delisted. Five categories of of wolves distributed throughout in the Western DPS, we believe the threats are specified in the Act: loss or Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming for a incentive for illegally killing wolves degradation of habitat or range; minimum of 3 successive years must be will be significantly reduced. Thus, we overutilization for commercial, met. The Service is also required to do not believe this reclassification scientific, or other purposes; disease or make sure the factors that caused action will increase the threats from predation; inadequacy of regulatory wolves to be listed are resolved. The one human-caused mortality; conversely, mechanisms; and, any other natural or factor that applies most to wolves is that the action may result in decreasing manmade factors. At the time we human-caused mortality be regulated so those threats. developed our proposal and conducted it does not cause wolf populations to At such time as we propose delisting this analysis of threats, we could not become threatened or endangered again. gray wolves, we will again assess the affirm that recovery goals had been met The Service must be reasonably assured threats from human-caused mortality. and also conclude that probable future that adequate regulatory mechanisms H. Other Threats Need To Be Assessed threats had been sufficiently reduced so are in place to conserve the wolf that recovery could be declared and population so that it will not become Issue 1: The Service should consider delisting initiated for any of our gray threatened or endangered if the Act’s the impacts of genetic risks on gray wolf wolf recovery programs. Therefore, we protections are removed. The Service is recovery, because low genetic diversity proposed a reduction of Federal working closely with the States of can cause problems for a rare species. protections via a reclassification to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming as they Response: We agree that low genetic threatened in some area, but did not develop wolf conservation plans that diversity is a concern for species with propose the delisting of any gray wolf will meet this requirement. Upon small populations or that have gone population. Because we have not confirmation in early 2003 that the wolf through a population bottleneck. proposed delisting of any gray wolf population has met the wolf population However, Midwestern gray wolf populations, at this time we cannot recovery goal for the Western DPS and populations currently are showing no finalize a rulemaking that would if the States have finalized their wolf signs of diminished genetic diversity. include such a delisting. We must first management plans (see issue U, ‘‘State These wolves came from a remnant wolf propose such a change and provide an Wolf Management Plans’’), the Service population in northeastern Minnesota opportunity for public review and could propose to delist the gray wolf and Canadian wolves that have moved comment on it. Given the continued throughout the Western DPS in early across the international border from recovery progress of gray wolves in the 2003. western and eastern Ontario and West and western Great Lakes States, Manitoba. At its lowest level, the G. Threats From Humans Need and State wolf management plan Minnesota wolf population was Additional Consideration development work that has happened probably 350 wolves or more, a level subsequent to our reclassification Issue: A large number of commenters well above that expected to potentially proposal (see issue U, ‘‘State Wolf described the past persecution of wolves cause genetic problems, especially Management Plans’’), we anticipate and expressed the belief that similar because there is frequent interaction working on one or more gray wolf persecution will resume if the proposed with adjacent Canadian wolf delisting proposals in the near future. rule is adopted. populations. However, we have determined that this Response: We recognize that human Similarly, the recovering northern reclassification action should be persecution of wolves is the primary U.S. Rocky Mountain wolves are finalized first. reason for the decline of wolves across derived from several Canadian sources, Since the gray wolf is not extinct in North America, and we analyze the which increased the genetic diversity of the United States, the species cannot be nature and magnitude of this threat their founding populations. They are delisted for that reason. before and after this final rule in factor not expected to have genetic problems. The final reason that could justify a ‘‘C. Disease or predation’’ under the In contrast, Southwestern (Mexican) delisting-that the original listing was Summary of Factors Affecting the wolves have all come from 7 founders, done in error-is discussed above in issue Species section. We believe the but through managed breeding of these E, ‘‘The Service Should Not Delist protections of the Act, in combination founders during the past 22 years, 86 Outside of Distinct Population with extensive public education efforts percent of the founding genetic diversity Segments’’, and in the Historical Range by the Service and numerous private has been preserved. Moreover, no signs of the Gray Wolf section. For this and public partner organizations, have of inbreeding depression have been reason, we have delisted the gray wolf reduced human persecution and led to detected (Kalinowski et al. 1999). in all or parts of 16 States where the the increase in gray wolf numbers and Issue 2: For the northern Rocky species should not have been listed range. Therefore, in order for wolf Mountain gray wolves, the Service originally because those areas are population to remain recovered or should consider the impacts of wildfire, outside of the species’ historical range. nearing recovery, those prelisting levels catastrophic events, human harassment, Issue 2: Wolf management in the of human-caused mortality must be or genetic risks to gray wolf recovery. Western DPS needs to be transferred to avoided. Response: The Service evaluated a the States. For two reasons, this final rule is not host of impacts as required by the Act, Response: The Service agrees that a expected to increase the level of human including habitat modification, human recovered wolf population is best persecution of gray wolves. First, the harassment and killing, and genetic managed by the respective States and reclassification of wolves in 2 DPSs to risks. A recent study of genetic diversity tribes. The Service will propose to delist threatened does not remove the of wolves in the northern Rocky the Western DPS wolf population as protections of the Act, nor does it Mountains indicated that the population soon as possible under the conditions eliminate the Federal penalties for was genetically diverse, in fact as much specified by the Endangered Species illegally killing one of these gray so as its source populations in Canada. Act. Two primary conditions have to be wolves. Second, by providing additional None of these factors were thought to met for the western wolf population to mechanisms for the control of problem pose a significant risk to wolf

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15828 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

population viability in the foreseeable Mountains of Montana, Idaho, and flexibility should help increase local future; none would affect the Wyoming is not in danger of extinction, public tolerance of wolves. reclassification of the gray wolf in the and therefore is no longer endangered Maintaining the connectivity of the northern Rocky Mountains. With regard but rather warrants reclassification to wolf population in the northern Rocky to wildfires, which humans often view threatened status. Mountains of the United States with the as catastrophic events, large mobile Issue 3: Address how reclassification much larger Canadian wolf population species such as wolves and their of gray wolves in the Western DPS is important to the long-term viability of ungulate prey usually are not adversely eliminates the threat of extinction. western United States wolves. However, impacted. Wildfires generally lead to an Response: Reclassifying a species at the current time, research indicates increase in ungulate food supplies, from endangered to threatened is not that wolves in all three general recovery leading to an increase in ungulate intended to eliminate the threat of areas of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming numbers, which supports increased extinction; instead, it is done in are as genetically diverse as the source wolf numbers in the area in the years recognition that the species no longer populations in Canada. Long-term following a wildfire. warrants endangered status. Such is the genetic and demographic viability of case for gray wolves in the Western wolves in the northern Rocky I. Recovery Goals and Progress in the DPS. There currently are about 563 Western DPS Mountains will depend on long-term wolves in 34 breeding pairs in the management by the States and tribes Issue 1: Commenters recommended Western DPS. Many of those breeding and their strategies for maintaining that the Service abide by the strictest pairs are in extensive and secure population characteristics such as interpretation of the reclassification and habitats under public ownership, such genetic diversity. That management recovery criteria found in the Northern as Yellowstone National Park and could involve maintaining natural Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan. several National Forests. The gray wolf connectivity between United States and Response: We acknowledge that the in the northwestern United States has Canadian wolf populations or by active proposed rule did not adequately achieved a population that is rapidly management such as relocation. With explain how our goals for gray wolf approaching our recovery goal. about 563 wolves in 34 breeding pairs reclassification and recovery in the Reclassifying wolves in the Western distributed throughout Montana, Idaho, northern Rocky Mountains have evolved DPS to threatened status still maintains and Wyoming, the gray wolf in the since the 1987 Recovery Plan was the Service’s management authority and northern Rocky Mountains—including written. A complete explanation can the Act’s protection for those wolves. northwestern Montana—is clearly no now be found in the subsection The Act’s protections will continue to longer endangered with extinction. The Reclassification and Recovery Goals prevent the excessive human-caused 4(d) rule is very similar to the within the section Recovery Progress of mortality that caused wolf extirpations the Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf. in the past. When the States have nonessential experimental population Issue 2: Several comments indicated adequate regulatory mechanisms in rule, under which rule wolf populations that restoration of wolves in Montana, place, the Act’s protections will no in Idaho and Wyoming have flourished. Idaho, and Wyoming does not warrant longer be needed. The reasons that The Service believes the increased changing the classification of wolves wolves are no longer endangered are management flexibility under throughout the much larger Western described in more detail in the 5-factor threatened status and a 4(d) rule is DPS from endangered to threatened. analysis that is part of this rulemaking. appropriate and the increased Response: Wolf recovery in the management flexibility will assist in northern Rocky Mountains of the United J. Recovery in Northwestern Montana completing the species recovery. States has been defined as a minimum Issue: The Service should not K. Special Regulations Under Section of 30 breeding pairs of wolves (a reclassify wolves in northwestern 4(d) for the Western DPS breeding pair is defined as a male and Montana, because recovery has a female wolf that raise at least 2 young proceeded slowly and may have Issue 1: The Service should not that survived until December 31) that stopped. Thus, full protection under an encourage harassment of wolves in the are distributed throughout the endangered classification should be Western DPS. mountainous portion of western maintained. Response: The Western DPS 4(d) rule Montana, Idaho, and northwestern Response: The estimated wolf allows landowners and permittees on Wyoming for a minimum of 3 population in northwestern Montana is Federal grazing allotments to harass successive years (see previous issue). A 84 wolves in 7 breeding pairs, which is wolves in a noninjurious manner at any review of that definition by a wide the highest level recorded to date. The time. This type of harassment will not diversity of professional peer reviewers final regulations will not cause any affect the wolf population other than by indicated that such a population would significant increase in wolf mortality making some individual wolves more be comprised of about 300 individuals that would impact wolf population wary of people. Wolves are adept social and that some minimum level of levels or prevent additional recovery learners. Harassing wolves that have connectivity among the U.S. there. We anticipate that the wolf begun to be comfortable around people subpopulations and with the larger wolf population in northwestern Montana will cause those wolves to become more population in Canada was necessary to will enjoy the same benefits from more wary. Wolves that are wary of people guarantee long-term persistence. That flexible management under this rule as and places that are frequented by people peer review indicated that population have the rapidly expanding wolf may be less likely to be involved in viability is a function of the population populations in the nonessential livestock and pet depredations. Wolves and not the area it occupies. The experimental population areas. In that are not wary of people are more reviewers felt that geographically addition, that management flexibility vulnerable to being illegally killed or expanding an area that a population will extend to areas where the Service being hit by cars and, in rare and the occupies had no impact on that currently has no plans to actively most extreme circumstances, wolves can population’s viability. The Service promote wolf restoration under the Act, become habituated to human foods and believes that the Western DPS wolf but where wolves may occasionally can become a potential threat to human population in the northern Rocky disperse and may cause conflicts. That safety.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15829

In some situations the 4(d) rule also hunting of wolves while they are listed continues to grow. Most habitats in allows the injurious harassment (for under the Act is unlikely. (A Service- Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, where example, by rubber bullets) of wolves proposed public trapping season for conflicts between people and wolves are under a permit from us. This type of threatened Minnesota wolves in areas of unlikely, are now occupied by wolves. harassment will permit management of high wolf depredation was prohibited The Service will rely on a variety of situations (for example, loitering around by a Federal court in the mid-1980s.) management tools including nonlethal vulnerable livestock, approaching Upon confirmation in early 2003 that approaches, but lethal control will often humans, trying to attack pets) before the wolf population in Montana, Idaho, be used to resolve conflicts with they have escalated into a situation that and Wyoming has met the recovery goal livestock. Wolf populations can remain calls for more drastic measures such as and when State wolf management plans stable while withstanding 25–35 percent lethal control. To prevent abuse, this are completed (see issue U, ‘‘State Wolf human-caused mortality per year. type of activity would be limited by Management Plans’’), the Service will Agency lethal control of problem wolves case-by-case evaluation and controlled move as quickly as possible to delist the was predicted to remove about 10 by a permit. In the experimental wolf population. Following delisting, percent of the wolf population annually, population areas, this type of State-managed wolf hunting could be and at that level it will not reduce the management has been used in a few allowed by States if it is carefully wolf population, but will minimize situations, and no wolves have been managed and closely monitored. conflicts with livestock. permanently injured. Issue 4: The Service should relocate Issue 6: The special rule under section Issue 2: The Service should only livestock if conflicts occur on public 4(d) should not exempt Federal agencies allow translocation (that is, livetrapping grazing allotments. from the section 7 consultation and releasing at a distant location) to Response: Wolves and livestock, requirements of the Act. control problem wolves. primarily cattle and horses, can live Response: The proposed rule does not Response: Translocation of wolves to near one another for extended periods of exempt Federal agencies from their reduce wolf-livestock conflicts can be a time without significant conflict. Most consultation requirements under the Act valuable management tool when wolf wolves do not learn that livestock can for threatened species. Federal agency populations are low and empty habitat be successfully attacked and do not consultation with the Service on their is available for translocated wolves. view them as prey. However, when actions that may affect gray wolves is Wolves are territorial, and resident individual wolves learn to attack required, but under the special rule, it packs will kill wolves that are livestock, that behavior can quickly be will not result in land-use restrictions translocated to their territory. With the learned by other wolves if it is not unless these restrictions are needed to wolf population near recovery levels, stopped. Since large portions of wild avoid take at active den sites between few places are available to translocate ungulates winter on private property, April 1 and June 30. Wolves are very wolves. It also appears that even wolves that prey on wild ungulates adaptable, and Federal activities— translocation of problem wolves is often will be in close proximity to livestock unless they directly kill wolves—will not successful at preventing further during at least some portion of the year. have no significant effect on them. To problems, because the wolf has learned Wolf recovery can occur without date there have been virtually no land- that livestock can be prey and carries disruption of traditional western land- use restrictions imposed for the benefit that learned behavior to its new location use practices and has successfully of wolves, and the wolf population has and becomes a problem wolf there. occurred without moving livestock off recovered quickly. Some wolves have traveled great of public grazing allotments. Public Issue 7: The Service should not loosen distances after translocation and have lands can have both large predators and restrictions on lethal take; and we returned to the area where they were seasonal livestock grazing. should base the take levels on scientific captured. The Service primarily will Furthermore, the Service does not information. rely on lethal control for management of have the authority to relocate livestock Response: Wolf management, wolves that attack livestock, because on either public or private land, except including the nearly identical forms of most habitat in Montana, Idaho, and on lands within the National Wildlife lethal wolf control included in the 4(d) Wyoming that does not have livestock is Refuge System. Regulating or rule, have been employed in the already occupied by resident wolf prohibiting livestock grazing on public nonessential experimental population packs. However, translocation may lands is under the discretion of the areas since 1995. The wolf population continue to be used to resolve pet dog respective land management agency. in those areas has rapidly expanded, depredations and excessive depredation Issue 5: The Service should and very few wolves have been taken of native wild ungulate populations. emphasize nonlethal wolf control to under those provisions. Lethal take by Issue 3: The Service should allow a resolve conflicts. agency personnel and lethal take under limited wolf hunting season in Response: We will continue to use permits issued to the public are Montana. nonlethal forms of wolf management, designed to target problem wolves and Response: Hunting is a valuable, such as wolf harassment by landowners, reduce the level of conflict with local efficient, and cost effective tool to injurious but nonlethal harassment by rural residents. This level of take is manage wildlife populations. The permitted individuals, use of scaring unlikely to affect wolf population Service has recommended that State devices, working with conservation recovery and is based upon the biology wolf management programs in the West groups to provide fencing, alternative of wolf populations. We have scientific have regulated public hunting as part of pasture, and guard animals and extra data that show that such take is not their policy to conserve the wolf herders, and providing information on excessive and allows the continuing population. Conservation programs to livestock management practices that can growth of wolf populations. restore large predators such as mountain reduce conflicts with wolves. However, Issue 8: The Service should allow lions and wolves are succeeding these methods are only effective in some wolves to be lethally taken for because of the historic restoration of circumstances, and no one tool is a cure depredations on public land. wild ungulates, such as elk and deer, by for every problem. Wolf populations are Response: The 4(d) rule allows wolves State fish and game agencies and at recovery levels, and wolf conflicts to be killed on public grazing sportsmen. However, allowing public will increase as the population allotments. Livestock producers can

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15830 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

receive a permit from us to shoot a wolf occasional discovery of a livestock to relocate wolves that are impacting that is physically attacking livestock or carcass that would occur through ungulate populations. guard and herding animals after we traditional Western rangeland animal Response: The 4(d) rule does allow have confirmed that a wolf depredation husbandry practices is unlikely to any State and tribe to define an has previously occurred. Comments on significantly increase the risk of wolf unacceptable impact resulting from wolf the environmental impact statement on depredation on livestock. The Service depredation in its State and tribal wolf wolf reintroduction, the experimental does advise livestock producers of the plan and relocate wolves that are population designation process, and the potential for conflict that could occur causing that impact. If 10 or more proposal for this final 4(d) rule when wolves are attracted to areas with breeding pairs are in a State, the indicated that commenters believed that livestock and, where possible, that Service, in cooperation with the State or wolf management on public lands livestock carcasses should be rendered tribe, may decide to move wolves that should be more closely controlled (that or buried. The Service may determine are impacting State ungulate is, more protective of wolves) than on not to control wolves until the populations, even if the State or tribe private land. To address this public attractants are removed. does not have an approved wolf plan. concern and the legal responsibilities of Issue 10: The Service should increase Issue 13: The Service should drop the Federal land management agencies to the issuance of take permits on private, provision to translocate western wolves conserve listed species and provide a State, and Federal public lands. if they are causing ‘‘unacceptable balance between the needs of wildlife Response: For the purposes of the impacts’’ to wild ungulate populations. and other uses, the 4(d) rule Western DPS 4(d) rule, the Service There is no evidence that Rocky distinguishes between wolf management considers State grazing leases to be Mountain wolves pose any significant practices on Federal lands versus those treated the same as private property, threat to the ungulate populations in the on private land, while also addressing unless a State management plan region. chronic wolf depredation. Under approved by the Service specifies Response: In some situations, wolf otherwise similar circumstances, the otherwise (see issue U, ‘‘State Wolf predation, in combination with other 4(d) rule will allow livestock producers Management Plans’’). For instance, a factors, can contribute to dramatic to kill a gray wolf that is attacking their permittee on a State livestock grazing localized declines in wild ungulate livestock on their private land without allotment could shoot a wolf in the act populations. Segments of the public and a Federal permit. of physically attacking livestock without State fish and game agencies are very Issue 9: Commenters stated that the a permit from the Service, just as he or concerned that if these unusual Service should deny a take permit to she could do on private land. The 4(d) conditions exist and wolf predation is livestock producers who experience rule allows wolves to be noninjuriously contributing to dramatic declines in a wolf depredation after improper harassed without a permit, injuriously localized ungulate population, then disposal of livestock carcasses. Other harassed under permit, and killed in the management of wolf predation, in commenters recommended that the act of attacking livestock or herding and addition to management of other factors, Service redefine ‘‘problem wolf’’ to guarding animals. In chronic problem must be an available option. Moving exclude those involved with acts of situations, wolves can be shot on sight wolves to resolve these types of human carelessness or negligence. under permit. Furthermore, Federal, situations can assist in ungulate Response: The Western DPS 4(d) rule State, and tribal agencies can harass, management and ease local public and states that wolves that attack livestock move, and/or kill wolves to reduce State game managers’ fears about after being attracted to an area by conflicts with livestock, other domestic excessive unchecked wolf predation on artificial or intentional feeding, animals, and pets, and even big game native big game populations and hunter including livestock carcasses, may not populations. The Service does not plan harvest. be identified as problem wolves and to implement even more liberal Issue 14: The Service should define may not be controlled, either by practices for dealing with problem ‘‘abnormal’’ as it is used in the Western agencies or by permits to individuals. wolves at this time. More liberal DPS 4(d) rule to allow taking of wild However, it would take an unusual management—for example, management wolf-like canids that may be detrimental situation to warrant withholding through regulations allowing defense of to gray wolf recovery. Service-authorized control of wolves property and public hunting—might be Response: The 4(d) rule allows the that attacked livestock (that is, outside a part of State-run wolf conservation Service or designated agencies to take of the scope of traditional livestock programs once the wolf population is any wolf or wolf-like wild canid that the management practices). In many delisted. Service determines has abnormal instances, particularly in remote public Issue 11: The Service should provide physical or behavioral characteristics. land grazing allotments, it is nearly clear guidelines to residents regarding The primary purpose of these provision impossible to dispose of livestock their rights under the 4(d) rule. is to allow for the removal of free- carcasses. Wolves are very effective Response: The Service will do many ranging privately owned captive wolves scavengers and will feed on livestock public information announcements on or wolf-dog hybrids. There are a wide carcasses they discover. The fact that the 4(d) rule. After the experimental variety of traits that could be considered wolves feed on livestock carcasses does population rule was completed, the abnormal by the Service and each not mean that they will begin to Service prepared a summary of the situation will be addressed on a case-by- depredate on livestock. Many biologists special rule and distributed it to local case basis. However, physical examples believe that the more familiar wolves landowners, livestock organizations, of abnormal would be wolf-like canids become with livestock, even by feeding and the media to clarify what kinds of that have spotted pelt patterns or highly on carcasses, the greater the odds are activities were allowed. We will do the curled tails or otherwise appear to have that one could try to attack livestock. same for this special regulation. In dog-like traits. Behavioral abnormalities However, the bigger risk factor is that addition, the Service routinely conducts would include a high affinity to humans livestock carcasses may attract wolves to presentations and interacts with the or human dwellings, aggressive an areas near livestock which could public to clarify its regulations. behavior toward humans, or displaying increase the encounter rate and Issue 12: We should allow States and prolonged courtship or breeding potential for depredation. The tribes outside a gray wolf recovery area behaviors with domestic dogs.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15831

Issue 15: Provide expanded Issue 20: The Service should support by traditional wildlife users in definitions of ‘‘wolf conflicts,’’ ‘‘wolf encourage ranchers to take measures to Oregon, because it is dissimilar to the problems,’’ ‘‘persistent activity,’’ and reduce the risk of wolf depredation. current rules for the nonessential other related terms. Response: The Service works with experimental populations. Response: Terms such as these USDA/APHIS-Wildlife Services, Response: The final special regulation necessarily need case-by-case livestock organizations, and private for the Western DPS is intended to have application and situational definitions. groups to identify and publicize ways similar incidental take provisions as A wolf pack living in an area and that livestock producers can reduce the those that have applied to the occasionally moving through livestock risk of wolf depredation. In the past the nonessential experimental populations, is routine and generally would not be Service and its cooperators have as specified in 50 CFR 17.84(i)(3)(viii). considered to be a conflict or problem. developed a host of tools that may help This is a change from the provisions of However, a pack that also ‘‘tests’’ or livestock producers prevent wolf-caused the previous endangered status, under runs livestock has crossed the line into losses. The decision to utilize any of the which no incidental take of wolves was a different category that may involve tools offered is strictly voluntary on the allowed outside of the nonessential ‘‘wolf conflicts’’ and a need for some part of the livestock producer, but in the experimental area. type of aversive conditioning. A wolf past most of them have been very Mistakenly shooting a wolf will not be closely associated with a particular willing to voluntarily take steps to classified as incidental take under the ranch for a short period of time may attempt to reduce the risk of wolf new special regulation; similarly, such raise no specific concerns, whereas the predation. an action has not been considered same situation in proximity to a Issue 21: The Service should allow for permissible as incidental take under the residential subdivision would. The the intentional harassment of gray existing regulations for the nonessential Service believes that, because wolves depredating on livestock. experimental populations. One of the Response: The Western DPS 4(d) rule management flexibility will be required, basic rules of hunter and gun safety is allows all wolves on private land and wolf behavior can vary with to be sure of your target. Just as is the those near livestock on public grazing individuals, and the number of case in current law in most States, a allotments to be harassed at any time for situational variables is limitless, more- hunter who shoots a protected animal any reason in a noninjurious manner. A specific definitions of these terms are through mistaken identity is liable for permit to injuriously harass wolves can not necessary and would be that action. Both the new special be issued on private and public lands. unreasonably confining. regulation for the threatened Western Wolves on private land that are actually Issue 16: The Service should adhere DPS wolves and the existing regulation seen depredating on livestock can be to the Control Plan when targeting for the nonessential experimental killed on private land without a permit, problem wolves. populations stress the need for shooters and on Federal grazing allotments a Response: The Western DPS 4(d) rule to exercise reasonable due care to permit can be issued after a depredation now provides the regulatory framework identify their target and avoid taking a has been confirmed. under which problem wolves will be gray wolf. managed. The 1988 and 1999 Interim Issue 22: The Service should allow Issue 25: Under the permitting Wolf Control Plans have been replaced landowners with inholdings within provisions of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the by the 4(d) rule. Federal lands to take wolves prior to Issue 17: Clarify the criteria that suspicious activity or depredation. Act, the Service already has all the constitute opportunistic harassment. Response: Wolves are very susceptible management flexibility it needs to deal Response: The definition of to human-caused mortality and were with problem wolves in northwest opportunistic harassment is provided in exterminated by excessive human Montana, so there is no need to the Definitions section of the Western persecution. Wolf populations could not reclassify those wolves to threatened DPS 4(d) rule. persist in the face of unregulated and create a special regulation. The Issue 18: Clarify how wolf take rules human-caused mortality. Allowing any Service has not identified any apply to private land. wolf seen to be shot on sight could additional flexibility that these changes Response: The 4(d) rule has been significantly reduce wolf populations would provide. slightly modified and does clearly State and jeopardize recovery. The States do Response: We agree that the Service how wolves may be taken on private not allow other large predators or wild does have discretion to issue permits to land. In addition, the comparison chart ungulates that are much more common manage wolves under the Act’s has been revised to clarify provisions of to be shot on sight for the same reason. 10(a)(1)(A) authority. However, that the Western DPS 4(d) rule as they apply Most large wildlife species, because of authority is not as broad or flexible as to private and public land. their relatively low reproductive rates the provisions of this special 4(d) rule. Issue 19: The Service should require and naturally high survival rates, will The Service believes that the 4(d) rule verification of wolf depredation before disappear in the face of unregulated clarifies the Service’s intent and in some allowing private control. human-caused mortality. A wolf that is cases provides for the Service to allow Response: The Western DPS 4(d) rule simply on private property is not management actions without the requires agency confirmation of wolf normally a problem animal, but wolves sometimes cumbersome process of depredation before agency control or that attack livestock are aggressively issuing individual permits. lethal take permits can be issued. The controlled. L. Nonessential Experimental taking of a wolf that is physically Issue 23: The Service should allow Population Designations attacking livestock on private land is the intentional harassment of wolves on allowed without a permit, but such take public lands. Issue 1: Several respondents must be reported within 24 hours and Response: The Western DPS 4(d) rule commented that the Service should evidence of a depredation (such as allows any wolves near livestock to be review, delete, add to, and/or modify wounded livestock) must be present. We harassed in a non-injurious manner on the NEP designations in central Idaho believe that these stipulations prevent public lands. and the greater Yellowstone area. One abuse and focus control on specific Issue 24: The incidental take language peer reviewer recommended the NEP problem wolves. in the proposed rule may undermine designations be removed, because they

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15832 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

are ‘‘no longer appropriate and create an provisions of the two Rocky Mountain The special regulations for Minnesota overly complex regulatory structure.’’ NEPs will now be applied to wolves in wolves provide for lethal control by Response: One of the alternatives the larger Western DPS. designated government agents when considered in the draft proposal, but not wolf depredation has been verified and M. Lethal Control of Gray Wolves selected for further analysis in that is likely to reoccur. These restrictions proposal, was removing the NEP Issue 1: We received a number of result in the control, including killing or designation in the central Idaho and comments that expressed varying permanent captivity, of those wolves Yellowstone areas, making all the degrees of opposition to the lethal that are taking domestic animals, but Western DPS threatened, and managing control of gray wolves. Some provide protection for wolves that are all wolves in the Western DPS under commenters asked that we prohibit any members of packs that hunt only wild this 4(d) rule. We chose to leave the form of lethal taking of wolves. Other prey. These regulations are biologically NEP designations as they are, because in comments supported killing of wolves sound, and we believe they are the 1994 rulemaking for the NEPs we only in defense of human life. Other consistent with wolf recovery in stated we did not envision changing viewpoints supported lethal control Minnesota. We have no information that them until recovery occurred. In only if it is carried out by designated would lead us to suspect that the similar addition, several Federal agencies government agents, while some regulations finalized in this rule will expressed concern over the potential of commenters feel that lethal control interfere with continued wolf recovery having to do section 7 consultation should not occur on public lands. The in Wisconsin and Michigan. again, and the NEP rules are working lethal control of wolves that kill only We are not making any changes to the well and are understood by most local pets was opposed by some commenters. current lethal control regulations for residents in those areas. Instead, we Response: Current regulations under Minnesota gray wolves. We are allowing have tried to make this 4(d) rule very the Act that apply to both endangered similar depredation control activities in similar to the special rule for the NEPs, and threatened species (50 CFR most other States in the Eastern DPS, thereby standardizing proven successful 17.21(a)(c)(2), § 17.21(a)(c)(3), § 17.31(a), and providing the authority for tribes to wolf management strategies throughout and § 17.31(b)) provide the authority to salvage wolf parts for spiritual and the Western DPS. While the NEP rules lethally take endangered and threatened cultural use and to conduct depredation and this 4(d) rule are separate wildlife under several different control actions on reservation land regulations, they are nearly identical, scenarios. Furthermore, section 4(d) of without a Federal endangered/ and they both address most public and the Act allows the promulgation of threatened species permit. agency concerns. special regulations for threatened We have developed the two special Issue 2: The Service should maintain species if we determine that those regulations to provide the actions NEP status for wolves that stray beyond regulations are ‘‘necessary and advisable necessary to reduce human conflicts in NEP borders. to provide for the conservation of such the Western and Eastern DPSs. Each Response: Both the DPS and NEP species.’’ These special regulations can special regulation is designed to address designations are geographically based. include provisions for lethal taking of the unique needs within the respective Except for those wolves that are in the species, if appropriate. In the case of DPS, and to minimize adverse impacts captivity, gray wolves are listed and experimental populations, special on wolf recovery. Lethal depredation protected according to where they are regulations can also be promulgated control is being authorized only to the located. However, the regulations for the allowing lethal control. The common extent that we believe is necessary to three existing gray wolf NEPs do allow feature across these various regulations continue the recovery of the wolf the Service to capture and return wolves is that lethal take is allowed if it is populations to meet our recovery goals known to be from the NEP areas if they necessary to protect human life and within those two DPSs. move beyond the NEP boundaries. safety or is necessary for the We are providing lethal depredation Thus, wolves that stray out of an NEP conservation of the species. control authority to most of the States area can be moved back into the NEP The Service has had gray wolf and tribes within the Eastern DPS, area to further contribute to that regulations that allow lethal take under including those States outside of the recovery program. various scenarios in different parts of core recovery States of Minnesota, Broadly applying all of the provisions the country. Those regulations were Wisconsin, and Michigan. (This of the NEP regulations to wolves that necessary for wolf conservation, and authority is not being provided to States disperse and remain outside the NEPs they were tailored to meet the needs of and tribes east of Ohio). It will be the would be equivalent to expanding the the differing situations in their decision of the respective tribes and boundaries of the NEP. In our respective areas. In all cases they have States as to whether they want to utilize regulations establishing the Rocky two purposes: reducing threats, and the this authority to kill depredating Mountain gray wolf NEPs we stated we perceptions of those threats, to human threatened wolves in those rare did not envision changing them until safety; and reducing conflicts between incidents of verified depredation in those wolf populations were delisted. wolves and humans in order to lessen those noncore areas. We will not make such changes at this the likelihood that individuals would In the Western DPS the 4(d) rule time in the absence of biological need act on their own to reduce perceived allows wolves that have been involved and strong public support for such a conflicts, likely leading to the deaths of in livestock depredations to be killed by change. Evidence of such need or more wolves than would result from agencies and the public. This take will support was not forthcoming during the regulated lethal control actions. be highly regulated and is not expected comment period, even though we We believe the special regulations to significantly impact the wolf specifically requested comments on the that have been used in Minnesota to population. To date about 6 percent of two northern Rocky Mountain NEP control wolves depredating on livestock the wolf population in Montana, Idaho, regulations. and other domestic animals have and Wyoming is affected by Service However, this final 4(d) rule applies reduced wolf-human conflicts, have wolf control actions, including lethal provisions similar to those of the two diminished the illegal killing of wolves, control under the continuing authority Rocky Mountain NEPs to wolves outside and thus have aided the continuing of the nonessential experimental of the NEPs. Thus, many of the recovery of gray wolves in that State. population regulations. This level of

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15833

human-caused mortality will not keep dealt with the proposed Northeastern Issue 4: The Service should delist gray the northern Rocky Mountains wolf DPS. Comments in the latter two wolves in the Midwest. population from continuing its rapid categories are addressed in separate Response: We recognize that wolf expansion. As the wolf population has sections O and R, below. Other numbers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and expanded rapidly, fewer areas of remote comments regarding the Eastern DPS Michigan have surpassed the numerical habitat remain for wolves to be moved follow: goals of the Eastern Timber Wolf to. Therefore, to resolve livestock Issue 1: Numerous comments Recovery Plan. However, at the time our depredations, the Service will be expressed opposition to reclassifying proposal was being prepared, we lacked lethally controlling wolves in most Midwestern wolves to threatened status. reliable information on future wolf situations. Response: Since our proposal was management in Minnesota, and we were Issue 2: A number of comments developed, we have received 2 therefore unable to evaluate the threats stressed that we should emphasize additional years of data showing that that might impact Minnesota wolves if nonlethal depredation control measures wolf numbers in the Midwest are they were delisted. See the Summary of and increase research efforts aimed at continuing to expand. We have Factors Affecting the Species section improved nonlethal control measures. reviewed, and have included in this below under factor D., The adequacy or Response: The Service will continue rule, that additional population data, as inadequacy of existing regulatory to cooperate with USDA/APHIS- well as updated information regarding mechanisms, for additional discussion Wildlife Services, State DNRs, disease occurrence and human-caused of Eastern DPS gray wolves. universities, and special interest groups mortality. The additional information The subsequent completion of the to investigate ways to reduce the level supports the reclassification from 2001 Minnesota Wolf Management Plan of conflict between people, livestock, endangered to threatened. gives us the ability to better evaluate the and wolves. To date we and our Issue 2: The Service should support extent of the threats that would likely be partners in wolf recovery have monitoring of gray wolves in the experienced by Minnesota gray wolves investigated and implemented the use of Midwest, and should improve wolf if they were delisted (see issue U, ‘‘State fencing; guard animals; extra herders; monitoring in the Lower Peninsula of Wolf Management Plans’’). Therefore, light, siren, and other scare devices, Michigan. including those activated by wolf radio- now that we have completed this Response: We have been partially collars; shock aversion conditioning; rulemaking, we intend to reevaluate the funding wolf monitoring and research flagging; less-than-lethal munitions; threats to wolves in the Midwest, in efforts by the Michigan and Wisconsin offensive and repelling scents; light of current data and expected future supplemental feeding; harassing wolves DNRs for many years. This support is wolf management by the States and at dens and rendezvous sites to move expected to continue as long as the gray tribes, in order to determine if the the center of wolf pack activity away wolf is protected under the Act, and Eastern DPS constitutes a recovered from livestock; trapping and moving may continue to some extent for 5 years entity. If we conclude that recovery individual pack members or the entire post-delisting. under the Act has occurred, we will pack; moving livestock and providing Currently, we are not aware of any promptly publish a delisting proposal alternative pasture; investigating the wild gray wolves in the Lower and open a public comment period. As characteristics of livestock operations Peninsula of Michigan. While we we develop the proposal and take final that experience higher depredation understand the interest in identifying action, we will again evaluate rates; and research into the type of and protecting gray wolves that might information on gray wolf presence in livestock and rate of livestock loss that occur in the Lower Peninsula, those the northeastern United States. wolves would be unnecessary to are confirmed in remote public grazing O. Special Regulations Under 4(d) for accomplishing gray wolf recovery under allotments. We also correspond with Parts of the Eastern DPS (formerly the the Act. While we would provide and maintain professional contact with Western Great Lakes and Northeastern technical assistance to initiate wolf researchers and wildlife managers DPSs) throughout the world to discuss and monitoring and conservation in the learn how they are dealing with similar Lower Peninsula if requested by the Issue 1: The government should not problems. As a result of these attempts State and interested tribes, it is unlikely be involved in control of depredating at nonlethal methods, we have not yet that we will be able to provide funding wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and discovered a reliable method of for wolf monitoring in the Lower Michigan. It should be the farmers’ nonlethal control. It is apparent that Peninsula. responsibility to keep their livestock out lethal control will remain an important Issue 3: We should consider the of the reach of wolves. tool for managing wolves that learn to potential impacts of hybridization with Response: Assisting farmers in depredate on livestock. coyotes in the Midwest. reducing the adverse impacts of wildlife Lethal depredation control in the Response: We are concerned about on agricultural activities has long been Western DPS is further discussed under gray wolf-coyote hybridization. There is a program of the Federal Government, section K. Special Regulations under mitochondrial DNA evidence that such and currently is accomplished by the Section 4(d) for the Western DPS, above. hybridization may have occurred in the Wildlife Services program of the U.S. past (Lehman et al. 1991), but the nature Department of Agriculture. In addition, N. Comments Regarding the Eastern of mitochondrial DNA provides little the Service has a policy that directs us DPS (composed of the proposed Western information on when, and how to minimize the adverse economic Great Lakes DPS and the proposed frequently, wolf-coyote hybridization effects of our endangered and Northeastern DPS, as well as additional may have occurred. There currently is threatened species recovery programs. States) no evidence that hybrid events have Thus, reducing wolf depredation on Most comments regarding the Eastern significantly changed the wolves in the livestock by removing the offending DPS expressed opposition to delisting Midwest. Morphologically, wolves and wolf packs is an appropriate Midwestern wolves, addressed the behaviorally, and ecologically they part of our wolf recovery programs, as proposed special regulation for the continue to look, act, and function as long as those activities are consistent proposed Western Great Lakes DPS, or wolves, rather than like hybrids. with gray wolf recovery. We believe that

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15834 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

controlling depredating wolves is proposed special regulation that now Service cannot dictate the criteria for consistent with wolf recovery. applies to all midwestern States except such payments. Issue 2: Lethal control of depredating for Minnesota. Opinions ranged from Issue 7: The special regulation for wolves on public lands should not be allowing private individuals, including Michigan is too subjective. Depredation permitted. farmers and animal owners, to take by a wolf should be proven beyond Response: Trapping for depredating problem wolves, to allowing only doubt, the identity of the depredating wolves on public land generally has not qualified government agents to kill such wolf should be identified, and only that been done under the ongoing wolf wolves. individual wolf should be trapped and depredation control program in Response: We believe the depredation removed. Minnesota, and we do not expect such control program, as operated in Response: The special regulation trapping to be commonly carried out in Minnesota since the mid-1980s, has requires that ‘‘the depredation was either Wisconsin or Michigan under the been highly successful in removing likely to have been caused by a gray new special regulation (50 CFR depredating wolves and thus greatly wolf’’ in order for trapping and removal 17.40(o)). Such trapping is restricted to reducing domestic animal losses, while operations to commence. Evidence, within 1 mile of the depredation site, not unnecessarily impacting the including tracks, location of bites, size and the trapping usually can be continued growth of the Minnesota wolf and spacing of incisor punctures, and effectively carried out on private lands. population. Those regulations allow the presence and extent of subcutaneous In addition, most Federal lands employees or designated agents of the hemorrhaging will usually allow trained (National Parks, Lakeshores, and Service or MN DNR to take depredating depredation incident investigators to Riverways, and National Forests) in wolves. We have chosen to apply the determine whether the predator was a these States will not allow wolf trapping proven success of this program to the wolf or coyote, and can even determine on their lands. However, the special other midwestern States, with only two if a wolf killed the domestic animal or regulation will allow wolf trapping on minor changes. The first of those merely scavenged on it after it had died State, tribal, county, or other publicly changes allows tribes or their designated from other causes. If the evidence does owned lands. We believe that if wolf agents to undertake depredation control not allow the investigator to conclude depredation has been verified, it is in actions on reservation lands without that a gray wolf likely was the cause of the best interests of wolf recovery to needing a Federal permit. The other the mortality, then lethal depredation remove the problem wolves in the most change increases the area in which control actions cannot be carried out. effective manner, so we will not put trapping can occur from the one-half The ‘‘likely to have been caused’’ unnecessary restrictions on the trapping mile allowed in Minnesota to 1 mile in standard has been used successfully in locations. Wisconsin and Michigan and 4 miles wolf depredation control activities in Issue 3: The Service should require throughout the remaining area covered Minnesota for many years, and has evidence of conflict between livestock by the special regulation. We believe allowed the wolf population in that and wolves prior to initiating control this approach will provide sufficient State to continue to increase. We do not measures. ability to control problem wolves believe it will result in excessive wolf Response: We agree with this without significantly impacting the mortalities in Wisconsin and Michigan. comment. The special regulation (both ongoing wolf recovery in Wisconsin and We agree that an ideal depredation as proposed and as finalized) requires a Michigan. control program would remove only the determination that ‘‘the depredation Issue 6: The Service should require wolf that killed the domestic animal, was likely to have been caused by a gray farmers to employ adequate animal and the remainder of the pack would wolf’’ and that ‘‘depredation at the site husbandry practices in the Midwest as then pursue only wild prey. However, is likely to continue’’ if the problem a prerequisite to being eligible for this scenario is unrealistic for two main wolves are not removed. depredation control actions or reasons. First, it is not possible to Issue 4: The special regulation should compensation. determine which pack member or allow depredation control measures for Response: While there is some members attacked and killed the wolf depredation of game farm animals. evidence that supports the theory that domestic animal, short of capturing the Response: The special regulation certain animal husbandry practices will entire pack and doing stomach content allows depredation control measures to reduce the likelihood that a farm will analysis within a few days of the be carried out in response to wolf experience wolf depredation, the only depredation incident. This is not depredations on ‘‘lawfully present quantitative study on the subject in the practical and in most cases it is livestock or domestic animals.’’ The Midwest to date did not find any clear impossible. Second, the wolf pack regulation does not specifically address connections between farm layout, functions as a hunting unit and in many game farm animals. However, if State or animal husbandry practices, and wolf cases the entire pack, not just one tribal wolf management plans (see issue depredation incidents (Mech et al. member, develops the practice of U, ‘‘State Wolf Management Plans’’) 2000). Furthermore, even the most preying on domestic animals. Thus, define livestock to include game farm careful and protective livestock trapping and removing a single pack animals, our special regulation can be producer can still fall victim to wolf member will usually not stop the invoked in game farm depredation depredations. Given the uncertainty of depredation problem. incidents. We expect such depredation success from ‘‘better’’ animal husbandry Issue 8: The special regulations for control actions to occur in Wisconsin, practices, we will not require such Minnesota should be consistent with the because the Wisconsin Wolf practices, but will continue to advocate special regulations for other areas of this Management Plan defines livestock to for their use. Similarly, USDA/APHIS- DPS. include ‘‘pen-raised animals raised on Wildlife Services also recommends such Response: We agree that the special licensed game farm operations’’ (WI practices and provides livestock regulations would be slightly easier to DNR 1999a). producers with information on these understand if they were identical across Issue 5: We received a number of practices. all the areas included within the Eastern comments espousing various opinions Depredation compensation payments DPS. However, the Act allows special on who should be allowed to conduct are made by State agencies or private regulations under section 4(d) to vary depredation control activities under the organizations, not by the Service. The with the conservation needs of the

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15835

species in that area. Therefore, we have increased dramatically under the habitat As we are not involved in wolf established smaller lethal control protections that have existed over the depredation compensation payments distances (that is, the radius around the last several decades. Even in the two and do not envision becoming depredation site in which lethal control areas (Wisconsin and northwestern financially involved in these programs, can be carried out) in Michigan and Montana) where wolf population growth we recommend that such comments be Wisconsin than in the other States had slowed or had been temporarily sent to the appropriate State agencies covered by the same 4(d) rule, in order stalled, inadequate habitat protection and Defenders of Wildlife. to reduce the likelihood that the wrong was not the causative factor, and R. Comments Regarding the Proposed wolves might be trapped in those two population growth has resumed in both Northeastern DPS States with high wolf population areas in the absence of additional densities. In addition, this 4(d) rule does habitat protection measures. Issue: We received a diverse array of not apply to any of the States in the At such time as we consider the comments dealing with various aspects Eastern DPS that are east of Ohio. delisting of gray wolves, we will review of the proposed Northeastern DPS and With respect to the differences changes in habitat protection that would the special regulation proposed for that between the continuing special result from the elimination of the DPS. The comments spanned a regulation for Minnesota wolves (50 protections of the Act. The impacts of spectrum from strong support for CFR 17.40(d)) and this new special those changes will be part of the threats establishing a Northeastern DPS and regulation for most of the Eastern DPS analysis that will accompany any recovering gray wolves there, to intense (50 CFR 17.40(o)), we chose to propose delisting proposal, and will be opposition to any steps towards wolf no changes to the pre-existing considered in any final decision on restoration in the Northeast. Other Minnesota special regulation, because it delisting. However, as the current action issues include suggestions for changing was the product of a court order and has is a reclassification which retains the the special regulation that was proposed been functioning well and reducing current habitat protections of the Act, for gray wolves in the Northeastern DPS wolf depredation problems for over 15 we believe the concerns expressed for (for example, the provisions for lethal years. Modifying its language in any its adverse impacts on habitat protection take of wolves, wild ungulate impacts, way could require Federal Court are unfounded. and States’ roles), comments on whether approval. Any modifications that might those wolves should be listed as Q. Compensation for Depredation by be seen as significant would likely threatened or endangered, the Gray Wolves result in litigation, or might otherwise boundaries of the DPS, the taxonomy of delay the implementation of this final Issue: Several concerns were the historically resident wolf and the rule. Therefore, we have chosen to defer expressed regarding the payment of potential of hybridization with coyotes, any changes to the special regulation for compensation to the owners of domestic the use of an experimental population gray wolves in Minnesota. animals, including pets and livestock, designation, threats to wolves from In order to minimize any confusion, that are reported as killed or injured by disease and human activity and we have made the special regulation for gray wolves. Some commenters opposed development, the role of public versus the Eastern DPS consistent within a such compensation and recommended private land, habitat suitability and State’s boundaries, so that State that compensation funds should instead protection, prey availability, fear of agencies, or the designated agents of be used to reduce or prevent wolf lawsuits resulting from the incidental State agencies, will only have to be depredation. Other commenters take of gray wolves on private lands, the concerned with a single set of supported compensation for livestock cost of wolf restoration, and the need for regulations for that State. Furthermore, losses caused by wolves; some public education programs to promote where Native American reservation commenters also would like wolf restoration in a Northeastern DPS. boundaries cross State boundaries, the compensation to be available in Response: As discussed elsewhere in gray wolf special regulations are instances of wolf depredation on pets. this document, when we drafted our identical on both sides of the State There were comments both supporting gray wolf reclassification proposal, we boundary, and thus are consistent and opposing a requirement for believed there may have been sufficient within individual reservations. Thus, verification of wolf depredation in order information to support the we believe the possibilities for for an owner to receive compensation. establishment of a gray wolf DPS in the confusion in complying with the 4(d) Other comments dealt with the amount northeastern States of New York, rule for the Eastern DPS have been of compensation. Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. If minimized. Response: The Service does not such a gray wolf DPS were to be provide monetary compensation for established, we stated that we would P. Habitat Protection for Gray Wolves damage caused by any wildlife, initiate recovery planning to determine Issue: Numerous comments expressed including financial losses resulting from the feasibility of restoring a viable gray the belief that suitable gray wolf habitat domestic animals being killed or injured wolf population in that area and the best should receive additional protection by gray wolves. All such compensation way to accomplish such a restoration. prior to reclassification, or that we programs are run by State agencies or We proposed that gray wolves in the should reassess the threats of habitat private organizations and are not funded Northeastern DPS should be classified destruction and modification. Most of in any way by the Service. In the as threatened, and we also proposed these comments dealt with the proposed northern Rockies and the Southwest, special regulations under section 4(d) of Western Great Lakes DPS and the wolf depredation compensation the Act for gray wolves in this DPS. proposed Northeastern DPS; some payments are made by Defenders of Both threatened classification and the comments specifically suggested that we Wildlife. In the Midwest, wolf special regulations were intended to require additional protection of roadless depredation compensation payments are increase the management flexibility for habitat in Wisconsin. made by the Minnesota Department of the States, tribes, and the Service in Response: From a review of gray wolf Agriculture, WI DNR’s Nongame order to more effectively accomplish population data in western Great Lakes Wildlife Fund, and MI DNR, with gray wolf recovery there. States and the northern U.S. Rockies, it partial financial support from private In our July 13, 2000, proposed rule, is clear that wolf populations have conservation organizations. we specifically requested comments and

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15836 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

additional information on the proposed S. Use of Scientific Data is primarily derived by counting wolves Northeastern DPS and the associated Issue 1: A number of commenters in packs that contain radio-collared proposed special regulation. Since that stressed that our decision should be members. The breeding pair count is time we have paid particular attention based on sound scientific data and also estimated by radio telemetry and by to two important issues—insufficient analysis. Some of these comments counting the number of wolf groups that evidence of a resident population of accused us of improperly considering contain an adult male and an adult wolves in the Northeast and the identity economic, political, or other factors female wolf that raise at least two pups of any such wolves and the wolves that when developing the proposal. We were that survive until December 31. Descriptions of the methods used to historically occupied the Northeast. accused of improperly favoring estimate gray wolf populations in the Regarding the first issue, despite livestock interests as well as allowing midwestern States have been added to ongoing efforts by individuals and undue influence from environmental several conservation organizations, no the sections that describe the recovery organizations. progress of gray wolves in that area. reliable data support the contention that Response: The commenters are correct a population of wild wolves currently in their assertion that our decision T. Requests for Consideration of Factors exists in the northeastern States. While should be based on sound scientific data Other Than Threats to the Species there were three individual wolves or and analysis. The Act clearly requires us Issue 1: We received comments that wolf-like canids killed in Maine and to use only scientific and commercial recommended that decisions on the Vermont within the last 10 years, their data that are relevant to the five Act’s protections for gray wolves should origins are unknown, and there have categories of threats that might be be based on a wide variety of factors in been no subsequent confirmed sightings affecting the species. addition to the threats to the species. of pairs or packs of wolves. Thus, in The Service has followed the These factors include economic view of the lack of reliable data showing requirements of the Act in coming to a considerations (depredation costs, that a wolf population exists in this decision on this final rule. We used the funding for game habitat acquisition and area, we are unable to designate a best scientific data available as we restoration efforts, costs and benefits to separate DPS there. We cannot list a developed the proposal, and in this final local communities, agency budgets), DPS when we lack data showing that a rule we have updated (and corrected, as threats (or the lack of threats) to human population exists. described in the Technical Corrections safety and to pets, impacts on the We believe the second issue—the category, above) wolf population and Carolina Dog, ecological impacts to all identity of the recent and historical wolf mortality figures wherever appropriate. native wildlife (and specifically to wild of eastern North America—remains In addition, newly available scientific ungulates), the intrinsic value of the unresolved. Until scientific data and data resulted in our decision to not species, the ecological benefits provided analysis can conclusively determine finalize the listing of a Northeastern by wolves, the wolf’s role as an which large canid historically occupied DPS at this time and to make changes indicator species, and ethical concerns. the Northeast, we are unable to to the proposed special regulation for Response: We understand these determine which wolf, if any, would be the Western DPS. concerns and the intensity with which considered for restoration there. We Special interest groups have not had they are felt by the commenters. currently are unconvinced that the gray any undue or improper influence on Economic concerns, threats to humans wolf was not the historical wolf in at this rulemaking, nor have we and domestic animals, ecological least a portion of the Northeast, so we considered economic factors in our effects, and impacts on other species will not delist the gray wolf in that reclassification decision. Some (especially rare and declining species) region on the basis of the assumption commenters who expressed such a are all taken into consideration as we that it was listed in error. At this time concern may have come to that develop and implement recovery we will maintain the Act’s protection by conclusion as a result of a programs for listed species. However, including this geographic area in a misunderstanding of the applicability of the Act clearly states that our decisions threatened Eastern Gray Wolf DPS that our ‘‘Policy on Recovery Plan to list, reclassify, and/or delist a species also includes the proposed Western Participation and Implementation can only be based on scientific and Great Lakes DPS and several other Under the Endangered Species Act’’ (59 commercial data that deal with threats States. FR 34272, July 1, 1994; available at to the species and its habitat. These Because we are not finalizing a listing http://endangered.fws.gov/policy/ threats are broken into five factors by of the proposed Northeastern DPS and pol002.html). That policy states that we the Act (section 4(a)(1)), which are are not finalizing the proposed 4(d) rule will minimize the social and economic individually addressed below. While we that was intended to provide impacts of implementing recovery recognize that there are many direct and management flexibility in order to actions and will consider such impacts indirect benefits and costs that arise promote wolf restoration within that as we develop recovery plans. However, from the listing or delisting of a species, DPS, we will not further address the the Act prohibits such economic the Act prohibits us from considering many comments that dealt with these considerations during the rulemaking any factors except the threats to the issues. However, if we receive reliable process for listing, reclassification, and species. information supporting the existence of delisting actions, and the Issue 2: When we implement recovery a northeastern wolf population, or if we Administrative Procedures Act prohibits programs for listed predator species, we subsequently determine that the gray Federal agencies from providing special should, or should not, consider the wolf was the historical resident wolf in interest groups any special access to the impact of wolf predation on wild the Northeast, we could again consider rulemaking process. This rulemaking ungulate populations. listing a separate gray wolf DPS in the has complied with those prohibitions. Response: When implementing Northeast. At that time we will review Issue 2: The Service should clarify the recovery programs for the gray wolf, our all the issues that were raised during process by which wolf population 1994 Policy on Recovery Plan this comment period and endeavor to estimates are determined. Participation and Implementation address them in any DPS proposal that Response: In the northern Rocky Under the Endangered Species Act (59 we might publish. Mountains the wolf population estimate FR 34272) requires that we strive to

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15837

minimize unnecessary social and degree of wolf recovery that has already been involved to varying degrees in the economic impacts of those recovery occurred. development of these plans, and we are actions. The Service is aware that while States and other Federal agencies familiar with the level of the State’s generally wolf predation is not expected sometimes develop their own commitment to their implementation. to cause significant negative management plans that identify For plans that have been completed and consequences to wild prey populations, management actions they will take subsequently reviewed by the Service there are conditions where it may. The while the species is listed and/or after (MI DNR 1997, WI DNR 1999a, and MN 4(d) rule for the Western DPS allows for the species is delisted. If a State or other DNR 2001), these plans will greatly those wolves to be relocated should they Federal agency is interested in assuming assist our future evaluation of post- cause significant negative effects on management responsibility for the delisting threats to wolves in these wild ungulate populations. The Service species while the species is listed, the States. However, because the Act has initiated, and cooperated on a Service must approve the plan to ensure overrides State laws, regulations, multitude of, wolf-ungulate relationship it is consistent with the recovery of the policies, and management plans, these studies in Montana, Idaho, and species and otherwise consistent with State plans can only be implemented to Wyoming since the early 1980s to assess the Act prior to delegating management the extent that they are consistent with or detect the potential impact that wolf responsibility to that State or other the protections of the Act and any predation may have on various ungulate Federal agency. Federal regulations promulgated under populations. Most of these projects were Even if a State or other Federal agency the provisions of the Act. Therefore, done by local university graduate does not assume management many of the provisions of these State students and in cooperation with other responsibility for the species while it is wolf management plans cannot be State and Federal resource management listed, delisting of the species will implemented while gray wolves are agencies. We will use the best scientific require that we evaluate State or other federally listed as threatened within the data available in future decisions Federal agency management of the respective State. Specifically, this involving actions to reduce wolf species following removal of the means that public hunting and trapping impacts on wild ungulate populations. protections of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) of of wolves and preemptive lethal control the Act requires the Secretary to of potentially depredating wolves U. State Wolf Management Plans determine whether any species is an without a Federal permit cannot be endangered species or a threatened Issue: A great deal of concern was initiated by the States, nor will livestock species because of any of five factors expressed by a number of commenters producers or landowners be able to including the ‘‘inadequacy of existing about whether State protection and freely kill wolves while they are regulatory mechanisms.’’ Section 4(b) management of gray wolves would be classified as threatened by the Service. establishes the basis for such adequate to ensure the continued The Act and the several NEP and 4(d) determinations, which includes viability of those wolf populations if regulations will restrict take of gray consideration of efforts being made by Federal protections are reduced (via wolves, regardless of the existence of any State to protect the species. In the reclassification) or removed (via State or tribal wolf management plans in context of a delisting determination, the the Midwest and West, until wolf delisting). Some commenters stated that Service must show that a threat is no State protection will not be adequate or populations are delisted. longer at a level warranting listing or, in At such time as we consider a effective, and for that reason gray the absence of the protections afforded proposal to delist the gray wolf, we will wolves cannot be delisted or reclassified by the Act, that other existing regulatory fully evaluate the impacts of State plan to threatened. Other commenters want mechanisms will adequately remove or implementation. Those impacts will be the Service to assist in the development reduce the threat to the species. Such an discussed in any delisting proposal that of State wolf management plans, set analysis will often be greatly facilitated we develop, and will be considered in minimum standards for such plans, and if there are approved State or tribal any final decision on delisting. fund their implementation. Some management plans that will be Regardless of whether or not State and commenters would like every State that implemented following delisting. tribal wolf management plans have been has the potential for wolf recovery to be We are willing to assist States and completed or are being developed, we required to develop a management plan tribes with the development of their must conduct a threats analysis as prior to delisting, even if no wolves wolf management plans. We will required by the Act. If completed wolf currently reside in the State. The need encourage States and tribes to develop management plans exist, we will use for wolf management plans to be plans that provide for coordinated them to assist in the threats analysis. If coordinated across State lines was actions across State and reservation completed management plans are another concern. boundaries to the extent possible. For lacking, we will complete the threats Response: When a species is listed as example, we are currently working analysis using whatever information is threatened or endangered, we develop a directly with the Bad River Band of available to us. However, the absence of Federal recovery plan that describes the Chippewa Indians and the WI DNR to one or more State management plans actions believed to be necessary to develop special management practices may impair our threats analysis to the ensure the long-term survival of the for Reservation wolves that might extent that delisting consideration might species. Other Federal agencies, States, become involved in depredation be deferred. tribes, conservation organizations, and incidents while off the Reservation. We have been funding, or partially other affected parties are encouraged to Because management plans are not funding, State and tribal wolf assist in implementing these recovery required by the Act or its implementing monitoring, research, and management actions, and in some cases non-Service regulations, we cannot force States and planning efforts for gray wolves. Such entities take the leading role in carrying tribes to develop them or to coordinate funding has occurred in the Midwest, out these actions. For the gray wolf, the them across their boundaries. However, the northern Rockies, and the active and vigorous involvement of those States that are interested in Southwest. We intend to continue such numerous State and tribal agencies and gaining full management authority for funding, as our annual budgets allow, private conservation organizations has gray wolves have already begun working for the reclassified wolf populations in been instrumental in achieving the on such plans. In most cases we have the Midwest (Eastern DPS) and the

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15838 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

northern Rockies (Western DPS). Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin and the coordinated across State and reservation However, the Service lacks any mandate WI DNR to develop such an agreement boundaries. We will continue to to fund State and tribal management or that might serve as a prototype encourage such cooperation, and will monitoring actions for species that have agreement for other reservations. This assist in the development of agreements been delisted. agreement potentially will provide to enhance this cooperative protection to threatened, but management. V. Native American Concerns depredating, Wisconsin gray wolves Issue 6: The special regulation for A number of comments were received beyond that provided by the new 4(d) most of the Eastern DPS should extend from Native American tribes and regulation, and could continue to apply to tribes the authority to take, under organizations and from individuals who after Wisconsin gray wolves are section 6 cooperative agreements, for identified themselves as Native federally delisted. scientific research or conservation Americans. While many of these Issue 3: The Service should delay its purposes. comments have been addressed in other reclassification and delisting decisions Response: Section 6 of the Act gives issue categories, the comments from to allow time for the development of an us the authority for the development of Native American interests that are not intertribal management agreement endangered species cooperative addressed elsewhere are covered in this among tribes in the 1836 Treaty Ceded agreements with any State that category. Area. ‘‘establishes and maintains an adequate Issue 1: The Service should consider Response: We appreciate the interest and active program for the conservation the cultural value of wolves to Native in developing wolf management plans of endangered species and threatened Americans when making a both on reservations and across the species.’’ Once such an agreement is reclassification or delisting decision for areas ceded by treaty to the United approved, the State is eligible for the gray wolf. States Government. Such plans would cooperative endangered species grants, Response: During the development of facilitate sharing expertise, exchanging and gains some additional take this regulation, we contacted many data, and implementing cooperative authorities under the regulations at 50 tribes and Native American research efforts and would lead to more CFR 17.21(c)(5) and 17.31(b). organizations to ensure that they were effective wolf management programs. Subparagraph (2)(v) of the new special aware of the regulations we proposed on However, the Act requires that we base regulation at 50 CFR 17.40(d) contains July 13, 2000, and to learn of their a species’ listing status on the threats parallel language for States with concerns with those proposed affecting it, and on whether the species conservation agreements developed regulations. We will continue this meets the Act’s definitions of threatened pursuant to section 6. However, tribes dialogue, and expand these contacts as and endangered. Developing such an are not eligible for cooperative we proceed with our wolf recovery agreement is likely to be a lengthy agreements under section 6, so we programs and ultimately propose the process, involving discussions and cannot extend to them any of the other delisting of one or more gray wolf DPSs. negotiations with a number of agencies benefits or authorities that come from In addition, we will followup with that have wildlife management such agreements. However, tribes can specific requests by several tribes for authority in ceded areas. Therefore, receive permits to take threatened assistance with developing management while we are interested in assisting with wolves for scientific research or plans, negotiating wolf protection the development of such a management conservation purposes under 50 CFR agreements with States, and training, as agreement, we cannot delay this 17.32. described in the following responses. reclassification decision until such an However, the new special regulation However, the Act provides no authority agreement is completed. for most of the Eastern DPS extends to to extend its protections beyond the Issue 4: The Service should provide tribes two significant new authorities. point at which a species no longer depredation control training to the Mille One provision allows them to salvage warrants a threatened or endangered Lacs Band (Minnesota Chippewa Tribe) from within their area of jurisdiction, status, so we cannot unreasonably delay conservation officers. and without a permit from us, dead gray or forgo reclassifying or delisting the Response: Our proposal contained no wolf specimens that may be useful for wolf for cultural or spiritual reasons. changes to the listing of the gray wolf in traditional, cultural, or spiritual Issue 2: The Service should restrict or Minnesota, nor to the special regulation purposes. The second provision allows prohibit lethal take of wolves within that allows for the lethal control of a tribe to conduct lethal wolf treaty ceded areas and on and around Minnesota gray wolves depredating depredation control activities within its certain reservations. domestic animals. Currently, all wolf area of coverage within reservation Response: We understand the desire depredation control actions in boundaries without a permit from us. of several tribes to retain strong Minnesota are carried out by the USDA/ Both of these provisions are available protections for gray wolves both on APHIS-Wildlife Services, but the special for the tribes to use at their discretion. reservations and on lands surrounding regulation allows us to designate agents Issue 7: The proposed tribal salvage the reservations. While there is no to conduct depredation control regulation for parts of the Eastern DPS provision within the Act to maintain activities. We will pursue this request should be expanded to provide tribal such Federal protections for species by the Mille Lacs Band to become governments with half of the which no longer warrant a classification involved in depredation investigation salvageable species that are taken from as threatened or endangered, we will and control activities to determine the the ceded territories. work with the interested tribes and the extent of this interest and how any Response: While the gray wolf is appropriate States and strive to develop necessary training could be arranged. listed as a threatened or endangered protective agreements for gray wolves Issue 5: The Service should require species under the Act, we are required on or near reservations. These Minnesota DNR to coordinate with to put salvaged wolves and wolf parts to agreements would replace some or all of tribal governments in gray wolf those uses that best serve the species’ the protections currently provided by management efforts. conservation. However, due to the their current endangered or threatened Response: We agree that wolf continuing recovery and increase in listings. We are currently working with management activities will be more wolf numbers in the Midwest, we the Bad River Band of Lake Superior effective and more efficient if they are believe sufficient wolf carcasses are

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15839

available to meet all remaining recovery source population is listed as threatened protections; opposition to lethal needs while also giving tribes the or endangered. depredation control of Minnesota authority to salvage carcasses and wolf Response: We acknowledge that wolves; criticism of the MN DNR’s wolf parts found on reservations for where our wolf recovery programs are management plan (much of which traditional, cultural, or spiritual nearing completion there may be only cannot be implemented until the wolves purposes. As is the case for wolves minor and largely speculative recovery are federally delisted); suggestions for salvaged by State and Federal agents, roles remaining for captive gray wolves. wolf hunting in Minnesota; and the new special regulation under Such roles would likely be for research, recommendations for changes to the § 17.40(o) provides that these tribal- and such studies might be DPS-specific current special rule for Minnesota salvaged wolves will be reported to us (for example, genetic or taxonomic wolves. and will be retained or disposed of studies, or disease resistence ‘‘only in accordance with directions investigations). However, for the Response: Our final rule follows the from the Service.’’ We will routinely Southwestern (Mexican) gray wolf proposed rule in making no changes to allow the tribes to retain such wolves recovery program, many of the wolves the Federal regulations that apply to the and wolf parts. However, if an currently in captivity retain great gray wolf in Minnesota. Because the overriding conservation need arises— importance as potential subjects for proposed rule did not contain proposed such as a disease outbreak that requires reintroduction. For these reasons, we changes that would affect the Act’s conducting standardized necropsies of have chosen to continue to protect protections for Minnesota wolves, we dead wolves—we may need to use parts captive gray wolves according to their cannot consider making any such or all of some of those wolves for original source location in the wild. regulatory changes at this time. conservation purposes. Tribal-salvaged Issue 2: Various respondents Therefore, we are not addressing any of wolves not needed for such urgent recommended that the Service address these comments in this document. conservation purposes will be retained the potential problems associated with However, these comments will be by, or returned to, the tribes. During the wolf-dog hybrids, regulate their considered as we subsequently consider time that the gray wolf remains breeding and commercialization, and proposing additional regulatory changes protected by the Act, we cannot provide public education on wolf-dog that might affect the Act’s protections categorically provide salvaged wolves or hybrid concerns. for Minnesota wolves. Response: We are well aware of the wolf parts to non-conservation uses, but potential problems that wolf-dog Y. Suggestions for Changes to Gray Wolf we will attempt to provide, and to allow hybrids can cause for our various wolf Recovery Programs the tribes to salvage and retain, recovery programs. This final rule does sufficient wolf carcasses and wolf parts not extend the protections of the Act to Issue: We received a large number of to meet their needs for traditional, wolf-dog hybrids, so such animals can diverse comments which suggested cultural, or spiritual purposes. be removed from the wild if their changes to one or more gray wolf We previously have authorized presence is detrimental to wolf recovery programs. These comments APHIS-Wildlife Services in Minnesota recovery. However, the Act provides no included suggestions to maintain and to make 50 percent of wolves trapped by authority for the Service to regulate expand recovery partnerships (for that Federal agency for depredation their breeding and commercialization; example, with Native American tribes, control available to tribes for cultural these actions must be undertaken at the private wolf research centers, purposes. That practice for Minnesota State and local level. We will continue landowners, Canada, and Mexico), map wolves will not be changed by the new to support State efforts that restrict or wolf travel corridors, increase law regulation. prohibit the release of wolf-dog hybrids enforcement and protection, and Issue 8: The Service should consult in wolf recovery areas. provide more public education, ideas with tribes in the Dakotas to ensure that for additional research, and ways to X. Other Comments Specific to they have a role in the management of reduce conflicts with human activities. wolves on-reservation and within their Minnesota Response: Because these comments State. Issue: Our proposal contained no did not address the proposed regulatory Response: We acknowledge the desire suggested changes for Federal wolf changes, but instead dealt with recovery of many Native American tribes to have protections in Minnesota. The proposed actions and recovery plan management authority for those wolves rule was developed in part to bring found on their reservations if the consistency to the legal protections implementation, they will not be protections of the Act are removed in afforded by the Act to all midwestern discussed here. However, they will be the future. The Department of the wolves by listing them all as threatened referred to the appropriate Service gray Interior (Department) will assist those (as Minnesota wolves have been listed wolf recovery teams or recovery tribes in this pursuit. The Department since 1978) and by applying to them a coordinators for their consideration. will also assist interested tribes in special regulation that is very similar to Recovery programs and recovery plans developing cooperative wolf the special regulation that has applied are flexible and are intended to adapt to management agreements with the to Minnesota wolves since the mid- new knowledge, ideas, methods, and appropriate State agencies for off- 1980s. The proposal stated that the technology. Several of our gray wolf reservation wolves. Minnesota special regulation (50 CFR recovery plans may be reviewed for 17.40(d)) would continue to apply to possible revision as a result of this W. Captive Gray Wolves and Wolf-Dog Minnesota gray wolves. rulemaking, and these comments will be Hybrids However, we received numerous considered for incorporation into those Issue 1: One peer reviewer questioned comments that either suggested changes plans if they are revised. It is our policy what role captive gray wolves might or opposed any changes to the Act’s to make drafts of revised recovery plans have in our ongoing wolf recovery current protections for Minnesota gray available for public review and programs, and if that role was sufficient wolves. Minnesota-specific comments comment, so there will be additional to warrant that captive wolves retain the included recommendations to decrease, opportunities for input into our Act’s protections for as long as their remove, or increase those Federal continuing gray wolf recovery programs.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15840 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

Z. Miscellaneous Comments New Orleans remain endangered, while level of take that occurs as a result of Issue 1: Commenters suggested that a wolf from Michigan held at the same these new rules, and we can promptly we should reconsider alternatives that New Orleans facility is classified as evaluate that level and make changes to were discussed in our proposal but threatened. Captive wolves from Canada the regulations, if appropriate. In addition, the Act contains a which were not our preferred or Alaska remain unprotected by the provision (section 4(b)(3)) that allows an alternative. The alternatives of keeping Act, even if they are held in facilities in interested party to provide data to us gray wolves listed as endangered one of the gray wolf DPSs. Facilities that breed gray wolves for and to petition to have a species listed, wherever they are currently so listed, use as pets, for exhibition, or for other delisted, or reclassified. This petition and retaining the endangered status nonrecovery purposes remain subject to process is a mechanism to direct our only throughout the West, were the same legal requirements as they attention to species’ data or to threats specifically recommended for our were before this regulatory change. that we might otherwise overlook. reconsideration. Interstate commerce in such captive Issue 4: All costs of wolf monitoring, Response: As we reviewed the raised wolves continues to be prohibited depredation control, and depredation comments and additional data that have by the Act, except under a Federal mitigation efforts in Idaho should be become available since we drafted the permit, if those wolves or their paid by the Federal government. proposed rule, we have reconsidered ancestors originated from within one of Response: The Federal government alternatives described in the proposal, the DPSs. Intrastate commerce in such currently funds all wolf-related as well as other alternatives that might wolves is not regulated by the Act. activities in the Western DPS except for be appropriate. With regard to the above Issue 3: Several commenters wolf depredation compensation two specific alternatives recommended expressed concern that wolf populations payments, which are paid by Defenders for reconsideration, our evaluation of will decrease substantially if Federal of Wildlife. When the wolf population the current biological status and threats protection is reduced or removed and is recovered and delisted, and managed to gray wolves clearly indicates that recommended that we establish an solely by the respective States and both the Western and Eastern DPSs no expedited process to reclassify such tribes, other sources of funding may be longer warrant a classification as wolves from threatened to endangered necessary. The Service cannot use its endangered, and are more appropriately (or relist them if they had been endangered species funding on species classified under the Act as threatened delisted). that are no longer listed under the Act, species. Response: Our analysis of the threats except to conduct the post-delisting Our final rule is a modification of the that gray wolves in the two reclassified monitoring required by section 4(g) of proposed rule that now includes DPSs will experience after their the Act. The States of Montana, Idaho, components of several other alternatives reclassification indicates that wolf and Wyoming have stated that, if the that were discussed in the proposal. populations will not decline if they are wolf population is to be delisted and One of those alternatives dealt with reclassified as threatened. However, managed solely by the States, some form various boundary configurations for a wolf numbers and range will continue of Federal funding should be provided, DPS in the eastern United States and to be monitored at the same level of or they would not support delisting. another included larger DPSs that intensity as before this reclassification, This issue still has to be resolved. included all of the 48 States. so we will have data that will alert us Issue 5: The Service should be Issue 2: How will the Service regulate if a population decline is occurring; responsible for any experimental wolf game farms and wolf pelt farms Thus, we can reclassify wolves back to population wolves that enter Wallowa following reclassification? endangered status if necessary. County, Oregon. Response: We are unaware of any The Act clearly recognizes the Response: The Service can manage existing wolf game farms or wolf pelt possibility that the Service might any wolves that leave the nonessential farms that use wolves that originated reclassify or delist a species experimental population areas, from within the 48 States or Mexico. prematurely, or that unanticipated including those that might disperse into Wolves in such farms would have been threats may cause a species to Oregon. The experimental population subject to the protection of the Act since unexpectedly decline following a rules allow us to retrieve or manage any 1978, and they could not have been reclassification or a delisting. The Act wolf known to be an experimental legally killed for commercial purposes directs the Service, in cooperation with population animal regardless of its nor transported across State lines for the States, to monitor delisted recovered location. The Service has stated that any commercial activities unless those species for at least 5 years after they are wolf that disperses outside of the purposes and activities promoted the delisted, and to relist them—including experimental population area and species’ recovery and were allowed emergency relisting—if the monitoring attacks livestock will be killed. A wolf under a permit we issued under 50 CFR indicates that such action is necessary. that has not caused conflicts with 17.22 or § 17.32. This is an unlikely Thus, the Act already contains a process people or livestock may be monitored, scenario, and we doubt that such wolf to relist a species, and to do so on an but it generally will not be captured or game farms or pelt farms exist. This emergency basis, if necessary. Similarly, managed. The Service has no interest in situation will not change due to this the Service also has the authority to spending time or funding on lone reclassification, as the same Federal reclassify a species from threatened to wolves that may have dispersed into regulations will continue to apply to endangered if monitoring data indicate other States and are not causing commercial use of threatened gray the need. An emergency reclassification problems. The Service’s only active wolves. from threatened to endangered is recovery programs in the northern Under this reclassification, gray possible, if monitoring indicates this is Rocky Mountains will be in Montana, wolves in captivity remain protected by necessary. Idaho, and Wyoming. The Service has the Act, on the basis of the locations at The new special regulations for the no plans or interest in management for which they, or their ancestors, were Western and Eastern DPSs both have wolf restoration in adjacent States. After removed from the wild, regardless of reporting requirements for all wolves delisting, wolf populations and their where they are being held. Thus, taken under their provisions. Thus, we management would be the ultimate Mexican wolves that are in captivity in will have information on any increased responsibility of those respective State

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15841

and tribal governments and their natural that the species is neither endangered future of a species that was officially resource agencies. nor threatened because of (1) extinction, persecuted by government agencies as (2) recovery, or (3) error in the original recently as 40 years ago and still is AA. Nonsubstantive Comments data used for classification of the reviled by some members of the public. Comments Not Germane to this species. This analysis must be based Therefore, below we provide some Rulemaking. We received numerous upon the same five categories of threats details on the components of the wolf comments covering a broad spectrum of specified in section 4(a)(1). management plans that currently exist wolf-related issues that are not the In a subsequent section of this rule, and analyze their impact on gray wolves subject of this rulemaking. Some of we describe the three DPSs that are now in light of the changes in Federal these merely are beyond the scope of being given separate treatment under protection that arise from this rule. this rulemaking, while others dealt with the Act (refer to the Designation of After a thorough review of all issues that are beyond the authority of Distinct Population Segments section available information and an evaluation Service and of the Act. These comments above). These DPSs are the Western of the following five factors specified in covered such subjects as support for the DPS, the Eastern DPS, and the section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we are Conservation and Reinvestment Act and Southwestern DPS. Therefore, for changing the Act’s protections for the the Roadless Initiative; support for, and consistency and clarity in discussing gray wolf across the conterminous 48 opposition to, grazing on public lands; each threat, the following analysis of the States, except for Minnesota, portions of wolf reintroduction in Scotland; listing five categories of threats contains several southwestern and southern Alaskan wolves as endangered; and the separate discussions for wolves within Rocky Mountain States, Mexico, and the red wolf. Since these issues do not the geographic areas encompassed nonessential experimental populations relate to the action we proposed, they within the three DPSs. in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains will not be addressed here. (Note that the Eastern DPS includes and southwestern U.S. Significant gray Another set of nongermane comments those areas that were identified in our wolf recovery has occurred, and dealt with delisting wolves in the July 13, 2000, proposal as the Western continues as a result of the reduction of western Great Lakes States (now Great Lakes DPS and the Northeastern threats as described below. included in the Eastern DPS), and the DPS. Refer to the Designation of Distinct conditions (legal, biological, and social) Population Segments section above for a A. The Present or Threatened that should occur before and after such discussion of the reasons for combining Destruction, Modification, or a delisting. We again emphasize that we the two proposed DPSs.) Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range have not proposed the delisting of these For species that are already listed as General. A popular perception is that gray wolves, and we are not taking such threatened or endangered, this analysis wolves inhabit only remote portions of action at this time. Therefore, comments of threats is primarily an evaluation of pristine forests or mountainous areas, relating to delisting western Great Lakes the threats that could potentially affect where human developments and other States wolves will not be further the species in the foreseeable future activities have produced negligible discussed in this document. However, following the delisting or downlisting change to the natural landscape. Their we appreciate the concerns expressed in and the removal or reduction of the extirpation south of Canada and Alaska, those comments, and we will review Act’s protections. Our evaluation of the except for the heavily forested portions those concerns at such time as we begin future threats to the gray wolf in the of northeastern Minnesota, reinforced working on a delisting proposal for Eastern DPS-especially those threats to this popular belief. However, wolves those wolves. wolves in the Midwest that would occur survived in those areas not because Expressions of Support or Opposition. after removal or reduction of the those were the only places with the Finally, we received a large number of protections of the Act-is partially based necessary habitat conditions, but comments expressing support for, or upon the wolf management plans and because only in those remote areas were opposition to, wolf recovery and the assurances of the States and tribes in they sufficiently free of the human proposal (or parts of it) without further that area. If the gray wolf were to be persecution that elsewhere killed elaboration or explanation. Those federally delisted in the future, then wolves faster than the species could comments, and the interest they State and tribal management plans will reproduce (Mech 1995). represent, are appreciated; however, be the major determinants of wolf Wolf research, as well as the because they did not contain scientific protection and prey availability, will set expansion of wolf range over the last 2 data, information on threats, or any and enforce limits on human utilization decades, has shown that wolves can other substantive information, they will and other forms of taking, and will successfully occupy a wide range of not be further addressed in this final determine the overall regulatory habitats, and they are not dependent on rule. framework for conservation or wilderness areas for their survival. In exploitation of gray wolves. the past, gray wolf populations Summary of Factors Affecting the Even in those areas where the gray occupied nearly every type of habitat Species wolf is now reclassified to threatened north of mid-Mexico that contained Section 4 of the Endangered Species status, many aspects of State and tribal large ungulate prey species, including Act and regulations (50 CFR Part 424) management plans cannot yet be bison, elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, promulgated to implement the listing implemented because of the remaining moose, and caribou. An inadequate prey provisions of the Act set forth the and overriding prohibitions of the Act. density and a high level of human procedures for listing, reclassifying, and However, State and tribal plans, to the persecution apparently are the only delisting species. Species may be listed extent that they have been developed, factors that limit wolf distribution as threatened or endangered if one or can serve as significant indicators of (Mech 1995). Virtually any area that has more of the five factors described in public attitudes and agency goals, sufficient prey and adequate protection section 4(a)(1) of the Act threatens the which, in turn, are evidence of the from human-caused mortality could be continued existence of the species. A probability of continued progress considered potential gray wolf habitat. species may be delisted, according to 50 toward full recovery under the Act. Eastern DPS. In the western Great CFR 424.11(d), if the best scientific and Such indicators of attitudes and goals Lakes States, wolves in the densely commercial data available substantiate are especially important in assessing the forested northeastern corner of

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15842 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

Minnesota have expanded into the more percent probability of catastrophic (excluding Isle Royale wolves) and agricultural portions of central and events. Within-State extinction identifies 800 wolves as the estimated northwestern Minnesota, northern and probabilities were only 1 percent for carrying capacity of suitable areas on central Wisconsin, and the entire Upper those same scenarios (WI DNR 1999a). the Upper Peninsula (MI DNR 1997). Peninsula of Michigan. Habitats However, at this stage of their (‘‘Carrying capacity’’ is the number of currently being used by wolves span the development, PVA models must be used animals that an area is able to support broad range from the mixed hardwood- with great caution, and it would be over the long term; for wolves it is coniferous forest wilderness area of unwise to base management decisions primarily based on the availability of northern Minnesota; through sparsely solely on their predictions. (Refer above prey animals and competition from settled, but similar habitats in to section Summary of Comments and other wolf packs.) Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and Recommendations, section B, The Wisconsin Plan identifies a northern Wisconsin; into more Compliance with Laws, Regulations and management goal of 350 wolves, well intensively cultivated and livestock- Policies, Issue #11 for additional above the 200 wolves specified in the producing portions of central and discussion on the problems of Federal recovery plan for a viable northwestern Minnesota and central population viability analysis.) isolated wolf population. After the Wisconsin; and even approaching the The Wisconsin wolf population has Wisconsin wolf population reaches 250 fringes of the St. Paul, Minnesota, and increased at an average annual rate of 19 (excluding wolves on Native American Madison, Wisconsin, suburbs. Wolves percent since 1985, and at 26 percent reservations), the species will be are also dispersing from Minnesota into annually since 1993. Wisconsin had at removed from the State’s threatened and the agricultural landscape of North and least 320 wild gray wolves in early 2002 endangered species list (WI DNR 1999a). South Dakota in increasing numbers (WI DNR 2002, Wydeven et al. 2002). Wisconsin DNR is likely to begin the (Licht and Fritts 1994, Straughan and The Michigan wolf population State delisting process in late 2002. Fain 2002). Similarly, a gray wolf that (excluding Isle Royale) has increased at Three comparable surveys of wolf had been radio-collared in Michigan’s an average annual rate of about 24 numbers and range in Minnesota have Upper Peninsula was recently mistaken percent in recent years and was at least been carried out in recent decades. The for a coyote and killed in north-central 280 wolves in early 2002 (MI DNR first survey estimated a State wolf Missouri, presumably traveling through 2002). Wolf survey methods in both population of 1,235 in 1979 (Berg and expanses of agricultural land along the States focus on wolf packs and may Kuehn 1982). In 1989, 1,500 to 1,750 way (Missouri Department of miss many lone individuals, thus wolves were estimated in the State Conservation 2001). underestimating the actual wolf (Fuller et al. 1992). This represents an Based upon computer modeling, populations. However, it is safe to say average annual increase of about 3 Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of that the combined gray wolf population percent. The 1998 survey (Berg and Michigan contain large tracts of wolf in the two States (excluding Isle Royale, Benson 1999) estimated that the State’s habitat, estimated at 15,052 sq km MI) was at least 600 animals in late wolf population was 2,445 animals, (5,812 sq mi) and 29,348 sq km (11,331 winter 2001–2002. indicating an average annual growth sq mi), respectively (Mladenoff et al. Final State wolf management plans rate of 4 to 5 percent during the 1995; WI DNR 1999a). In Wisconsin, for Michigan and Wisconsin, intervening 9 years. While estimates of much of this suitable habitat is on respectively, have identified habitat the wolf population that are made at public lands, with most of these public protection as one of their top priorities about 10-year intervals do not provide lands being National, State, and county for maintaining a viable wolf any insight into annual fluctuations in forest lands. population. Both State wolf wolf numbers that might be due to Wisconsin DNR biologists conducted management plans emphasize the need winter conditions, prey availability and a population viability analysis (PVA) to manage human access to wolf areas vulnerability, legal depredation control using the computer simulation model by avoiding increasing road densities, actions, and illegal killing, these 3 VORTEX. The purpose of a PVA is to protecting habitat corridors between population estimates clearly indicate estimate extinction probabilities by larger tracts of wolf habitat, avoiding that the Minnesota wolf population has modeling long-term species’ population disturbance and habitat degradation in continued to increase. As of the 1998 changes that result from multiple the immediate vicinity of den and survey, the State’s wolf population was interacting factors. The resulting rendezvous sites, and maintaining approximately twice the planning goal extinction probabilities may be able to adequate prey species for wolves by for Minnesota, as specified in the provide some limited insight into the suitable habitat and prey harvest Eastern Plan. (Refer to the Recovery effects that management alternatives, regulations. Progress of the Eastern Gray Wolf environmental fluctuation, and Both the Michigan Plan and the section above, for additional details on biological factors may have on rare Wisconsin Plan establish wolf the increase in numbers and range of species’ populations over many years. population goals that exceed the viable Minnesota wolves.) Under most of the scenarios that were population threshold identified in the The MN DNR prepared a Wolf modeled by WI DNR, the results of the Federal recovery plan for isolated wolf Management Plan and an accompanying PVA indicated that a wolf population of populations, that is, a population of 200 legislative bill in early 1999 and 300 to 500 animals would have a low or more wolves for 5 consecutive years submitted them to the Minnesota probability of extinction over a 100-year (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992a). Legislature. However, the Legislature timeframe. However, the modeling Each State adopted this ‘‘isolated failed to approve the MN Plan in the indicated that the population might population’’ approach to ensure the 1999 session. In early 2000, the MN decline to a level that might trigger continued existence of a viable wolf DNR released a second bill that would relisting under State law (fewer than 80 population within its borders regardless result in somewhat different wolf wolves for 3 years). ‘‘[S]tate-relisting of the condition or existence of wolf management and protection than would probabilities’’ ranged from 10 to 40 populations in adjacent States or the 1999 bill. The Minnesota Legislature percent for those scenarios which Canada. did not pass the 2000 Minnesota wolf looked at a combination of moderate The Michigan Plan contains a long- management bill, but instead passed environmental variability and a 5 term minimum goal of 200 wolves separate legislation directing the DNR to

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15843

prepare a new management plan based those sources during the comment such as depredation control activities. upon various new wolf protection and period, we expect wolf populations to The Leech Lake Reservation is home to wolf take provisions also contained in continue to be conserved on most, and an estimated 75 to 100 gray wolves, the that bill. MN DNR, in cooperation with probably all, Native American largest population of wolves on a Native the MN Department of Agriculture, reservations in the western Great Lakes American reservation in the 48 completed a Wolf Management Plan area. Those practices will augment the conterminous States (Hunt in litt. 1998). (MN Plan) in early 2001 (MN DNR wolf population goals described above The Red Lake Band of Chippewa 2001). for the State DNRs. While we are unable Indians (Minnesota) has indicated that it The MN Plan’s stated goal is ‘‘to to perform a comprehensive analysis of is likely to develop a wolf management ensure the long-term survival of wolves the likely future management and plan that will probably be very similar in Minnesota while addressing wolf- protection afforded to wolves on Native in scope and content to the plan human conflicts that inevitably result American reservations, we believe their developed by the MN DNR. The Band’s when wolves and people live in the traditional respect for the wolf, and its position on wolf management is ‘‘wolf same vicinity.’’ It establishes a importance in Native American culture, preservation through effective minimum goal of 1,600 wolves, with will secure the species’ future existence management,’’ and the Band is provisions to monitor the population on most land under Native American confident that wolves will continue to and to take prompt corrective action if control. At the time we consider thrive on their lands (Lawrence Bedeau, wolf numbers drop below that initiating work on a proposal to delist or Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, in threshold. The MN Plan divides the otherwise further reduce the Federal litt. 1998). State into 2 wolf management zones, protection of gray wolves, we will again The Keweenaw Bay Indian designated as Zones A and B. Zone A consult with Native American tribes and Community (Michigan) has at least one corresponds to wolf management zones organizations to further discuss and wolf pack of four animals on its lands. 1 through 4 in the Federal Eastern evaluate their wolf management and They will continue to list the gray wolf Recovery Plan, while Zone B constitutes protection plans and preferences. as a protected animal under the Tribal zone 5 in the Federal Eastern Recovery The wolf retains great cultural Code even if federally delisted, with Plan. Within Zone A, wolves would significance and traditional value to hunting and trapping prohibited (Mike receive strong State protection, unless many tribes and their members (Eli Donofrio, Biological Services, involved in attacks on domestic Hunt, Leech Lake Tribal Council, in litt. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, animals. In Zone B, more-liberal taking 1998; Mike Schrage, Fond du Lac pers. comm. 1998). Other tribes, such as regulations would allow wolves to be Resource Management Division, in litt. the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior killed to protect domestic animals under 1998a). Some Native Americans view Chippewa, have requested a slower pace a much broader set of circumstances. wolves as competitors for deer and to any wolf delisting process to allow However, neither the Zone A nor the moose, while others are interested in the more time for the preparation of tribal Zone B regulations can be implemented harvest of the wolf as a furbearer wolf management plans. The Fond du while Minnesota gray wolves are (Schrage, in litt. 1998a). Many tribes Lac Band has passed a resolution federally listed as a threatened species. intend to manage their natural opposing Federal delisting and any When our July 13, 2000, proposed resources, wolves among them, in a other measure that would permit rule was being written, the Minnesota sustainable manner in order that they be trapping, hunting, or poisoning of the Legislature had not passed wolf available to their descendants. However, gray wolf (Schrage in litt. 1998b). management legislation, so we had little traditional natural resource harvest Several Midwestern tribes (e.g., the basis on which to evaluate the practices often include only a minimum Bad River Band of Lake Superior management and protection that amount of regulation by the tribal Chippewa Indians and the Little Minnesota wolves would receive if we government (Hunt in litt. 1998). Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians) would remove their Federal protection. In order to retain and strengthen these have expressed concern regarding the Therefore, we did not propose any cultural connections, some tribes are possibility of the reclassification (and a change in Federal protection at that opposed to the unnecessary killing of potential future delisting) resulting in time. Because this final rule retains the wolves on reservations and on ceded increased mortality of gray wolves on Federal threatened listing and the lands, even if wolves were to be delisted reservation lands, in the areas associated protection for Minnesota gray in the future. For example, because of immediately surrounding the wolves, and thus precludes the the strong cultural significance of the reservations, and in lands ceded by implementation of the MN Plan, we wolf to their culture, the Ojibwa people treaty to the Federal government by the have not included a detailed review of support its protection (James Schlender, tribes (Kiogama in litt. 2000). Interest the MN Plan in this rule. In the future, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife has also been expressed in having our if and when we propose a change to the Commission, in litt. 1998). Additionally, assistance in developing tribal and Federal protection of Minnesota gray the Tribal Council of the Leech Lake intertribal wolf management plans prior wolves, we will evaluate and discuss Band of Minnesota Ojibwe recently has to delisting. the resulting affects of implementing the adopted a resolution that describes the The Great Lakes Indian Fish and MN Plan in that proposed rule. sport and recreational harvest of gray Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) has The complete text of the Wisconsin, wolves as an inappropriate use of the Stated its intent to work closely with the Michigan, and Minnesota wolf animal. The resolution supports the States to cooperatively manage wolves management plans, as well as our limited harvest of wolves to be used for in the ceded territories in the Upper summaries of those plans, can be found traditional or spiritual purposes by Midwest, and will not develop a on our Web site (see FOR FURTHER enrolled tribal members. This limited separate wolf management plan. The INFORMATION CONTACT). harvest would only be allowed by the Commission intends to work with us to On the basis of discussions and tribe if it does not negatively affect the ensure that State plans will adequately written communications with Native wolf population. Based on the Council’s protect the wolf (Schlender in litt. American tribes and organizations prior request, we will assist the Council with 1998). to our proposal, and further supported obtaining wolf pelts and parts that The tribes are very concerned with by the comments we received from become available from other sources, the details of any change in Federal

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15844 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

protection for the gray wolf. However, management emphasis will continue to National Scenic Riverway, in Wisconsin the GLIFWC’s Voigt Task Force, minimize the human impacts on wolf and Minnesota, is also a mostly linear representing the off-reservation treaty- populations. Thus, because of their ownership, and it makes up portions of reserved fish, wildlife, and gathering responsibility to preserve all wildlife, the territories of 3 to 5 packs of 10 to rights of 11 tribes in the Midwest, units of the National Park System can be 40 wolves. The Riverway is likely to supports the reclassification to more protective of wildlife than are limit public access to denning and threatened status and the accompanying State plans and regulations. In the case rendezvous sites, and to follow other increased flexibility provided by the of the gray wolf, the NPS Organic Act management and protective practices special regulation that will now apply to and NPS policies will continue to outlined in the respective State wolf the growing wolf populations in provide protection to the wolf even after management plans (Robin Maercklein, Michigan and Wisconsin. Although few Federal delisting has occurred. St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, in if any tribes are likely to take Voyageurs National Park, along litt. 1998). depredating wolves under the new Minnesota’s northern border, has a land In the western Great Lakes area, we regulations, they appreciate being base of nearly 882 sq km (340 sq mi). currently manage seven units within the granted these authorities (Schlender in Unpublished data from a 4-year wolf National Wildlife Refuge System with litt. 2000). study indicate that there are a minimum wolf activity. Primary among these are The lands of national forests, and the of 6 to 9 packs that have at least a Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) prey species found in their various portion of their territory within the and Tamarac NWR in Minnesota, as habitats, are important to wolf park. Management and protection of well as Seney NWR in the Upper conservation and recovery in the wolves within the park is not expected Peninsula of Michigan. Agassiz NWR western Great Lakes States. There are to change significantly after they are has had as many as 20 wolves in 2 or six national forests in that area that have reclassified to threatened or even if 3 packs in recent years. Mange and resident wolves. Their wolf populations delisted. Temporary closures around illegal shootings reduced them to 5 range from 3 on the Nicolet National wolf denning and rendezvous sites will wolves in a single pack and a separate Forest in northeastern Wisconsin to an be enacted whenever they are single wolf in 1999, but in 2001, 2 packs estimated 300–400 on the Superior discovered in Voyageurs National Park with an estimated 11 members were National Forest in northeastern to reduce human disturbance. Sport using the refuge. Tamarac NWR has 2 Minnesota. The land base of the harvest of wolves within the park will packs, with approximately 18 wolves, Chequamegon National Forest currently be prohibited, regardless of what may be using that refuge. Seney NWR currently is used by nearly half of the wolves in allowed beyond park boundaries in has two packs, with a total of 4 wolves Wisconsin. All of these national forests future years. If there is a need to control in the packs, plus several lone wolves are operated in conformance with depredating wolves (unlikely due to the also frequenting the refuge. Rice Lake standards and guidelines in their current absence of agricultural activities NWR, in Minnesota, had 1 or 2 packs management plans that follow the adjacent to the park) the park will work using the refuge in 2001. Late in the recommendations of the 1992 Recovery with the State to conduct control winter of 1998–99 a pair of gray wolves Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf activities outside the park to resolve the were located on Necedah NWR. By (Service 1992a). Reclassification to problem (Barbara West, Voyageurs winter 2001–2002, there were 2 packs threatened status is not expected to National Park, in litt. 1999). on the Refuge, with a total of at least 7 change these standards and guidelines; The wolf population in Isle Royale wolves in the packs. Sherburne NWR in fact, the gray wolf is expected to National Park is described above (see and Crane Meadows NWR, also in remain classified as a sensitive species the Recovery Progress of the Eastern Minnesota, each have several individual by the Regional Forester for U.S. Forest Gray Wolf section above). The NPS has Service Region 9 at least for 5 years even indicated that it will continue to closely wolves, but probably lack established after Federal delisting (Steve Mighton, monitor and study these wolves, but at wolf packs. U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1998). this time it does not plan to take any Gray wolves occurring on National This continuation of current national special measures to ensure their Wildlife Refuges in the western Great forest management practices will be an continued existence, regardless of their Lakes States will be monitored, and important factor in ensuring the long- status under the Act. This wolf refuge habitat management actions will term viability of gray wolf populations population is very small and isolated maintain the current prey base for them in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. from the remainder of the western Great while they are listed as threatened, and Gray wolves regularly use four units Lakes population; it is not considered to for a minimum of 5 years following any of the National Park System in the be significant to the recovery or long- future delisting. Trapping or hunting by western Great Lakes States and may term viability of the gray wolf (Service government trappers in response to occasionally use three or four other 1992a). depredation complaints will not be units. Although the National Park Two other units of the National Park authorized on these refuges. However, Service (NPS) has participated in the System-Pictured Rocks National because of the relatively small size of development of some of the State wolf Lakeshore and St. Croix National Scenic these NWRs, most, perhaps all, of these management plans in this area, NPS is Riverway—are regularly used by wolf packs and individual wolves spend not bound by those plans. Instead, the packs. Pictured Rocks National significant amounts of time off of these NPS Organic Act and the NPS Lakeshore is a narrow strip of land NWRs. Management Policy on Wildlife give the along Michigan’s Lake Superior The extra protection afforded to agency a separate responsibility to Shoreline; it contains wolves during the resident and transient wolves, their den conserve natural and cultural resources nonwinter months when deer and rendezvous sites, and their prey by and the wildlife present within the populations are high. The Lakeshore six national forests, two National Parks, parks. National Park Service intends to protect denning and and numerous National Wildlife management policies require that native rendezvous sites at least as strictly as Refuges in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and species be protected against harvest, the MI DNR Plan recommends (Brian Michigan will further ensure the removal, destruction, harassment, or Kenner, Pictured Rocks National continuing recovery of wolves in the harm through human action, so Lakeshore, in litt. 1998). The St. Croix three States.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15845

In summary, we believe that habitat or population. In addition, management ungulate populations at levels that will range destruction or degradation, or actions have relocated about 120 wolves sustain wolf populations which meet or related factors that may affect gray wolf in and between Montana, Idaho, and exceed recovery plan objectives. Habitat numbers, do not by themselves or in Wyoming, including relocations destruction or modification is not combination with other factors place the between the various recovery areas. currently considered a threat or Eastern DPS of the gray wolf in danger Wolf relocations will be used less often deterrent for restoration of of extinction. Recovery efforts over the at higher wolf population levels because Southwestern (Mexican) gray wolves. much of the most suitable wolf habitat past decade, as well as State, tribal, and B. Overutilization for Commercial, is already occupied by resident wolf Federal land management agency wolf Recreational, Scientific, or Educational packs, but it will still occur and can management plans and practices will Purposes provide adequate protection for wolf further lessen the probability that populations, maintain their prey base, genetic isolation could impact wolf General. Since their listing under the preserve denning sites and dispersal population viability. Act, no gray wolves have been legally corridors, and are likely to keep wolf Wild ungulate populations in these killed or removed from the wild in the populations well above the numerical three areas are composed mainly of elk, conterminous 48 States for either recovery criteria established in the white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, commercial or recreational purposes. Federal Recovery Plan for the Eastern and (only in the Greater Yellowstone We acknowledge that some wolves may Timber Wolf (Service 1992a). Area) bison. The States of Montana, have been illegally killed for Idaho, and Wyoming have managed commercial use of the pelts and other Western DPS. The Recovery Plan resident ungulate populations for parts, but illegal commercial trafficking (Service 1987) and the EIS for wolf decades and maintain them at densities in wolf pelts or wolf parts is believed to reintroduction into Yellowstone and that would support a recovered wolf be rare. Illegal capture of wolves for central Idaho (Service 1994a) population. There is no foreseeable commercial breeding purposes is also recommended that wolf recovery efforts condition that would cause a decline in possible, but is believed to be rare. The in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains ungulate populations significant enough large fines and prison sentences focus on areas that contained large to affect a recovered wolf population. provided for by the Act for criminal blocks of public land, abundant wild While 100,000 to 250,000 wild violations are believed to substantially ungulates, and minimal livestock to ungulates are estimated in each State, discourage and minimize the illegal cause potential conflicts between people domestic ungulates, primarily cattle and killing of wolves for commercial or and wolves. Three primary recovery sheep, are typically at least twice as recreational purposes. These penalties areas were identified: northwestern numerous even on public lands (Service will remain following the Montana, central Idaho, and the Greater 1994a). The only areas large enough to reclassification to threatened status, Yellowstone Area (Service 1987). The support wolf packs, but lacking although the maximum fines and prison northwestern Montana recovery area livestock grazing, are Yellowstone sentences are reduced to $25,000 and 6 (more than 50,000 sq km (19,200 sq mi) National Park and some adjacent USDA months for the wolves reclassified to is the area north of Interstate 90 and Forest Service Wilderness and parts of threatened. west of Interstate 15, and is a mixture wilderness areas in central Idaho and The intentional or incidental killing, of public land, primarily administrated northwestern Montana. Consequently, or capture and permanent confinement, by the USDA Forest Service, and private many wolf pack territories have of endangered or threatened gray wolves land. The economy and local culture is included areas used by livestock, for scientific purposes can only legally diverse and not as agriculturally based primarily cattle. While there is no occur under permits issued by us (for as in other parts of Montana (Bangs et livestock grazing in Glacier National example, under section 10(a)(1)(A) and al. 1995). The Greater Yellowstone Area Park, every wolf pack in northwestern 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act), under an and central Idaho areas, 64,000 sq km Montana has interacted with some incidental take statement issued by us (24,600 sq mi) and 53,900 sq km (20,700 livestock, primarily cattle. Conflict as part of a biological opinion sq mi) respectively, are primarily between wolves and livestock has evaluating the effects of an action by a composed of public lands (Service resulted in the annual removal of less Federal agency, under an incidental take 1994a). These areas of potential wolf than 6 percent of the wolf population permit issued by us pursuant to section habitat are secure, and no foreseeable (Bangs et al. 1995, Service et al. 2002). 10(a)(1)(B), or by a State agency habitat-related threats prevent them This level of removal by itself is not operating under a cooperative from supporting a wolf population that believed to cause declines in wolf agreement with us pursuant to section 6 exceeds recovery levels. There is populations. of the Act (50 CFR 17.21(c)(5) and already a demonstrated connectivity In summary, we do not believe that 17.31(b)). Although exact figures are not between occupied wolf habitat in habitat loss or deterioration, habitat available rangewide, such removals of Canada, northwestern Montana, Idaho, fragmentation, or a decline in the wolves from the wild have been very and Wyoming to ensure routine abundance of wild prey will occur at limited and probably comprised an interchange of sufficient numbers of levels that will affect wolf recovery and average of fewer than 2 animals per year dispersing wolves to maintain long-term population viability in the since the species was first listed as demographic and genetic diversity in Western DPS. endangered. These animals were either the wolf metapopulation. To date, Southwestern DPS. Sufficient suitable taken from the Minnesota wolf natural connectivity between Idaho and habitat exists in the Southwestern population during long-term research northwestern Montana into the Greater United States to support current activities (about 15 gray wolves); were Yellowstone Area appears to be more recovery plan objectives for the accidental takings as a result of research limited than that between Canada, Southwestern (Mexican) gray wolf. activities in Wisconsin (4–5 mortalities northwestern Montana, and Idaho, but it These habitats occur primarily on and 1 long-term confinement); were does not appear to be a significant issue national forests and Native American accidentally killed during routine that would threaten wolf population reservations. Current and reasonably capture, monitoring, and research efforts viability in the Yellowstone segment of foreseeable management practices on in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, or the northern Rocky Mountain wolf these areas are expected to support Arizona (fewer than 6 wolves); were

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15846 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

removed from the endangered possible increase in take, due to this Some of these studies involve capturing population in Mexico (5 wolves) to be reclassification, by employees or agents and radio-collaring wolves. Wolf used as breeding stock for of these States. However, this take must capture by trapping, helicopter reintroduction programs in the United be for conservation purposes, and is netgunning, and darting has the States; or were previously released thus likely to be either for research potential to seriously injure or kill Canis lupus baileyi that were recaptured purposes or part of a wolf depredation wolves. Rare, these unintentional for probable permanent confinement control program. (Depredation control mortalities generally average less than 2 after being judged unsuitable for the programs, and the take expected to percent of the wolves handled (Service reintroduction program (9 wolves) result from them under the new section 1994a). During the reintroduction of (William Berg, MN DNR, in litt. 1998; 4(d) special regulation that now applies wolves from Canada, nearly 100 wolves Mech, in litt. 1998; Brian T. Kelly, U.S. to parts of the Eastern DPS, are were handled and 2 died. Since then, Fish and Wildlife Service pers. comm. discussed in the Depredation Control there have been fewer than 6 wolf 2002; Wydeven 1998). Programs in the Midwestern States mortalities out of over 400 wolves We believe that no wolves have been section under the Summary of Factors captured as part of routine trapping and legally removed from the wild for Affecting the Species section, factor D, radio-collaring for monitoring purposes educational purposes in recent years. The adequacy or inadequacy of existing in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Wolves that are used for such purposes regulatory mechanisms, below.) Southwestern DPS. In Arizona, New are the captive-reared offspring of Therefore, we believe that such take will Mexico, the southern half of Utah and wolves that were already in captivity for be minimal and that exempting such Colorado, the western half of Oklahoma other reasons. take is consistent with the recovery of and Texas, and Mexico, gray wolves Refer to the Depredation Control the wolf in the Eastern DPS. To date, continue to be protected by section 9 of Programs in the Midwestern States and there has been no take of wolves for the Act under their endangered or Depredation Control Programs in the conservation purposes in, and we do not nonessential experimental population Western DPS sections under the anticipate such take unless one or more classifications. These classifications Summary of Factors Affecting the packs becomes established in, the prohibit any commercial or recreational Species section, factor D. The adequacy Dakotas or other States within this DPS, take of gray wolves, and we are unaware or inadequacy of existing regulatory except for Minnesota, Wisconsin, and of any such take of southwestern wolves mechanisms, below, for discussions of Michigan. Existing regulations require since their reintroduction. Enforcement additional wolf mortalities associated that the take must be for conservation by us will continue to keep such take to with wolf depredation control programs. purposes, and must be consistent with minimal levels. Eastern DPS. The taking of gray gray wolf recovery. Take for scientific or recovery wolves that are now classified as In summary, the taking of wolves by purposes, including educational threatened for commercial, recreational, tribes, Federal agencies, organizations, purposes, will be available in these scientific, or educational purposes or private citizens for commercial, States, but such take can be authorized remains generally prohibited under the recreational, scientific, or educational only by a permit from us, and it must Act, but can be authorized by Federal purposes may increase slightly, because promote the conservation of the species. permit. In addition, the taking of the Act allows us to issue take permits Thus, in all cases, gray wolf take for threatened wolves for conservation for zoological exhibition, educational scientific, educational, and conservation purposes can be done without an purposes, and ‘‘special purposes purposes must benefit the gray wolf and authorizing permit, if that taking is done consistent with the Act’’ for threatened must promote its recovery. Therefore, by an employee or agent of a State but not for endangered wildlife. any take of this nature will not conservation agency having an However, the requirement that such take negatively impact continuing wolf approved conservation agreement under must be consistent with the recovery. the provisions of section 6(c) of the Act. conservation of the threatened species We do not believe that these forms of The wildlife management agencies of means that the magnitude of the take intentional take comprise a threat to the the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, will be small and cannot inhibit gray southwestern gray wolves, nor will they Michigan, North Dakota, and South wolf recovery. In addition, any significantly impede recovery progress. Dakota each have such an approved additional take, under the new 4(d) C. Disease or Predation conservation agreement, and therefore regulation, of threatened wolves by will be able to take gray wolves for State conservation agency employees Disease. Many diseases and parasites conservation purposes. The amount of must be for scientific research or have been reported for the gray wolf, such take must be reported to us conservation programs, and therefore and several of them have had significant annually. must be consistent with continued wolf impacts during the recovery of the This reclassification to threatened recovery. species in the 48 conterminous States status for the Eastern DPS will not result Western DPS. Since western gray (Brand et al. 1995). These diseases and in any decrease in protection for gray wolves were listed as endangered and parasites, and perhaps others, must be wolves in Minnesota, because they experimental, no legal commercial, considered to be significant potential already are classified as threatened recreational, or educational utilization threats to gray wolf populations in the there. Therefore, there will be no or take of them has occurred. In the future. Thus, in order to avoid a disease/ increase in the taking of Minnesota States where wolves are now parasite-related decline in the gray wolf wolves for these purposes. The reclassified to threatened status and are population, their presence and impacts extremely small current level of such now covered by the new 4(d) special require diligent monitoring and take has not affected the recovery of regulation, no legal take would be appropriate follow-up for the Minnesota wolves, and is not expected allowed for these purposes under the foreseeable future. to do so in the future. threatened classification or under the Eastern DPS. Canine parvovirus (CPV) Gray wolves in Wisconsin, Michigan, new special regulation. is a relatively new disease that infects North Dakota, South Dakota and any We believe some wolf mortalities wolves, domestic dogs, foxes, coyotes, other State where they may occur in the associated with the ongoing scientific skunks, and raccoons. Recognized in the Eastern DPS are now subject to a studies of wolves will continue to occur. United States in 1977 in domestic dogs,

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15847

it appeared in Minnesota wolves (based wolves in 1995–96 (WI DNR 1999a, but were found dead; mange-induced upon retrospective serologic evidence) no necropsy evidence of CPV mortalities hypothermia caused the death of 4 live-trapped as early as 1977 (Mech et from Wisconsin wolves exists (Nancy wolves and contributed to the death of al. 1986). However, Minnesota wolves Thomas, National Wildlife Health a fifth wolf. (Motor vehicle collisions may have been exposed to the virus as Laboratory, in litt. 1998). Of 13 caused the death of 10 Wisconsin early as 1973 (Mech and Goyal 1995). Wisconsin wolves that died and were wolves during this same period, while Serologic evidence of gray wolf examined in 2000, none of the deaths 2 were shot and 2 were killed by other exposure to CPV peaked at 95 percent were attributed to CPV (Wydeven et al. wolves.) Wolves nearing death from of a group of Minnesota wolves live- 2001a). Similarly, CPV is not a mange generally crawl into dense cover trapped in 1989 (Mech and Goyal 1993). suspected cause of death for the 22 and are difficult to discover if they are In a captive colony of Minnesota wolves with a suspected cause of death not radio-tracked. During the winter of wolves, pup and yearling mortality from identified in 2001 (WI DNR 2000–2001, approximately 14 percent of CPV was 92 percent of the animals that unpublished data). However, the the radio-collared wolves being tracked showed indications of active CPV difficulty of discovering CPV-killed by WI DNR died from mange. Other infections in 1983 (Mech and Fritts pups must be considered. observations showed that some mangy 1987), demonstrating the substantial Canine parvovirus is considered to wolves are able to survive the winter impacts this disease can have on young have been a major cause of the decline (Wydeven et al. 2000b, 2001a). wolves. It is believed that the of the isolated Isle Royale, Michigan, Pup survival during their first winter population impacts of CPV occur via population in the mid and late 1980s. is believed to be strongly affected by diarrhea-induced dehydration leading to The Isle Royale gray wolf population mange. However, estimated survival of abnormally high pup mortality (WI DNR decreased from 23 and 24 wolves in Wisconsin pups from 2000 until late 1999a). 1983 and 1984, respectively, to 12 and winter 2000–2001 was 28 percent, only There is no evidence that CPV has 11 wolves in 1988 and 1989, slightly lower than the previous year’s caused a population decline or has had respectively. The wolf population 31 percent pup survival, yet the State’s a significant impact on the recovery of remained in the low to mid-teens wolf population increased by 21 percent the Minnesota gray wolf population. through 1995. However, factors other from 1999 to 2000 and only 4 percent However, Mech and Goyal (1995) found than disease may be causing, or from 2000 to 2001 (Wydeven et al. that high CPV prevalence in the wolves contributing to, a low level of 2000a, 2001a). This indicates that of the Superior National Forest in reproductive success, including a low mange mortality may not be the primary Minnesota occurred during the same level of genetic diversity and a prey determinant of wolf population growth years in which wolf pup numbers were population composed of young healthy in the State, yet the impacts of mange low. Because the wolf population did moose that may make it difficult to in Wisconsin need to be closely not decline during the study period, secure sufficient prey for pups. There monitored. So far, mange has not caused they concluded that CPV-caused pup are no data showing any CPV-caused a sustained decline in the State’s wolf mortality was compensatory, that is, it population impacts to the larger gray population, and the wolf population replaced deaths that would have wolf population on the Upper Peninsula increased by about 26 percent from late occurred from other causes, especially of Michigan (Peterson et al. 1998, winter 2000–2001 to 2001–2002 despite starvation of pups. They theorized that Hammill pers. comm. 2002). the continued prevalence of mange in CPV prevalence affects the amount of Sarcoptic mange is caused by a mite Wisconsin wolves (Wydeven et al. population increase, and that a wolf infection of the skin. The irritation 2002). population will decline when 76 caused by the feeding and burrowing In a long-term Alberta wolf study, percent of the adult wolves consistently mites results in scratching and then higher wolf densities were correlated test positive for CPV exposure. Their severe fur loss, which in turn can lead with increased incidence of mange, and data indicate that CPV prevalence in to mortality from exposure during pup survival decreased as the incidence adult wolves in their study area severe winter weather. of mange increased (Brand et al. 1995). increased by an annual average of 4 From 1991 to 1996, 27 percent of live- At least 7 wild Michigan wolves died percent during 1979–93 and was at least trapped Wisconsin wolves exhibited from mange during 1993–97, making it 80 percent during the last 5 years of symptoms of mange. During the winter the most common disease of Michigan their study (Mech and Goyal 1995). of 1992–93, 58 percent showed wolves. From 1999–2001, mange- Additional unpublished data gathered symptoms, and a concurrent decline in induced hypothermia was the cause of since 1995 indicate that CPV reduced the Wisconsin wolf population was death for all 7 Michigan wolves whose wolf population growth in that area attributed to mange-induced mortality cause of death was attributed to disease from 1979 to 1989, but not since that (WI DNR 1999a). Seven Wisconsin (Hammill in litt. 2002). The Michigan period (Mech in litt. 1999). These data wolves died of mange from 1993 Wolf Management Plan acknowledges provide strong justification for through October 15, 1998, and severe that mange may be slowing wolf continuing population and disease fur loss affected five other wolves that population growth and specifies that monitoring. died from other causes. During that captured wolves be treated with The disease probably stalled wolf period, mange was the third largest Ivermectin to combat the mites (MI DNR population growth in Wisconsin during cause of death in Wisconsin wolves, 1997). MI DNR currently treats all the early and mid-1980s. During those behind trauma (usually vehicle captured wolves with Ivermectin if they years, the Wisconsin wolf population collisions) and shooting (Nancy Thomas show signs of mange. In addition, MI declined or was static, and 75 percent in litt. 1998). DNR vaccinates all captured wolves of 32 wolves tested by the same method The prevalence of mange and its against CPV and canine distemper virus were positive for CPV. During the impacts on the wolf population have (CDV), and administers antibiotics to following years (1988–96) of population increased in Wisconsin. During the 12- combat potential leptospirosis increase, only 35 percent of the 63 month period from April 2000 through infections. wolves tested positive for CPV (WI DNR March of 2001, mange appeared to be Wisconsin wolves similarly had been 1999a. CPV exposure rates were at 50 the second-most common cause of treated with Ivermectin and vaccinated percent in live-captured Wisconsin mortality in 23 Wisconsin wolves that for CPV and CDV when captured, but

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15848 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

the practice was stopped in 1995 to Wisconsin from 1979 through 1998 implicated as a contributing factor in allow the wolf population to experience (Wydeven 1998). declines of the isolated Isle Royale more natural biotic conditions. Since Since several of the diseases and population in Michigan. Sarcoptic that time, Ivermectin has been parasites are known to be spread by mange has impacted wolf recovery in administered only to captured wolves wolf to wolf contact, their incidence both Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and in with severe cases of mange. In the may increase as wolf densities increase Wisconsin in this decade, and is future, Ivermectin and vaccines will be in newly colonized areas. However, recognized as a continuing problem. used sparingly on Wisconsin wolves, because wolf densities generally are However, despite these and other but will be used to counter significant relatively stable following the first few diseases and parasites, the overall trend disease outbreaks (Wydeven in litt. years of colonization, wolf to wolf for wolf populations in the western 1998). contacts will not likely lead to a Great Lakes States is upward. The wolf Mange has not been documented to be continuing increase in disease management plans of Minnesota, a significant disease problem in prevalence (Mech in litt. 1998). Michigan, and Wisconsin include Minnesota. Several packs in the Ely and Disease and parasite impacts may monitoring components that are Park Rapids areas are known to suffer increase because several wolf diseases expected to identify future disease and from mange, and a pack at Agassiz NWR are carried and spread by domestic parasite problems in time to allow in northwestern Minnesota was reduced dogs. This transfer of diseases and corrective action to be taken to avoid a from at least five wolves (the pack may parasites from domestic dogs to wild significant decline in overall population have numbered six to eight in the early wolves may increase as gray wolves viability. We do not believe disease 1990s) to a single animal over the last continue to colonize non-wilderness impacts will prevent the continuation of few years, primarily resulting from areas (Mech in litt. 1998). Heartworm, wolf recovery in these States. The mange. CPV, and rabies are the main concerns reclassification of Wisconsin and (Thomas in litt. 1998). Lyme disease, caused by a spirochete, Michigan wolves from endangered to Disease and parasite impacts are a is another relatively recently recognized threatened will not change the recognized concern of the State DNRs. incidence or impacts of disease on these disease, first documented in New The Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and England in 1975; it may have occurred wolves. Management Plan states that necropsies Western DPS. Wolves in the northern in Wisconsin as early as 1969. It is will be conducted on all dead wolves, spread by ticks, that pass along the U.S. Rocky Mountains are exposed to a and that all live wolves that are handled wide variety of canid diseases, common infection to their various hosts during will be examined, with blood, skin, and throughout North America. Some of feeding episodes. Host species include fecal samples taken to provide disease these diseases and parasites have been humans, horses, dogs, white-tailed deer, information. All handled wolves will be documented to significantly affect wolf white-footed mice, eastern chipmunks, vaccinated for CDV and CPV and treated populations, usually temporarily, in coyotes, and wolves. The prevalence of for parasites before release (MI DNR other areas of North America. To date, Lyme disease in Wisconsin wolves 1997). canine parvovirus, canine distemper, averaged 70 percent of live-trapped Similarly, the Wisconsin Wolf and mange have been documented in animals in 1988–91, but dropped to 37 Management Plan has a section on wolf wolves from the northern Rocky percent during 1992–97. While there are health monitoring. It states that as long Mountains. Wolves in the Yellowstone no data showing wolf mortalities from as the wolf is State listed as a threatened area have almost certainly been exposed Lyme disease, it may be suppressing or endangered species, the WI DNR will to brucellosis. However, in the studies population growth through decreased conduct necropsies of dead wolves and of wolves in Montana, Idaho, and wolf pup survival. Lyme disease has not test a sample of live-captured wolves for Wyoming to date, disease and parasites been reported from wolves beyond the diseases and parasites. The goal will be have not appeared to be a significant Great Lakes regions (WI DNR 1999a). to capture and screen 10 percent of the factor affecting wolf population Other diseases and parasites, State wolf population for diseases dynamics. Just like wolves in all other including rabies, canine distemper, annually. Following State delisting parts of North America, wolves, usually canine heartworm, blastomycosis, (after the State wolf population grows to pups, in the northern Rocky Mountains brucellosis, leptospirosis, bovine 250 animals), disease monitoring will be will occasionally die from a wide tuberculosis, hookworm, dog lice, scaled back because the percentage of variety of canid diseases. However, it is coccidiosis, and canine hepatitis, have the wolf population that is live-trapped doubtful that wolf populations in the been documented in wild gray wolves, each year will decline, but periodic northern Rocky Mountains could be but their impacts on future wild wolf necropsy and scat analyses will significantly impacted, because wolf populations are not likely to be continue to test for disease and parasite exposure to these diseases has been significant (Brand et al. 1995, Johnson loads. The plan also recommends that occurring for decades. The EIS on gray 1995, Mech and Kurtz 1999, Thomas in all wolves live-trapped for other studies wolf reintroduction identified disease litt. 1998, WI DNR 1999a). However, should have their health monitored and impact as an issue but did not evaluate continuing wolf range expansion likely reported to the WI DNR wildlife health it further, because it appeared not to be will provide new avenues for exposure specialists (WI DNR 1999a). significant (Service 1994a). Likewise, in to several of these diseases, especially In summary, several diseases have the ‘‘Wolves for Yellowstone?’’ reports canine heartworm, rabies, and bovine had significant impacts on wolf to Congress in 1992, Johnson (1992a and tuberculosis (Thomas in litt. 2000), population growth in the Great Lakes 1992b) reviewed the relationship further emphasizing the need for region in the past. These impacts have between wolves and rabies, brucellosis, vigilant disease monitoring programs. been both direct, resulting in mortality and tuberculosis and found canids were In aggregate, diseases and parasites of individual wolves, and indirect, by not likely to be a reservoir for those were the cause of 25 percent of the reducing longevity and fecundity of diseases. diagnosed wolf deaths from 1960 individuals or entire packs or Southwestern DPS. There is no through 1997 in Michigan (MI DNR populations. Canine parvovirus stalled evidence suggesting that disease was a 1997) and 19 percent of the diagnosed wolf population growth in Wisconsin in significant factor in the decline of the mortalities of radio-collared wolves in the early and mid-1980s, and it has been Mexican wolf. Likewise, there is no

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15849

reason to believe that disease will be a in 1817. Bounties on wolves figures provide support for the significant impediment to recovery of subsequently became the norm for contention that human-caused mortality the Mexican wolf in the wild. Because States across the species’ range. In decreased subsequent to the wolf’s the potential for disease and parasite Michigan, an 1838 wolf bounty became protection under the Act, it is not transmission is much greater in the ninth law passed by the First possible at this time to determine if captivity, especially in zoos, all captive Michigan Legislature; this bounty human-caused mortality (apart from Mexican wolves are vaccinated or remained in place until 1960. A mortalities from depredation control) treated for potential canine diseases and Wisconsin bounty was instituted in has significantly changed over the 25- parasites that may exist in the captive 1865 and then repealed about the time year period that the gray wolf has been environment. wolves were extirpated from the State in listed as threatened or endangered. As a result of captive disease and 1957. Minnesota maintained a wolf Interestingly, when compared to his parasite prevention and treatment bounty until 1965. 1985 survey, Kellert’s 1999 public protocols, released wolves are in good Subsequent to the gray wolf’s listing attitudes survey showed an overall health and physical condition when as a federally endangered species, the increase in the number of northern they enter the wild. Re-established Act and State endangered species Minnesota residents who reported Southwestern (Mexican) wolves will be statutes prohibited the killing of wolves having killed, or knowing someone who monitored for disease or parasite-related except under extenuating had killed, a wolf. However, members of problems, and all wild wolves captured circumstances, such as in defense of groups that are more likely to encounter for monitoring or management purposes human life, for scientific or wolves-farmers, hunters, and trappers- will continue to be vaccinated conservation purposes, or under several reported a decrease in the number of indefinitely. To date, three Mexican special regulations intended to reduce such incidents (Kellert 1985, 1999). wolf pups born in the wild have died wolf depredations of livestock. This Because of these apparently conflicting from canine parvovirus. These pups reduction in human-caused mortality is results, and differences in the were recaptured due to their parents the main cause of the wolf’s comeback methodology of the two surveys, killing livestock, and the pups in parts of its historical range. However, drawing any clear conclusions on this subsequently died in captivity. This it is clear that illegal killing of wolves issue is difficult. appears to be a limited occurrence and continues. It is important to note that despite the may have been associated with the pups Illegal killing of wolves occurs for a difficulty in measuring the extent of being captured and placed in captivity. number of reasons. Some of these illegal killing of wolves, their Predation. There are no wild animals killings are accidental (e.g., wolves are population and range in the western that habitually prey on gray wolves. hit by vehicles, mistaken for coyotes Great Lakes States has continued to Occasionally wolves will be killed by and shot, or caught in traps set for other increase. During recent decades, all large prey such as deer or moose (Mech animals), and some of these accidental sources of wolf mortality, including and Nelson 1989) or by a competing killings are reported to State, tribal, and legal (takings for research and predator such as a mountain lion, but Federal authorities. However, it is likely depredation control activities) and this has only been documented on rare that most illegal wolf killings are illegal human-caused mortality, have occasions and is not believed to be a intentional and are never reported to not been of sufficient magnitude to stop significant mortality factor. However, authorities. Such killings may be done the continuing growth of the wolf humans are highly effective predators of because of frustration over wolf population, estimated at about 4 percent gray wolves. depredations of livestock or pets, fear average annual increase in Minnesota, Eastern DPS. Wolves are killed by for the safety of pets or children, hatred and about a 28 percent average annual other wolves, most commonly when a of the species, opposition to wolf increase in Wisconsin and Michigan dispersing wolf encounters another pack recovery, a desire to protest against the since 1992–1993. This indicates that and is attacked as an intruder, or when government, or for other reasons. The total gray wolf mortality continues to be two packs encounter each other along number of illegal killings is difficult to exceeded by wolf recruitment (that is, their common territorial boundary. This estimate and impossible to accurately reproduction and immigration) in these form of mortality is likely to increase as determine, because they generally occur areas. more of the available wolf habitat in isolated areas and the evidence is As the wolf population in Wisconsin becomes saturated with wolf pack quickly concealed. and Michigan saturates the habitat or as territories, as is the case in northeastern Two Minnesota studies provide the cultural carrying capacity is Minnesota. Over the period from insight into the extent of human-caused approached, the rapid population October 1979 through June 1998, 7 (13 wolf mortality before and after the growth rates are expected to slow, and percent) of the diagnosed mortalities of species’ listing. On the basis of bounty it is likely that growth will eventually radio-collared Wisconsin wolves data from a period that predated wolf stop. (‘‘Cultural carrying capacity’’ resulted from wolves being killed by protection under the Act by 20 years, differs from the biological or habitat other wolves (Wydeven 1998). However, Stenlund (1955) found an annual carrying capacity in that it also this behavior is a normal part of the human-caused mortality rate of 41 incorporates the limits that will likely species’ behavioral repertoire and percent. Fuller (1989) provided 1980–86 be imposed on the wolf population by should not be a cause for concern in data from a north-central Minnesota human society, including both legal and healthy wolf populations, as it normally study area and found an annual human- illegal limiting measures.) At that time indicates that the wolf population is at, caused mortality rate of 29 percent, a we should expect to see negative growth or approaching, the carrying capacity of figure which includes 2 percent rates (that is, wolf population declines) the area. mortality from legal depredation control in some years, due to short-term Humans have functioned as highly actions. However, drawing conclusions fluctuations in birth and mortality rates. effective predators of the gray wolf. We from these two data sets is difficult due However, adequate wolf monitoring attempted to eliminate them from the to the confounding effects of habitat programs, as identified in the Michigan, landscape in earlier times: the United quality, exposure to humans, prey Wisconsin, and Minnesota wolf States Congress passed a wolf bounty density, differing time periods, and vast management plans, should be able to that covered the Northwest Territories differences in study design. While these identify excessively high mortality rates

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15850 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

and/or low birth rates and to trigger were from shootings (35 percent of the counter the viewpoint that vigilante timely corrective action when human-caused mortalities), while 48 action is needed to reduce their necessary. Michigan and Wisconsin percent of the diagnosed Michigan numbers. Such vigilante action is likely DNRs are currently monitoring their mortalities were from vehicular to result in the death of nondepredating wolf populations in this manner, and collisions (Hammill in litt. 2002). When wolves, and may impede recovery this level of monitoring will continue viewing these figures it is important to progress, at least locally. following this reclassification. The goals remember that there is a much greater Wolves were largely eliminated from of all three State wolf management likelihood of finding a vehicle-killed the Dakotas in the 1920s and 1930s and plans are to maintain a within-State wolf than there is of finding a wolf that were rarely reported from the mid-1940s wolf population that is well above the has been illegally shot, unless the through the late 1970s. Ten wolves were 200 animals identified in the Federal animal was being radio-tracked. killed in these two States from 1981 to Eastern Recovery Plan as needed for A continuing increase in wolf 1992; 5 of the mortalities were in 1991 viable isolated wolf populations. mortalities from vehicle collisions, both and 1992 (Licht and Fritts 1994). Two In Wisconsin, human-caused in actual numbers and as a percent of more were killed in North Dakota since mortalities accounted for 58 percent of total diagnosed mortalities, is expected 1992, and in Harding County in extreme the diagnosed mortalities on radio- as wolves continue their colonization of northwestern South Dakota, a wolf was collared wolves from October 1979 areas with more human developments killed in 2001. There have been other through June 1998. One-third of all the and a denser network of roads and recent reported sightings of gray wolves, diagnosed mortalities, and 55 percent of vehicle traffic. including a confirmed sighting by the human-caused mortalities, were A significant portion of the USDA/APHIS-Wildlife Services from shooting. Another 12 percent of all intentional illegal mortalities may arise personnel in 1996 near Gary, South the diagnosed mortalities resulted from as a protest against the Federal Dakota, (near the Minnesota border), vehicle collisions. Vehicle collisions government or from frustration arising and a 1994 confirmation of a den with have increased as a percentage of radio- from a perception of inadequate Federal pups in extreme north-central North collared wolf mortalities. During the or State depredation control programs or Dakota near the Canadian border. October 1979 through June 1995 period, inadequate State compensation for Several other unconfirmed sightings only 1 of 27 known mortalities was from depredated livestock and dogs. The have been reported from extreme that cause; but from July 1995 through application of this final rule in the northeastern and southeastern South June 1998, 5 of the 26 known mortalities Midwest—reclassifying Wisconsin and Dakota. Wolves killed in North and resulted from vehicle collisions (WI Michigan wolves to threatened and South Dakota are most often shot by DNR 1999a, Wydeven 1998); and from implementing a special regulation for hunters after being mistaken for coyotes, April 2000 through March 2001, 10 of lethal depredation control, with no or else they are killed by vehicles. The 23 known mortalities were from that change in the nearly identical protection 2001 mortality in South Dakota was cause (Wydeven et al. 2000b, 2001a). currently provided to threatened caused by an M–44 ‘‘coyote getter’’ Only 2 of those 23 mortalities were from Minnesota wolves—is expected to have device that had been properly set in shootings, but an additional 4 both positive and negative impacts on response to complaints about coyotes. Wisconsin wolves were shot during the illegal wolf mortality. Genetic analysis of the Harding County State’s 2001 deer hunting season (WI In Wisconsin and Michigan, the mortality showed it to be a wolf from DNR 2001). rapidly expanding wolf population is the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan area In the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, beginning to cause more depredation (Straughan and Fain 2002). human-caused mortalities accounted for problems. For example, from 1991 Additional discussion of past and 75 percent of the diagnosed mortalities, through 1996 only 1 Wisconsin wolf future wolf mortalities in the Eastern based upon 34 wolves recovered from was captured for depredation control. In DPS arising from depredation control 1960 to 1997. Twenty-eight percent of 1997, 2 wolves were trapped and moved actions is found under the Summary of all the diagnosed mortalities and 38 to eliminate depredation problems. In Factors Affecting the Species section, percent of the human-caused mortalities 1998, 4 wolves had to be captured as a factor D, The inadequacy of existing were from shooting. In the Upper result of verified depredation problems, regulatory mechanisms. Peninsula during that period, about one- and 8 were trapped (7 moved) in the Despite human-caused mortalities of third of all the known mortalities were first 9 months of 2001 (Wydeven et al. wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and from vehicle collisions (MI DNR 1997). 2001b) in response to verified Michigan, it is clear that these wolf During the 1998 Michigan deer hunting depredation incidents. Data from populations have continued to increase season, 3 radio-collared wolves were Michigan show a similar, but smaller, in both numbers and range. Under these shot and killed, resulting in one arrest increase in confirmed wolf depredations new regulations, as long as other and conviction (Hammill in litt. 1999, on calves, cows, sheep, and dogs: 2 in mortality factors do not increase Michigan DNR 1999b). During the 1996, 3 in 1998, 4 in 1999, 3 in 2000, significantly, and the wolf populations subsequent 3 years, 8 additional wolves and 6 in 2001 (Hammill in litt. 2002). receive adequate and timely monitoring were killed in Michigan by gunshot, and For Wisconsin and Michigan, the new to document (and counteract, if the cut-off radio-collar from a ninth special management regulations under necessary) the effects of excessive animal was located, but the animal was section 4(d) of the Act provide increased human-caused mortality, we believe the never found. These incidents resulted in flexibility and efficiency in dealing with Minnesota and Wisconsin-Michigan 6 guilty pleas, with 3 cases remaining these problem wolves (see the Special wolf populations will not decline to open. Data from that 1999–2001 period Regulations Under Section 4(d) for nonviable levels, nor will recovery slow, show that human-caused mortalities Threatened Species section below). This in the foreseeable future resulting from still account for the vast majority of the may result in greater public satisfaction human-caused killing or other forms of diagnosed mortalities (79 percent) in with the States’ abilities to promptly predation. Michigan. However, deaths from and effectively deal with depredation Western DPS. Since wolves have been vehicular collisions now greatly incidents, and may reduce the monitored in Montana, Idaho, and outnumber shootings. Twenty-seven perception that wolves are out of Wyoming, only two wolves been percent of the diagnosed mortalities control. Thus, the regulations may confirmed to have been killed by

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15851

another predator. They were both lone been below the 20 percent annual level regulation by livestock producers who wolves killed by mountain lions. that was predicted in the EIS. Compared saw the wolves attacking livestock. Wolves in the northern Rocky to naturally colonizing wolves, They reported the shooting of the Mountains inhabit the same areas as reintroduced wolves had a lower wolves to authorities within 24 hours as mountain lions, grizzly bears, and black proportion of human-caused mortality required. Investigations confirmed bears, but conflicts rarely result in the because they were released in remote compliance with the experimental rules, death of either species. Wolves are areas where contact and conflicts with and no further action was taken. Fewer occasionally killed by prey that they are people were less likely. Relocated than a dozen other wolves have been attacking, but those instances are rare. depredating wolves in northwestern unintentionally killed in the northern Since 1987, wolves in the northern Montana had a higher proportion of Rockies by vehicles, coyote cyanide (M– Rocky Mountains have apparently died human-caused mortality (96 percent) 44) devices, and traps, and during from wounds they received while than either reintroduced (61 percent) or control and management actions, but attacking prey on about 6 occasions. naturally colonizing wolves in investigations of these incidents This level of mortality will not northwestern Montana (71 percent concluded that prosecution was not significantly affect wolf recovery. Other excluding legal harvest in Canada). In warranted. These types of mortalities wolves are the largest cause of natural northwestern Montana, relocated are relatively rare and will not affect predation among wolves. About a dozen depredating wolves traveled widely and wolf population growth to recovery mortalities have resulted from territorial often resettled in places similar to the levels. conflicts. Wherever wolves occur, areas that they had been removed from, Special management regulations including Montana, Idaho, and typically private ranch land. under section 4(d) of the Act will allow Wyoming, some low level of mortality Consequently they continued to come for the legal take of wolves under more resulting from territorial conflict into conflict with people and livestock circumstances than the existing special between wolves is common. Those (Bangs et al. 1998). regulation. The previous special incidents occur but are so infrequent The levels of documented human- management regulations under section that they do not cause a level of caused mortality among wolves in the 10(j) of the Act will continue to apply mortality that would significantly affect northern Rocky Mountains have not, at to the two nonessential experimental a wolf population that is at or above this time, been significant enough to populations in the northern U.S. Rocky recovery levels. cause declines in wolf populations or to Mountains (see the Special Regulations Humans are the largest cause of wolf slow overall wolf population growth. Under Section 4(d) for Threatened mortality and the only cause that can The protection of wolves under the Act Species section below). Therefore, we significantly affect wolf populations at appears sufficient to promote wolf do not expect wolf mortality rates to recovery levels. The annual survival rate population growth. Under the change significantly as a result. of immature wolves in northwestern provisions of the experimental Southwestern DPS. Through January Montana and adjacent Canada from population rules for the central Idaho 2003, illegal killing has been confirmed 1984 to 1995 was 80 percent (Pletscher and Yellowstone areas, wolf population as the cause of death of 11 of the 74 et al. 1997); 84 percent for resident growth has been high. Although the new Mexican wolves that have been released wolves and 66 percent for dispersers. special management regulations under to the wild. Two of the 74 wolves That study found 84 percent of section 4(d) of the Act will allow some released died due to injuries sustained immature wolf mortality to be human- expanded take of problem wolves from other predators. However, there are caused. Fifty-eight wolves from outside the experimental population now 8 packs in the wild, of which 7 northwestern Montana with functioning areas, such regulations will still appear to have produced pups in 2002, radio-collars have died between 1987 sufficiently protect wolves from human and 4 of those 7 litters were conceived and 1996, and humans caused the death persecution. Continued steady growth and born in the wild. In addition, we of 49 (84 percent). Trends in causes of towards recovery levels is therefore continue to release additional gray wolf mortality seem to be similar since expected, and recovery targets should be wolves into the Blue Range Wolf 1996. Wolves are more likely to be achieved by the end of 2002 (see the Recovery Area (BRWRA) of New Mexico radio-collared if they come into conflict Special Regulations Under Section 4(d) and Arizona. However, based on the with people, so the proportion of for Threatened Species section below). current growth of the BRWRA mortality caused by agency depredation Enforcement of the Act’s prohibitions population, releases will likely be control actions could be overestimated on taking wolves listed as scaled back or eliminated in the next by this study. People who illegally kill ‘‘experimental’’ and ‘‘endangered’’ has few years. The rate of natural wolf wolves may destroy the radio-collar so been successful to date. Twelve wolves population increase, combined with our the proportion of illegal mortality could have been illegally killed in the continuing release of captive-raised be under-estimated. However, the wolf experimental areas, and 6 cases have wolves, is such that population growth population has continued to expand been resolved. In northwestern is expected to continue despite these rapidly in the face of human-caused Montana, 9 wolves were known to have losses from human and animal-caused mortality. been illegally killed, and 4 cases have mortalities. Therefore, although As was typically the case elsewhere in been resolved. Fines have ranged from predation may initially slow recovery, North America, humans were the largest $500 to $10,000, with jail sentences of we do not believe that predation or cause of wolf mortality in northwestern up to 8 months incarceration and 1 year illegal killing will preclude recovery of Montana. Wolf control was the leading supervised release being imposed for the Mexican wolf. Killing or capture and cause of death for wolves since their some violators. The legal or illegal permanent confinement of gray wolves return to northwestern Montana. killing documented to date has not been for scientific and educational purposes The EIS (Service 1994a) predicted that at a level that could affect wolf is discussed under Factor B, above. 10 percent of the reintroduced wolves population growth to recovery levels. would be removed annually for To date, 3 experimental wolves were D. The Adequacy or Inadequacy of depredation control with an additional legally killed (one in Montana and in Existing Regulatory Mechanisms 10 percent dying annually from other Idaho) under the provisions of the Upon being listed under the Act, the causes. Known annual mortality has experimental population special gray wolf immediately benefitted from a

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15852 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

Federal regulatory framework that DNR in early 2000. Therefore, in lethal control of depredating wolves in includes prohibition of take, which is contrast to the June 1998 announcement much of the Eastern DPS that is very defined broadly under the Act to by Babbitt and Clark, we did not similar to the lethal control currently include killing, injuring, or attempting propose to delist wolves in the Western authorized by the special regulation that to kill or injure; prohibition of habitat Great Lakes. Rather we proposed to has been in effect for Minnesota wolves destruction or degradation if such reclassify wolves in Wisconsin, since December 12, 1985 (50 FR 50792; activities harm individuals of the Michigan, North Dakota, and South see also 50 CFR 17.40(d)). That special species; the requirement that Federal Dakota to threatened, bringing them to regulation allows the killing of agencies ensure their actions will not the same status that wolves in depredating wolves by certain likely jeopardize the continued Minnesota were given in 1978. government employees or agents, existence of the species; and the The Minnesota Legislature subject to several restrictions. requirement that we develop and subsequently passed wolf legislation Depredation Control Programs in the implement a recovery program for the and directed the MN DNR to complete Midwestern States. Wolves that are species. In addition, the 1978 a management plan in conformance injuring and/or killing domestic animals designation of critical habitat in with that legislation. MN DNR in the Midwest have been controlled in Minnesota and Michigan (43 FR 9607) completed the Minnesota Wolf different ways, depending upon their further requires Federal agencies to Management Plan (MN Plan) in early listing status under the Act and their ensure that their actions do not result in 2001. Although the Minnesota importance to our gray wolf recovery the destruction or adverse modification legislation and the MN Plan were not programs. In Minnesota depredating of the primary constituent elements of available in time to play a role in our wolves have been lethally controlled the habitat in those designated areas. July 2000 reclassification proposal, they under a special regulation, because they Many of these protective regulations will be carefully evaluated as we review are listed as threatened. Section 4(d) of and conservation measures have all relevant information in preparation the Act allows lethal take of threatened substantially improved the status of the for a future proposal to delist gray animals under a special regulation. gray wolf. wolves in the Eastern DPS. (Details on the Minnesota depredation Eastern DPS. A June 29, 1998, Under this final rule, gray wolves will control program are provided later in announcement by then Secretary of continue to be protected by the this subsection.) Interior Bruce Babbitt and then Service provisions of the Act throughout the Depredating wolves in Wisconsin and Director Jamie Rappaport Clark Eastern DPS. The regulatory changes in Michigan, previously listed as described, in part, our intention to that protection that will take place are endangered and therefore previously not propose a delisting of gray wolves in the twofold: (1) The recovering wolf eligible for a section 4(d) special Western Great Lakes. That intention was populations in Wisconsin and regulation, have been trapped and based upon our belief that State wolf Michigan, as well as wild wolves released in a suitable and unoccupied management plans for Minnesota, anywhere in the Eastern DPS, now will area at some distance from the Wisconsin, and Michigan would either be protected as a threatened species, depredation location. The goal of this be completed, or would be sufficiently rather than as an endangered species; approach was to eliminate future close to completion, so that our and (2) for the first time wolves in all depredations by moving the wolf or delisting and reclassification proposal but the eastern quarter of the DPS will wolves to a suitable but vacant area at could be based on an analysis of the be subject to routine, but limited, lethal a location with adequate wild prey, and protective mechanisms and depredation control measures under the with minimal or no exposure to management strategies and actions terms of a special regulation under domestic animals. However, the results described in those three plans. section 4(d) of the Act. of this approach vary widely. In some In late 1997 the Michigan wolf One change in protection that will cases the wolf will become resident at management plan was completed and result from a reclassification from the new site and will not resume its received the necessary State approvals. endangered to threatened was discussed previous habit of preying on domestic The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board above, under the Summary of Factors animals. In other cases the wolf approved the Wisconsin wolf Affecting the Species section, factor B, attempts to return to its previous management plan in October of 1999. Overutilization for commercial, territory, continues its depredations of Our biologists have participated on the recreational, scientific, or educational domestic animals at the new site, or is teams that developed these two State purposes above. The change stems from killed by nearby resident wolves. This plans, so we are familiar with their the broader authority of Service or State approach has a greater chance of evolution and likely future direction. employees, or their designated agents, to succeeding if there are several areas of We believe that these plans provide take a member of a threatened species suitable unoccupied habitat from which sufficient information for us to analyze without a need to obtain a permit from to choose for release of the wolf, so that the future threats to the gray wolf us. Furthermore, we can issue permits a release location can be selected that is population in Wisconsin and Michigan to take threatened species for a wider very remote from the wolf’s previous after Federal delisting. variety of purposes than for endangered territory. During the 1999 legislative session, species. The impact of this increased However, the rapidly growing wolf the Minnesota Legislature failed to take authority on wolf recovery is populations in both Wisconsin and approve a State wolf management plan believed to be insignificant; additional Michigan make it increasingly difficult and regulatory bill that would have discussion is found in that earlier to find suitable, but unoccupied, areas allowed us to evaluate the future of the section. into which a depredating wolf can be Minnesota wolf population in the event The second impact of this successfully released. In one recent it would be delisted and removed from reclassification is indirect, and it stems incident of the capture and the protections of the Act. Furthermore, from our ability to implement special translocation of a depredating wolf in as we finished work on our proposal in regulations under section 4(d) of the Act Wisconsin, the animal left the release mid-February 2000, the Minnesota for threatened, but not endangered, site and had traveled half of the distance Legislature had not considered the wolf species. We have used that authority to back to its capture site before being management bill produced by the MN finalize a special regulation for the mistaken for a coyote and shot

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15853

(Wydeven in litt. 1999). There is also State, and will probably be so small that The new special regulation that growing opposition to the translocation it does not noticeably slow that growth authorizes depredation control in of depredating wolves, and at least one over the next few years. Wolf recovery Wisconsin and Michigan requires that county board has passed a resolution will not be affected in either State. wolves killed for depredation control opposing the relocation of additional Reporting (within 15 days) and purposes be reported to us within 15 wolves to that county. Residents in the monitoring requirements will ensure days. Thus, we will be promptly alerted area to where these wolves are moved that the level of lethal depredation if an unexpected number of depredating are concerned that the depredation control is evaluated promptly and can wolves are killed under the new special problem will recur in their area. be curtailed if necessary. Therefore, we regulation, and we can initiate Due to the decreasing effectiveness of, do not believe that lethal livestock corrective action, if necessary. and increasing opposition to, depredation control will be a significant Since wolves were protected under translocation of depredating wolves, as threat to the future of wolves in either the Act, only one wolf has been killed well as the high monetary and labor Michigan or Wisconsin, or that it will for depredation control purposes in costs of such attempts, the States of result in a need to reclassify those Wisconsin and Michigan. That adult Wisconsin and Michigan have requested wolves back to endangered status in the wolf was killed by the WI DNR in 1999, the authority to carry out lethal foreseeable future. under the provisions of a permit that we depredation control measures, similar to In recent years there has been an issued to deal with that specific what has been done by USDA/APHIS- increase in the number of dogs attacked instance. This was done to end a Wildlife Services in Minnesota. As the by gray wolves in Wisconsin, with 17 chronic depredation problem at a wolf population grows in number and killed and 1 injured in 2001. In almost private deer farm after the failure of expands in range in those two States, all cases, these have been hunting dogs extensive efforts to live-trap and remove those wolves will increasingly occupy that were being used for, or being the wolf (WI DNR 1999b). agricultural areas and will be exposed to trained for, hunting bears and bobcats at For both North Dakota and South additional domestic animals as potential the time they were attacked. It is Dakota we had anticipated potential prey. We believe that the new special believed that the dogs entered the wolf depredation problems associated management regulations under section territory of a wolf pack and may have with mostly single, dispersing wolves 4(d) of the Act will provide increased been close to a den, rendezvous site, or from the Minnesota and Manitoba flexibility and efficiency in managing feeding location, thus triggering an populations. To cope with these wolves and are consistent with attack by wolves defending their anticipated depredations we have had a conservation of the gray wolf (see the territory or pups. As many as 7 or 8 wolf ‘‘Contingency Plan for Responding to Special Regulations under Section 4(d) packs may have been involved in the Gray Wolf Depredations of Livestock’’ in for Threatened Species section below). 2001 attacks on hunting dogs (WI DNR place for each State for several years Based upon depredation control unpublished data). The Wisconsin Wolf (Service 1992b, 1994b). In partnership statistics from Minnesota, we expect the Management Plan States that ‘‘generally with USDA/APHIS-Wildlife Services lethal control of depredating Wisconsin only wolves that are habitual and State animal damage control and Michigan wolves to be very small depredators on livestock will be agencies, the contingency plans provide during the next few years. Data from euthanized’’ (WI DNR 1999a). for the capture and permanent transfer Minnesota show that an expanding wolf Furthermore, the State’s draft guidelines to American Zoo and Aquarium population’s increasing exposure to for conducting depredation control Association (AZA)-approved holding domestic animals will likely lead to actions on wolves that retain a Federal facilities, such as zoos, captive breeding increased depredation incidents, and threatened status say that no control centers, or research facilities, of all the need for additional lethal control of trapping will be conducted on wolves depredating or injured/sick wolves in those wolves. From 1980 to 1984, with that kill ‘‘dogs that are free-roaming or North Dakota and South Dakota. The a late winter wolf population of about roaming at large.’’ Lethal control will lethal control of depredating and 1,350 animals, an annual average of 2.2 only be conducted on wolves that kill injured/sick wolves is authorized by the percent of the Minnesota wolf dogs that are ‘‘leashed, confined, or plans only if no AZA-approved holding population was killed by USDA/APHIS- under the owner’s control on the facilities could be identified. Verified Wildlife Services to reduce depredation owner’s land’’ (Wisconsin Wolf wolf depredations occur approximately problems. From 1985 to 1989, with a Technical Committee 2002). Because of once every other year in North Dakota, late winter wolf population averaging these State-imposed limitations, we do with the most recent occurring in June about 1,600 wolves, the annual average not believe that lethal control of wolves of 1999; there have been no verified of wolves killed for depredation control depredating on hunting dogs will be a wolf depredations in South Dakota in increased to 3.0 percent. Additional significant additional source of recent decades. To date, in neither State increases have occurred in the 1990s. mortality in Wisconsin. has it been necessary to implement With the Wisconsin and Michigan Michigan has not experienced as high either the nonlethal or lethal control (Upper Peninsula) late winter wolf a level of dog attacks by wolves, measures authorized under the populations at about 250–350 in each although a slight increase in such contingency plans, although confirmed State, we estimate that an average of attacks has occurred over the last wolf sightings and some incidents of about 2 to 3 percent of those wolves will decade. The number of verified attacks wolf depredation continue to occur. be taken annually through lethal was one dog killed in 1996, three (two North Dakota and South Dakota are depredation control actions in response injured, one killed) in 1999, and three recognized as lacking significant to attacks on livestock. This will be killed in 2001. Similar to Wisconsin, MI potential for restoration of the gray wolf, about 6 to 10 wolves in each State. DNR does not intend to trap and move and neither our Eastern Recovery Plan Given the average annual population wolves that depredate on free-ranging nor our Northern Rockies Plan includes increases of 19 to 24 percent over recent dogs. However, trapping and relocation those States in its list of possible years in each of these States, the effect of wolves would be considered if locations for restoration of gray wolf of such levels of lethal depredation wolves have killed confined pets and populations (Service 1987, 1992a). control will not prevent the continued remain in the area where more pets are Therefore, lethal control of depredating growth of the wolf population in either being held (Hammill in litt. 2002). wolves in these two States will not

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15854 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

adversely affect the Eastern DPS covered by the new special regulation viable wolf population will continue to recovery program. We believe that the are not necessary for the recovery of the exist in Minnesota if a lethal new special regulations finalized with Eastern DPS, and if they attack domestic depredation control program of this this rule to allow lethal control of animals State and tribal authorities will magnitude is continued. However, depredating wolves will help to have authority for lethal control. monitoring of the wolf population will promote greater public acceptance of the The special regulation for the Eastern become increasingly important if the gray wolf recovery programs (see the DPS and its provision for lethal control percentage of wolves killed for Special Regulations under Section 4(d) of depredating wolves do not apply to depredation control continues to for Threatened Species section below). wolves in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, increase, or if other mortality factors Furthermore, such regulations will New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, increase in magnitude. Annual allow Federal, State, and tribal agencies Massachusetts, Vermont, New monitoring may become necessary to in the Dakotas to be more responsive to Hampshire, and Maine. No wolves are enable timely corrective action, depredation incidents, thus, minimizing currently known to occur in this area, including reduction of lethal conflicts between wolves and livestock nor are these States within anticipated depredation control activities, if the production. In addition, such dispersal distance of the gray wolf Minnesota wolf population begins to regulations will eliminate the costs, population recovering in the western decrease or to contract in geographic time, and facilities needed to capture, Great Lakes area, so there is a low range. At this time, however, it appears transport, and house live gray wolves. probability of gray wolf depredation in that continuing the current magnitude We expect a much higher proportion these States. Furthermore, several State of lethal depredation control under the of North Dakota and South Dakota wildlife agencies in the Northeast have existing special regulation will not wolves to become involved in expressed support for natural wolf suppress the Minnesota wolf depredation on domestic animals than recovery and indicated a willingness to population. the approximately 2 to 3 percent we protect wolves that disperse into this State and Tribal Management and expect in Wisconsin and Michigan. region from Canada. In addition, as Protection of Wolves. The Wisconsin Thus, if the Minnesota wolf population described above, the species identity of Wolf Management Plan recommended continues to expand and provide wolves that might naturally appear in immediate reclassification from State- additional dispersing wolves, lethal northeastern States is uncertain at this endangered to State-threatened status depredation control activities in North time, and each individual wolf might be because the State’s wolf population has Dakota and South Dakota may also kill important to future wolf recovery efforts already exceeded the State on the order of 4 or 5 wolves annually that might be undertaken there. reclassification criterion of 80 wolves in each of these 2 States. These This final rule will not affect the for 3 years; that State reclassification mortalities will neither slow the current section 4(d) special regulation has already occurred. The Plan further recovery of the Minnesota and for wolf depredation control in recommends the State manage for a gray Michigan-Wisconsin wolf populations Minnesota, and we expect that program wolf population of 350 wolves outside nor delay the eventual delisting of the will continue unchanged as long as of Native American reservations, and Eastern DPS, because the Eastern Plan those wolves are listed as threatened states that the species should be delisted does not rely on wolves in North Dakota under the Act. During the period from by the State once the population reaches or South Dakota to achieve any of its 1980–1998, the Federal Minnesota wolf 250 animals outside of reservations. recovery criteria. If wolves in the depredation control program has Upon State delisting, the species would Dakotas are not involved in annually euthanized from 20 (in 1982) be classified as a ‘‘protected nongame depredations on domestic animals they to 216 (in 1997) gray wolves. The species,’’ a designation that would retain all the normal protections of a annual average was 30 wolves killed continue State prohibitions on sport threatened species. If they return to from 1980 to 1984, 49 from 1985 to hunting and trapping of the species. The Minnesota or to the Wisconsin- 1989, 115 from 1990 to 1994, and 152 Wisconsin Plan includes criteria that Michigan population, they may from 1995 to 1999. Based upon would trigger State relisting as contribute to the continuing growth of estimates of the Minnesota wolf threatened (a decline to fewer than 250 the core wolf populations in the population during these periods, these wolves for 3 years) or endangered (a Midwest. numbers represent an average annual decline to fewer than 80 wolves for 1 Our proposal would have applied the removal of approximately 2.2 percent, year). State delisting can occur while special regulation for lethal depredation 3.0 percent, 6.0 percent, and 6.7 percent the wolf is still federally listed as either control to all States within the proposed of the total population during those four threatened or endangered, but the Western Great Lakes DPS, except 5-year periods, respectively. The lowest remaining stricter Federal protections Minnesota, which already is subject to annual percentage of Minnesota wolves would prevent the implementation of a very similar special regulation. destroyed by USDA/APHIS-Wildlife weaker State protections. Public taking Because this final rule geographically Services was 1.5 percent in 1982; the of wolves will not occur while the wolf expands the relevant DPS to additional highest percentage was 9.4 in 1997 (Paul remains federally listed as threatened. States and retains the Act’s protections 2001). The Wisconsin Plan will be reviewed for wolves as threatened throughout There is no evidence that this level of annually by the Wisconsin Wolf much of the eastern United States, we wolf removal for depredation control Advisory Committee and will be are also providing coverage of the purposes has halted the increase in wolf reviewed by the public every 5 years. special regulation to most, but not all, numbers or range in Minnesota, Both the Wisconsin and Michigan of those additional States. although it is quite possible that the Wolf Management Plans recommend The special regulation provides the depredation control program may have managing wolf populations within each authority for lethal control of slowed wolf population growth, State as isolated populations that are not depredating wolves to all parts of the especially since the late-1980s. Because dependent upon frequent immigration Eastern DPS that are west of the Minnesota wolf population has of wolves from an adjacent State or Pennsylvania. Except for Wisconsin, continued to grow at an average annual Canada. Thus, even after Federal wolf and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, rate of nearly 4 percent since 1989, we delisting, each State will be managing gray wolves that occur in the areas believe that it is highly likely that a for a wolf population at, or in excess of,

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15855

the 200 wolves identified in the Federal of the National Park System, and private land if they are a risk to Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber National Wildlife Refuges will provide livestock, herding and guard animals, or Wolf as necessary for an isolated wolf additional protections to threatened dogs. population to be viable. We support this gray wolves beyond the protections that The increased management flexibility approach and believe it provides further will be provided by the Act and its for take is expected to reduce and more assurance that the gray wolf will remain regulations, State wolf management quickly resolve conflicts between a viable component of the western Great plans, and State protective regulations. livestock producers and wolves by Lakes ecosystem in the foreseeable For details, refer to the discussion above providing additional methods by which future. under the Summary of Factors Affecting individual problem wolves can be The Wisconsin and Michigan wolf the Species section, factor A, The removed from the wild population. We management plans recommend similar present or threatened destruction, do not expect the take under these new high levels of protection for wolf den modification, or curtailment of its special regulations finalized in this rule and rendezvous sites, whether on public habitat or range. (see the Special Regulations under or private land. Both State plans Western DPS. Previous to this new Section 4(d) for Threatened Species recommend that most land uses be regulation, wolves in these States had section below) to result in a significant prohibited at all times within 100 two different listings under the Act: (1) increase in the removal of problem meters (330 feet) of active sites. Those wolves within the two wolves. Seasonal restrictions (March through nonessential experimental populations Depredation Control Programs in the July) should be enforced within 0.8 km (all of Wyoming and most of Idaho and Western DPS. In the northern U.S. (0.5 mi) of these sites, to prevent high- Montana) were, and continue to be, Rocky Mountain wolf recovery area, disturbance activities such as logging treated as threatened wolves for take reports of suspected wolf-caused from disrupting pup-rearing activities. purposes. However, for purposes of damage to livestock are investigated by These restrictions should remain in interagency cooperation (section 7 of the USDA/APHIS-Wildlife Services effect even after State delisting occurs. Act), those wolves are treated as species specialists using standard techniques While the tribes do not yet have proposed for listing and receive limited (Roy and Dorrance 1976, Fritts et al. management plans specific to the gray consideration in the planning and 1992, Paul and Gipson 1994). If the wolf, several tribes have informed us implementation of Federal agency investigation confirms wolf that they have no plans or intentions to actions, unless those actions occur on involvement, Wildlife Services allow commercial or recreational units of the National Park System or the specialists contact us and subsequently hunting or trapping of the species on National Wildlife Refuge System, in conduct the wolf control measures that their lands even if gray wolves were to which case the wolves are treated as a we specify. If the incident occurred in be federally delisted. As previously threatened species and are subject to the Idaho, Wildlife Services also discussed in the Summary of Factors full protections of section 7. These coordinates with Nez Perce Tribal Affecting the Species section, factor B, wolves also were, and continue to be, personnel. The established process is for Overutilization for commercial, subject to two special regulations that Wildlife Services to investigate the recreational, scientific, or educational modify the normal protections of the incident, we decide what control purposes, tribes are expected to Act for threatened species (under the measures are appropriate, and then continue to provide sufficient protection nonessential experimental population Wildlife Services personnel carry out to gray wolves on reservation lands to designations in 59 FR 60252 and 60266; those measures. preserve the species’ long-term viability November 22, 1994). (2) Those wolves In 1988, the Service developed an in the western Great Lakes area. outside of the nonessential experimental interim wolf control plan that was based At the request of the Bad River Tribe populations were listed as endangered on the assumption that wolves which of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, we and were subject to the strictest chronically attack livestock would not are currently working with their Natural protections afforded by the Act. This be tolerated by the local residents. The Resource Division and WI DNR to endangered status no longer applies to control plan initially applied to develop a wolf management agreement these wolves, and they are now northwestern Montana and northern for lands adjacent to the Bad River classified as threatened. Idaho, and was later amended to Reservation. The tribe’s intent is to The new special regulations finalized include Washington State. Evidence reduce the threats to reservation wolf in this rule (see the Special Regulations showed that most wolves do not attack packs when they are temporarily off the under Section 4(d) for Threatened livestock, especially larger livestock, reservation. Under the draft agreement, Species section below) will increase such as horses and cattle. We do not the WI DNR would consult with the management flexibility for wolves in the intend for our wolf recovery program to tribe before using lethal depredation Western DPS in areas outside of the be based in part on wolves that have control methods in those areas, and experimental population areas, because developed the practice of livestock would defer to the tribe’s they will allow take under additional depredation, because that would likely recommendations for wolves known to circumstances. Wolves near livestock erode local tolerance for wolf recovery, be part of a reservation pack. However, could be harassed in a noninjurious possibly to the degree that recovery this agreement is still being developed, manner at any time on private land or would be impossible. Therefore, we so its protective measures must be on public land by the livestock developed a set of guidelines under considered speculative. Other tribes permittee. Intentional or potentially which depredating wolves could be have expressed interest in such an injurious harassment could occur by harassed, moved, or even killed by agreement, and if this and similar permit on private land and public land. agency officials to prevent a significant agreements are implemented they will Wolves attacking not only livestock, but level of chronic livestock depredation provide additional protection to certain also dogs and guard animals, on private from occurring. This interim control wolf packs in the Midwest. land could be taken without a permit if plan was based on the premise that On the basis of information received they are in the act of attacking such agency wolf control actions would affect from other Federal land management animals; on public land a permit will be only a small number of wolves, while it agencies in the western Great Lakes required for such take. Permits could be would increase public tolerance for wolf area, we expect National Forests, units issued by the Service to take wolves on recovery and enhance recovery success.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15856 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

To date, our assumptions have been control measures used included livestock conflict. Human-caused shown to be correct, as wolf depredation intensive monitoring of the wolves and mortality below 10 percent annually has on livestock and subsequent agency livestock (including providing a not been shown to prevent a wolf control actions have remained at low telemetry receiver to the affected population from growing. The EIS on levels, while the wolf population has rancher), aversive conditioning (i.e., wolf reintroduction predicated that expanded its distribution and numbers capturing, radio-collaring, and releasing about 10 percent of the wolf population and is approaching recovery goals. wolves on site or harassing wolves with would be removed by agency control Using this experience, we developed noise-makers such as cracker shells), actions annually. To date, agency special regulations for the experimental relocating or killing some wolves, or control has been about half of the population areas that would also some combination of these approaches. expected level, but that percentage may promote wolf recovery while reducing In northwestern Montana, agency increase as the wolf population expands wolf conflicts with livestock. Thus, we wolf control removed 53 wolves from into areas where conflicts with domestic have incorporated important aspects of 1987 through 2002. Control actions livestock are more likely. the interim control plan and the removed an average of 6 percent of the At the end of 2002, nearly all of the experimental population rules in the population annually, with a range of 0 most suitable wolf habitat in the new 4(d) regulation that replaces the to 29 percent. In only 3 of those 15 years northern Rocky Mountains of Montana, interim control plan. (1987: 29 percent, 1997: 20 percent, and Idaho, and Wyoming was occupied by In the areas that were covered by the 1999: 12 percent) did agency control resident wolf packs. As the wolf interim wolf control plan and actions remove more than 10 percent of population continues to expand, wolves experimental population rules, control the estimated wolf population in that will increasingly attempt to settle in measures were continued until livestock area (Service et al. 2002). At no time did areas intensively used for livestock depredations cease, even if all wolves in agency wolf control remove more than production, a higher percentage of those an area or a pack eventually had to be one-third of the wolf population wolves likely will become involved in removed. When five or fewer breeding annually, the human-caused mortality conflicts with livestock, and a higher pairs are in a recovery area, wolves were level that must be exceeded to prevent percentage will need to be removed. For relocated on their first offense. When at wolf population growth. The percentage the wolf population to become least six breeding pairs are present, of removal by agency control in stabilized, human-caused mortality wolves were killed after their first northwestern Montana has been higher would have to remove 30 percent or offense. Wolves that repeatedly than in either the Idaho or Yellowstone more of the wolf population annually. depredated on livestock were killed. areas, because northwestern Montana This final rule replaces the interim In experimental areas, the more does not have similar large areas of wolf control plan with the wolf control flexible special regulations allow refugia (millions of acres of contiguous actions specified in the 4(d) rule for the landowners on private land and public lands with year-round resident Western DPS. While wolf control livestock producers on public land to big game populations). This results in actions will continue to remove wolves harass wolves at any time. In the an overall lower wolf habitat and social that attack livestock in the Western DPS, experimental areas, wolves attacking carrying capacity and a higher level of we still expect that wolf population livestock on private land can be shot by conflicts than in either the Idaho or recovery was achieved by the end of landowners with a permit, and, after six Yellowstone areas. We expect that 2002. Management of wolves under the breeding pairs are established, our under threatened status and the management regulations finalized in permit can allow permittees to shoot accompanying 4(d) rule, which replaces this rule (see the Special Regulations wolves attacking livestock on public the interim wolf depredation control under Section 4(d) for Threatened land. Special permits can be issued in plan, the level of wolf mortality caused Species section below) is not expected areas of chronic livestock-wolf conflict by agency and public control will be to significantly increase wolf mortality that allow qualifying landowners and similar to that occurring (less than 10 rates, because relatively few wolves their adjacent neighbors to shoot a wolf percent annually) under the attack livestock. on sight. In addition, other special experimental population regulations in The only significant difference in the permits can be issued to take wolves central Idaho and the Greater management of problem wolves and approved State management plans Yellowstone Area. between the previous management can liberalize the conditions under The control of problem wolves under the interim control plan and the which wolves may be taken. A private depredating livestock resulted in the new management of wolves under the program has compensated ranchers full removal of less than 5 percent of the 4(d) rule once they have been market value for confirmed and one-half wolf population in the northern Rocky reclassified from endangered to market value for probable wolf-kills of Mountains from 1987 through 2002 threatened outside the experimental livestock and livestock guard animals (Service et al. 2002). During that period, population areas will be the taking of (Defenders of Wildlife 2002, Fischer a total of 148 wolves were killed by wolves in the act of attacking livestock 1989). agency control because of chronic or domestic animals on private land by In northwestern Montana, and while livestock depredation. Only in 1987 did private landowners. In the past 6 years wolves were listed as endangered, wolf wolf control remove more than 9 in Idaho and Wyoming, only 3 control under a section 10(a)(1)(A) percent of the wolf population. Only 3 nonessential experimental wolves have permit was conducted only when of the 150 wolves that have been been legally taken under such livestock were attacked. In the removed were legally killed by circumstances by landowners, and we experimental areas, wolf control could landowners who saw them attacking believe the level of take of also occur when other domestic their livestock on private land; the rest nonexperimental threatened wolves animals, such as dogs, are attacked on were removed by agency actions. Three under the new regulations will be private land more than once in a wolves were also killed under permits similar. That level of take could not calendar year. Control in both of these to shoot wolves attacking livestock on significantly increase wolf mortality situations consisted of the minimum public grazing allotments or under the rates or decrease the rate of wolf actions believed necessary to reduce permits that allow landowners to shoot population recovery. Through the end of further depredations. The spectrum of a wolf on sight in areas of chronic wolf- 2002, 15 lambs (in Utah), but no other

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15857

livestock or pets, have been confirmed 1997, MN DNR 1998, WI DNR 1999a). two populations that comprise the killed by a wolf in the Western DPS This increased public acceptance of metapopulation within the western outside of Montana, Idaho, and wolves during the last 25 years also has Great Lakes States demonstrates that the Wyoming, and consequently, no wolves reduced illegal persecution and killing species is not in danger of extinction in were removed from these areas by of wolves. Another public attitudes any significant portion of the range of agency control actions. survey is being planned to assess the species within the DPS. We During depredation control actions for whether attitudes have changed in therefore conclude that gray wolves are problem wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Michigan as the State’s wolf population no longer properly classified as Wyoming, individual wolves have has expanded (Hammill, pers. comm. endangered in the Eastern DPS. incurred injuries from capture that 2002). Accordingly, we have determined that ultimately resulted in their death or Similar national support is evident for the Eastern DPS deserves status as a removal from the wild (four in Idaho wolf recovery and reintroduction in the threatened species under the Act. and two in Montana). Mortality from northern U.S. Rocky Mountains. With We also conclude, based both on the capture is rare and not a significant the continued help of private wolf’s recovery progress in the Western portion of total mortality in the wolf conservation organizations, States, and DPS, and on our assessment of the population. tribes, we can continue to foster public threats that will remain to the wolf We have determined that effective support to maintain viable wolf within the DPS once the wolf is control of problem wolves benefits the populations in the western Great Lakes reclassified as threatened (including the conservation of the species in the area and the West, as well as for continuation of the nonessential northern Rocky Mountains (Service recovery of wolves in the Southwest. experimental population designation 1999). We believe that the special management and its special regulations), that the gray Southwestern DPS. The protection regulations finalized in this rule (see the wolf is not in danger of extinction provided by the Act and the special Special Regulations under Section 4(d) throughout its range within the Western regulation for the southwestern for Threatened Species section below) DPS. Because the three initially isolated nonessential experimental population will further enhance public support for populations in the Western DPS now have been the most important factors in wolf recovery by providing more the successful reintroduction of gray function as a single large effective means for dealing with metapopulation, and because there is no wolves to the Southwest, and in the wolflhuman conflicts as these slow but steady growth of the wild wolf other population of wolves within the conflicts-both real and DPS, this conclusion applies to all parts population there. The listing status of imaginedlincrease along with of the wolf’s range in the DPS, and so gray wolves in the Southwestern DPS expanding wolf populations. does not change with this final we also conclude that the wolf is not in regulation. They will remain Conclusion danger of extinction within any endangered, except for the reintroduced We recognize that large portions of significant portion of its range in the population which retains its status as a the historic range, including potentially DPS. The gray wolf therefore is no nonessential experimental population, still-suitable habitat within the DPSs, longer endangered throughout all or a and they will continue their recovery as are not currently occupied by gray significant portion of its range in the a result of the ongoing protection wolves. We emphasize that our Western DPS. Accordingly, we have provided by these regulations. determinations are based on the current determined that the Western DPS status of, and threats faced by, the deserves status as a threatened species E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors existing wolf populations within these under the Act. Affecting Its Continued Existence DPSs. This approach is consistent with In contrast, the gray wolves in the Public Attitudes Toward the Gray the 9th Circuit Court’s decision in Southwest are still in the initial stage of Wolf. The primary determinant of the Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. Norton et recovery. The population’s growth rate long-term status of gray wolf al., where the Court noted that ‘‘[a] is low in comparison to the growth rates populations in the United States will be species with an exceptionally large shown by the gray wolf populations in human attitudes toward this large historical range may continue to enjoy the Western Great Lakes and the predator. These attitudes are based on healthy population levels despite the Northern U.S. Rocky Mountains. the conflicts between human activities loss of a substantial amount of suitable However, this is expected when and wolves, concern with the perceived habitat.’’ Similarly, we believe that establishing a wild population from danger the species may pose to humans, when an endangered species has captive-born animals. Recent data its symbolic representation of recovered to the point where it is no indicate that the population growth rate wilderness, the economic effect of longer in danger of extinction will increase in the near future. livestock losses, the emotions regarding throughout all or a significant portion of Nonetheless, even with the protections the threat to pets, the conviction that the its current range, it is appropriate to of the Act, the currently small species should never be a target of sport downlist the listed species to threatened population of Mexican wolves, hunting or trapping, and the wolf even if a substantial amount of the combined with the lack of a recovery traditions of Native American tribes. historical range remains unoccupied. goal or measure of sustainability, is still We have seen a change in public When it is not likely to become threatened with extinction throughout attitudes toward the wolf over the last endangered in the foreseeable future all or a significant portion of its range. few decades. Public attitudes surveys in throughout all or a significant portion of Therefore, we have not reduced the Minnesota and Michigan (Kellert 1985, its current range, it should be delisted. protections for these wolves, and we 1990, 1999), as well as the citizen input The wolf’s progress toward recovery have retained their designation as a into the wolf management plans of in the Eastern DPS, together with the nonessential experimental population in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, threats that remain to the wolf within portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and have indicated strong public support for the DPS, indicates that the gray wolf is Texas, and as endangered in those parts wolf recovery if the adverse impacts on not in danger of extinction in its entire of the Southwestern DPS that are recreational activities and livestock range within the DPS. Moreover, the outside the experimental population producers can be minimized (MI DNR progress towards recovery of each of the area.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15858 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

The Service intends to continue and tolerated by some local residents, and taxonomic studies, or serve as a complete its Eastern, Northern Rockies, State and Federal agencies may be potential source of wolves that could be and Southwestern gray wolf recovery perceived as not taking wolf-human released into the wild. This is especially programs. Furthermore, we will conflicts seriously. To date, wolf true for our gray wolf recovery program continue to focus our recovery activities recovery efforts in Wisconsin have in the Southwest. Captive-rearing in the current core recovery areas (i.e., benefitted from strong public support, facilities for this recovery program exist Minnesota, Wisconsin, Upper Peninsula and we do not want to further strain that within the geographic boundaries of all of Michigan, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, support. three DPSs, as well as in the area that New Mexico, and Arizona). Once wolf An immediate effective date for the we have now delisted. We believe those recovery goals are achieved in the reclassification to threatened status for captive wolves have sufficient potential recovery areas of any one of the DPSs, the Eastern DPS, and the associated importance in our future recovery we will proceed to delist the entire DPS special regulations under section 4(d) of efforts so that they warrant the that contains that respective recovery the Act, maximizes the ability of WI and continued protections of the Act at the area, even if some of the States within MI DNRs to promptly and efficiently same level as their wild counterparts, the DPS lack wild gray wolves. The remove depredating wolves. Such regardless of the location of their presence of gray wolves outside of the timely and effective response will captivity. recovery areas is not required for the reduce the incentive for vigilante wolf Therefore, we are linking the listing Service to reclassify or delist the entire killings and should help to foster public status of captive gray wolves to the DPS pursuant to the requirements of the support for continuing wolf population listing status of their geographic origin. Act. growth. We have defined the three DPSs to In the Western DPS, the special rule include wild gray wolves living within Need for Immediate Implementation should be made effective immediately the boundaries of the DPSs, as well as The wolf population in Wisconsin because the wolf population in the those captive wolves that were removed and Michigan has increased by 30 northern Rocky Mountains is continuing from the wild, or whose ancestors were percent since the publication of our July to rapidly expand its numbers and removed from the wild, from within the 2000 proposed rule. The number of distribution. The peak of wolf dispersal geographic boundaries of a DPS, wolves captured and translocated after is in fall and early winter so immediate regardless of where the captive wolves depredating on domestic animals has implementation of the rule can provide may be held. If a DPS is delisted in the similarly increased; finding suitable important benefits for wolf conflict future, those captive wolves that locations to release these depredating reduction and conservation in originated, or whose ancestors wolves has become extremely northwestern Montana and in areas originated, from within that DPS will challenging in Wisconsin. The Board of surrounding the two NEPs. Wolves in also be delisted at that time. Supervisors of Forest County, where WI northwestern Montana are becoming DNR has previously translocated most more numerous and many of those Other Alternatives Considered of their depredating wolves, has wolves will continue to live in and Our proposal contained discussion of recently passed a resolution opposing around people. The special rule several other alternative actions that we any additional WI DNR releases of provides the Service with additional considered as we developed the known depredating wolves in that management tools and flexibility as proposal. Among those other county. Local residents and officials additional conflicts with people alternatives were creating larger or from several other Wisconsin counties develop. Continued wolf population smaller DPSs in the eastern half of the have expressed similar opposition. WI growth will also result in an increased United States and including more or all DNR has been negotiating with the probability that individual wolves will States within the DPSs. In the Menominee Indian Reservation to disperse into neighboring States from discussion of the latter alternative, we release several known depredating the northern Rockies recovery areas. specifically mentioned examples such wolves on the reservation, but a single Those wolves may need management by as including California, Nevada, New multi-wolf release will likely exhaust the Service if they become involved in Jersey, Massachusetts, and Kansas in a the wolf carrying capacity of the conflicts with people. The finalization DPS, in which case they would have the reservation. Another problem is the of this rule took much longer than same threatened or endangered opposition of local officials from the anticipated, and its conservation classification as the rest of the DPS. We areas surrounding the reservation; they measures are urgently needed to help described why those alternatives were are concerned that the wolves will move with wolf restoration efforts and should not our proposed action; however, we beyond the reservation into the not be delayed any further. requested comments and other surrounding dairy farm area and resume Therefore, we find there is good cause information on those alternatives, as their attacks on livestock. under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to implement well as on other alternatives that we The WI DNR has run out of suitable these rules immediately. might not have considered at all. We places to release depredating wolves, received many comments on some of Gray Wolves in Captivity and is now having to release them in these alternatives, and we have less than ideal locations (that is, too We recognize that there are many gray reconsidered their implementation. We close to the capture point, too close to wolves being held in captivity for a will not provide further discussion of other livestock operations, or in areas variety of reasons. Some of these are those other alternatives in this final with low deer densities from which being held for research, propagation, or rule, except for the aspects of those wolf dispersal is more likely), and educational projects that are part of gray alternatives that we have incorporated repeat depredations are expected to wolf recovery programs; many others into this final rule. Those discussions occur from these releases. Two are considered pets or are held for other are found within the appropriate parts suspected instances of depredations reasons. Those captive wolves of this document. following translocation have already potentially can be a valuable part of the occurred. Repeat depredations following recovery program for the areas from Changes From the Proposed Rule capture and translocation of known which they originated. For example, As a result of comments or additional depredating wolves is not likely to be they may become useful in genetic or data received during the comment

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15859

period, or due to additional analysis on approach and are retaining protection been added to the Eastern DPS (formerly our part, several changes were made to for any gray wolves that might remain the Western Great Lakes and the DPSs and the special regulations in, or move to, the Northeastern States Northeastern DPSs). Oklahoma west of that we proposed on July 13, 2000 (refer by combining this geographic area with Interstate 35 and Texas north of to Maps 2 and 3 below). Some of these the proposed Great Lakes DPS and Interstate 40 have been added to the changes incorporate components of calling it the Eastern Gray Wolf DPS. endangered Southwestern DPS that several of the alternatives that were The entire Eastern DPS is listed as includes parts of the United States and discussed in our proposal and for which threatened in recognition of the ongoing Mexico. we requested comments. In addition, successful recovery progress shown by Because we are delisting the gray wolf combining two DPSs and adopting the Midwestern wolf populations. in 14 fewer States than we proposed, alternate DPS boundaries necessarily We will reconsider this issue when those 14 States must remain part of a resulted in our consideration of we consider any listing, reclassification, listed entity. In general, we have added including the additional areas under the or delisting action that affects the individual States to the DPS containing coverage of the special regulations we Eastern DPS. the core wolf population from which proposed under section 4(d) of the Act. Delisting Only in Areas Where those States are most likely to receive The following paragraphs discuss these Previously Listed in Error—The final dispersing gray wolves. For example, on changes. rule delists the gray wolf in parts or all the basis of several cases of probable Overall, this final rule results in of 16 eastern and southern States, rather Minnesota wolves dispersing into the smaller changes in the previously than parts or all of 30 States, as Dakotas (including extreme western provided protections of the Act than we proposed. south Dakota (Licht and Fritts 1994; had recommended in our July 2000 We had proposed to delist the gray Straughan and Fain 2002)), and an proposal. The final rule contains no wolf in parts or all of 30 States, because absence of any evidence of Rocky changes to the Act’s protection of the we believed that gray wolf restoration is Mountain wolves dispersing into those gray wolf that are more extensive than not necessary and not feasible in those States, we have placed the western what we had proposed. areas. Therefore, we believed it would boundary of the Eastern DPS at the Combining Proposed Western Great be appropriate to remove the Federal western borders of the Great Plains Lakes DPS and Proposed Northeastern regulations pertaining to gray wolves in States. DPS—These two proposed DPSs have those areas. Such a change would have Similarly, because of their great been combined into a larger DPS called no impact on our current gray wolf distance from core Midwestern wolf the Eastern Gray Wolf DPS. recovery programs, and it seemed populations and their relative proximity At the time we proposed the listing of reasonable to remove regulations from to active Southwestern gray wolf a Northeastern Gray Wolf DPS, we were those geographic areas where they recovery areas, western Oklahoma and well aware that the taxonomy of wolves provided no foreseeable benefits to the northern Texas are included in the in eastern North America was under species. endangered Southwestern DPS instead scrutiny and was potentially subject to However, neither the Act nor its of the threatened Eastern DPS. Thus, revision. We were also aware that implementing regulations allow the they retain their previous listing as evidence for the existence of a wolf delisting of a portion of a listed species’ endangered, as do those gray wolves in population in the Northeast—while historical range because restoration is the Southwest United States and increasing in the 1990s—was still not necessary and not feasible in that Mexico. While we believe there is only insufficient to conclude that a resident area. Delisting can only occur if the a low likelihood that wolves from New gray wolf population existed there. listed species is recovered, if the listed Mexico or Arizona will disperse to However, at that time we believed the species is extinct, or if the original northern Texas or western Oklahoma, it gray wolf likely was the historical wolf listing was based on data, or data is even less likely that Midwestern in the Northeast, and we expected to interpretation, that were in error (50 wolves will disperse there. receive additional information CFR 424.11(d)). The entire States of California and supporting its continued existence there As described in the Historical Range Nevada have been added to the Western during the comment period. of the Gray Wolf section above, the DPS. The northern portions of these Since our proposal was developed, we species’ historical range did not extend States are a relatively short distance have received insufficient information into many southern and eastern States. from the existing and expanding gray to substantiate that a wolf population Therefore, our 1978 listing of the gray wolf populations in Idaho and exists in the area we proposed for a wolf throughout the 48 States and Wyoming, and wolves dispersing from Northeastern DPS. Furthermore, recent Mexico was partially in error. This final those populations have already moved molecular genetics work (Wilson et al. rule corrects the 1978 error by delisting to locations only a short distance from 2000) advances the view that the wolf the gray wolf in all or parts of 16 the California and Nevada State lines. currently occurring in nearby southern and eastern States that were Dispersal into California and Nevada southeastern Ontario and eastward into not within the species’ historical range. may have already occurred, but has not part of Quebec is the purported new The remaining conterminous States and yet been verified. Thus, the northern canid species Canis lycaon and not a Mexico will remain in one of the listed portions of these two States clearly gray wolf (C. lupus). DPSs until gray wolves in that DPS are belong in the Western DPS. While it Given these two factors—the lack of a recovered, the species becomes extinct, may appear from a superficial current wolf population and the or the area is shown to have been listed consideration of a map and the known continuing uncertainty about the in error. dispersal distances of wolves in other identity of the historical wolf—at this Retaining Listings for Areas areas (refer to the following section for time, we cannot list a separate gray wolf Previously Proposed for Delisting— additional discussion) that DPS in the Northeastern States. Because California and Nevada have been added Southwestern (Mexican) wolves are the identity of the historical wolf in the to the Western DPS. Nebraska, Kansas, more likely to disperse to southern Northeast is still unresolved and the Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, California and Nevada than are northern gray wolf has not been ruled out as that Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, U.S. Rockies wolves, we do not believe entity, we are taking the conservative Rhode Island, and Massachusetts have this is necessarily correct. The Colorado

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15860 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

River will be a substantial obstacle to 2001, Ream et al. 1991) show that gray wolves) that would be needed to any wolves attempting to disperse wolves disperse as far as 800 km (500 prevent abuse of this provision. Some westward from the reintroduced wolf mi) from existing wolf populations. types of domestic animals, such as population in Arizona, and the potential More routine long-distance movements rabbits or small fowl, are too small for for wolves to disperse long distances probably are on the order of 400–480 km us to be able to determine if they were across desert habitat is unknown. (250–300 mi). attacked by wolves. In addition, since Therefore, we believe wolf dispersal to Therefore, we have concluded that, in 1987, when the first wolf depredation southern California and southern the final rule that establishes the on livestock occurred, until December Nevada is similarly unlikely from either Southwestern and Western DPSs, we 2001, only cattle (n=188), sheep Arizona or the northern U.S. Rockies. should use a boundary that is more (n=494), horses (n=3), llamas (n=4), and Therefore, in the absence of clear consistent with known and expected dogs (n=43) have been confirmed to biological support for either the dispersal distances than was the have been attacked by wolves in the inclusion or exclusion of southern boundary recommended in our July 13, northern Rockies. Other types of California/Nevada in the Western DPS, 2000, proposed rule. U.S. Highway 50 in domestic animals are extremely rare in we have decided to include these two Utah and Interstate 70 in Colorado the parts of the western United States States in the Western DPS for the sake represent such a boundary. where wolves may occur, and wolf of administrative convenience and to Furthermore, these highways are clear depredation on those types of smaller facilitate public understanding of the and convenient features on maps and on animals is unlikely because they are boundaries applicable to our new gray the landscape, and should facilitate usually kept in pens. This final rule wolf regulations. implementing and enforcing these gives private landowners or Federal Therefore, as we have delineated regulations on the ground. For these grazing permittees the ability to protect them, the boundaries of these three gray reasons, we are using these highways in the types of domestic animals that might wolf DPSs not only completely Utah and Colorado to delineate a be vulnerable to wolf depredation. The encompass the core gray wolf recovery portion of the boundary between the conditions under which wolves may be populations and their recovery areas, Western Gray Wolf DPS and the legally taken would minimize the but also include the known locations of Southwestern Gray Wolf DPS. number of wolves that would be killed all documented dispersers and the most This boundary change also results in by private citizens without reasonable likely locations for future dispersers a larger area in which wolves will retain cause. from those core populations. While our an endangered listing than was shown Injurious harassment (that is, by using Vertebrate Population Policy does not in our July 13, 2000, proposal. Gray nonlethal ammunition, such as rubber require the complete isolation of DPSs, wolves that disperse into the southern bullets or bean bag projectiles issued by it does require that they be ‘‘markedly half of Utah and Colorado or into the the Service after appropriate training) is separated’’ from each other and from portions of Arizona and New Mexico also being allowed under Service-issued other populations of the species. Based north of the nonessential experimental permits on public livestock grazing on documented wolf movements to area will have entered the Southwestern allotments to reduce the incidence of date, these DPS boundary locations DPS and will be protected as bold wolf behavior. Aversively exceed that requirement. endangered wolves. However, if they are conditioning wolves that have become Change to the Boundary Between the identifiable as having originated from bold or begin to closely associate with Western DPS and the Southwestern one of the NEPs, they will be subject to livestock could help reduce wolf- DPS—We proposed that the boundary the provisions for managing dispersing livestock conflicts and the need for between the Western DPS and the wolves as described in the appropriate subsequent agency lethal wolf control. Southwestern DPS would be in northern experimental population rule at 50 CFR Providing this management tool under Arizona and New Mexico, along the 17.84(i) or (k). permit for livestock producers on public northern border of the experimental Changes to Proposed 4(d) Rule for the land grazing allotments would allow its population area established for the Western DPS—The conditions under selective use, would prevent abuse, and nonessential experimental population of which a private citizen can take a wolf is not expected to increase wolf gray wolves in Arizona and New in this final rule for the Western DPS are mortality, and may decrease it. Mexico. This would have resulted in a slightly more restrictive than those we The Service has also eliminated the large portion of the boundary between proposed in July 2000. Under the 10 breeding pair per State requirement the Western DPS and the Southwestern proposal, a person could take a gray prior to allowing lethal take permits for DPS being less than 160 km (100 mi) wolf on private land if it were seen private landowners. This was changed from areas currently occupied by wolves physically attacking any domestic to increase the potential to implement in the Southwestern (Mexican) wolf animal, if there was evidence of a wolf this type of important wolf management recovery program, but being nearly 800 attack such as wounded domestic tool on private lands that in the future km (500 mi) from the southernmost wolf animals, and such taking was reported might experience chronic depredation packs in the northern U.S. Rockies. within 24 hours. In this final rule, such by wolves, especially in States adjacent To date we have verified records of taking is allowed by a landowner, and to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. It is two northern U.S. Rocky Mountain without a permit, when a wolf is seen highly unlikely that any area or State wolves dispersing into northern Utah attacking any livestock (cattle, sheep, outside of the experimental populations and no verified records of wolves horses, or mules), livestock guarding or areas, other than Montana, will have 10 dispersing into Colorado. Similarly, we herding animals, or dogs on private or more breeding pairs before wolves are have no verified records of land; such taking also can be done by delisted. The overall wolf Southwestern wolves dispersing into permit on Federal grazing allotments. reclassification and recovery goal is extreme northern Arizona or New Some people commented that allowing based upon the overall number of Mexico, or into the southern half of wolves to be taken for attacking any breeding pairs in the northern U.S. Utah or Colorado. However, dispersal domestic animal was too liberal and, in Rocky Mountains, rather than those in distance data from the Midwest and the case of small domestic animals, we each State. Eliminating the 10 breeding from other areas of the Rockies (Fritts would lack the type of documentation pairs requirement will eliminate 1983, Missouri Dept. of Conservation (physical evidence of wounds made by confusion over the number of wolves

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15861

per State and how wolf breeding pairs excluding Minnesota. It does not apply until their origin and identity has been that have home ranges across State or to Pennsylvania and other Eastern DPS determined, or their potential recovery experimental population borders might States that are east of Ohio. Individual role is otherwise evaluated. Therefore, be counted. gray wolves that might appear in these we are not including the States and The requirement that previously area may be important to future wolf tribes east of Ohio in the coverage of confirmed wolf-caused domestic animal recovery efforts in the Northeast. this special regulation. However, if such depredations have occurred in the Minnesota wolves continue to be wolves are determined not to be current year as well as at least one covered by a preexisting special important to wolf recovery in the previous year within the last 10 years, regulation at 50 CFR 17.40(d). Northeastern United States or or twice in the current year, has been Our proposed special regulation for elsewhere, we will take appropriate added to demonstrate a pattern of the proposed Western Great Lakes DPS action to address the depredation chronic wolf depredation on that area of was primarily intended to enable States problem. private property. This additional and tribes outside of Minnesota to use requirement will also clarify that this lethal control measures, at their We have also added wording to this provision of the special rule contains discretion, in a manner that would 4(d) rule to clarify that wolves that the same conditions as must be satisfied efficiently and effectively reduce wolf threaten human safety may be taken, not for us to grant the take permits that are depredations on domestic animals. We only by employees of certain Federal, currently authorized in the believe this approach is consistent with State, and tribal agencies, but also by experimental population rules for the recovery of the wolf population in agents of those agencies who have been Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming at 50 Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. designated in writing for that purpose. CFR 17.84(i)(3)(x). We are now applying these The phrase ‘‘demonstrable but Wider Geographic Application of regulations to most States within the nonimmediate’’ has been added to Proposed 4(d) Rule for the Formerly Eastern DPS, on the basis of our further specify the form of threat to Proposed Western Great Lakes DPS— conclusion that very few, if any, wolves human safety that could trigger such a The special regulation that we proposed will be taken in these additional States, taking. These additions ensure for the States of Wisconsin, Michigan, and that such take is consistent with consistency with the similar regulation North Dakota, and South Dakota now recovery of the wolf in the Eastern DPS. for endangered species at 50 CFR applies to all States within the Eastern Northeastern wild wolves should not 17.21(c)(3)(iv). DPS that are west of Pennsylvania, be subject to lethal depredation control BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15862 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:47 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 ER01AP03.000 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15863

Critical Habitat attributable to the fact that gray wolves authority for lethal control of Critical habitat is defined in section 3 are habitat generalists, and their depredating wolves in most of the of the Act as: (i) The specific areas numbers and range are not limited by a Eastern DPS. within the geographical area occupied lack of suitable habitat or by any We are also implementing a special by a species at the time it is listed in degradation of any essential habitat regulation to assist in managing the rapidly expanding gray wolf population accordance with the Act, on which are features. Designating critical habitat in the Western DPS. It applies to wolves found those physical or biological would be an inappropriate use of our outside the boundaries of the currently features (I) essential to the conservation limited listing funds if done for a designated nonessential experimental of the species and (II) that may require species that is successfully recovering population areas. The existing 10(j) special management considerations or without such designation, and at a time special regulations for the currently protection; and (ii) specific areas when we have determined that it is designated nonessential experimental outside the geographical area occupied more appropriate to reduce, rather than populations in Montana, Idaho, and by a species at the time it is listed, upon increase, the Federal protections for the species. Wyoming will remain in effect. a determination that such areas are The existing special regulation for the essential for the conservation of the It should also be noted that the Act (section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii)) prohibits us from gray wolf nonessential experimental species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use population in portions of Arizona, New of all methods and procedures needed designating critical habitat for the nonessential experimental populations Mexico, and Texas also remains to bring the species to the point at unchanged. which listing under the Act is no longer established in the Western and necessary. Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as Southwestern DPSs. Furthermore, 50 Continuation of Existing Special amended, and implementing regulations CFR 424.12(h) prohibits the designation Regulations for Minnesota Gray Wolves of critical habitat in foreign countries. (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the In 1978 we developed special maximum extent prudent and Special Regulations Under Section 4(d) regulations under section 4(d) of the Act determinable, we designate critical for Threatened Species for gray wolves in Minnesota in order to habitat at the time we list a species. reduce the conflicts between gray General Critical habitat was designated for the wolves and livestock producers. These gray wolf in 1978 (43 FR 9607, March The Act and its implementing regulations were modified in 1985 (50 9, 1978). That rule (50 CFR 17.95(a)) regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set FR 50792; December 12, 1985; 50 CFR identifies Isle Royale National Park, forth a series of general prohibitions and 17.40(d)) and remain unchanged. The Michigan, and Minnesota wolf exceptions that apply to all endangered regulations divided the State into five management zones 1, 2, and 3, as wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, management zones and established the delineated in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(1), as make it illegal for any person subject to conditions under which certain State or critical habitat. Wolf management zones the jurisdiction of the United States to Federal employees or agents may trap 1, 2, and 3 comprise approximately take (includes harass, harm, pursue, and kill wolves that are likely to 3,800 sq km (9,800 sq mi) in hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, continue preying on lawfully present northeastern and north-central or collect; or to attempt any of these), domestic animals. The intent of these Minnesota. This rule does not affect import, export, ship in interstate regulations was to provide an effective those existing critical habitat commerce in the course of commercial means to reduce the economic impact of designations. activity, or sell or offer for sale in livestock losses due to wolves. We The Endangered Species Act interstate or foreign commerce any believed that by reducing these impacts, amendments of 1982 specified that, for endangered wildlife species. It is also private citizens would have less any critical habitat designation for a illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, incentive to resort to illegal and species already listed as threatened or transport, or ship any such wildlife that excessive killing of problem wolves, and endangered at the time of enactment of has been taken illegally. Certain that consequently the recovery of the the 1982 amendments, the procedures exceptions apply to our agents and wolf would be hastened in Minnesota. for revisions to critical habitat would agents of State conservation agencies. We operated this Minnesota Wolf apply (Pub. L. 97–304, section 2(b)(2)). Section 4(d) of the Act provides that Depredation Control Program from 1976 Consequently, designation of critical whenever a species is listed as a into 1986. Congressional action in 1986 habitat for the gray wolf is subject to the threatened species, we shall issue transferred the Animal Damage Control procedures for revisions to critical regulations deemed necessary and Program to the U.S. Department of habitat. As such, it is not mandatory for advisable to provide for the Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health the Service to designate critical habitat conservation of the species. Section 4(d) Inspection Service (USDA/APHIS). In for the gray wolf. Section 4(a)(3)(B) also states that we may, by regulation, 1997 the Animal Damage Control provides that the Service ‘‘may’’ make extend to threatened species the program was renamed ‘‘Wildlife revisions to critical habitat ‘‘from time- prohibitions provided for endangered Services.’’ USDA/APHIS-Wildlife to-time * * * as appropriate’’ (16 U.S.C. species under section 9. The Services continues to operate the Wolf 1533(a)(3)(B)). The Service has implementing regulations for threatened Depredation Control Program in determined that there currently are no wildlife under the Act incorporate the Minnesota. This final rule will not likely benefits to be derived from section 9 prohibitions for endangered change the special regulations that additional critical habitat designations, wildlife (50 CFR 17.31), except when a authorize these wolf depredation and it therefore is not appropriate to special regulation promulgated pursuant control activities in Minnesota. designate additional critical habitat. to section 4(d) applies (50 CFR 17.31(c)). Wolf populations in both the Eastern With this final rule we are retaining New Special Regulations and Western DPSs are at their numerical the special regulation under section 4(d) Special regulations are being recovery goals as a result of past and of the Act that has been crucial to implemented for the gray wolf current protections, but the currently conserving the gray wolf in Minnesota, populations in the Western DPS and in designated critical habitat played a and we are implementing a similar much of the Eastern DPS (excluding negligible role in wolf recovery. This is special regulation to provide similar Minnesota and States east of Ohio).

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15864 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

These special regulations are intended Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Those sheep, horses, mules, and livestock to be consistent with the conservation of regulations have been in place since guarding or herding animals) and dogs. the gray wolf in those areas by reducing 1995, and have helped the wolf Such takings must be reported actual and perceived conflicts with population grow rapidly to recovery immediately, and evidence of a wolf human activities, thus reducing the levels with a low level of conflict with attack must be present. Grazing likelihood and extent of illegal killing of humans. permittees on Federal leases may wolves. Any wolf that poses an immediate receive a permit from us to take wolves In the case of the Western Gray Wolf threat to human safety may be taken by in the act of attacking livestock or DPS, the new section 4(d) regulation anyone at that time and without any livestock herding or guarding animals will apply only to wolves outside of the special permit. Any wolf that is a after we have confirmed wolf nonessential experimental population demonstrable but nonimmediate threat depredation on their allotment. areas. The existing 1994 special to human safety may be taken by us, by In situations on private land where regulations that apply to the two a Federal land management agency, by there have been repeated confirmed nonessential experimental population a State or tribal conservation agency, or wolf depredations on livestock and areas (50 CFR 17.84(i)) will remain in by agents designated by these agencies. dogs, private landowners may receive a effect. The new special regulations These types of taking are already permit from the Service to shoot a wolf finalized in this rule will allow similar, generally permitted under 50 CFR or wolves on sight. The Service or but increased, management flexibility 17.21(c) and 17.31(a) of the regulations Service-authorized agencies may for problem wolves in all areas of the implementing the Act, but are remove wolves that attack livestock or Western DPS that are outside of the specifically mentioned again as being other domestic animals. boundaries of the two experimental permitted by this rule for clarification. In cases where the State or tribal population areas. The existing Such taking must be reported wildlife management agency or the experimental population special immediately (within 24 hours), and the Service can reasonably demonstrate that regulations will remain in effect. wolf carcass must not be disturbed. wolf predation is having an New Western Gray Wolf DPS Special The new 4(d) rule allows private unacceptable effect on big game herds, Regulations Under 4(d) (Refer to the landowners and livestock grazing the Service can authorize wolf following table for a comparison of permittees to harass wolves in a relocation to reduce predation by these new regulations with the noninjurious manner at any time and for wolves. continuing regulations for the any reason. In addition, landowners and The Service may also issue written experimental population areas.) grazing permittees on Federal lands, in permits for take of wolves as specified The new 4(d) rule will expand the certain conditions, may receive permits under 50 CFR 17.32, and we may also situations in which wolves that are in and training from the Service (or designate other agencies to take wolves conflict with human activities may be Service-authorized agencies or under a variety of specific taken by the Service or by private individuals) to intentionally harass circumstances and conditions including individuals. The Service is doing this to wolves in a nonlethal but injurious for scientific purposes; to avoid conflict increase human tolerance of wolves in manner, such as by rubber bullets or with human activities; to improve wolf order to enhance the survival and other Service-issued projectiles survival and recovery; to aid or recovery of the wolf population. The designed to be less-than-lethal to large euthanize sick, injured, or orphaned special rule for managing the threatened mammals. individuals; to salvage specimens; and wolf population allows wolf control and Under the final 4(d) rule, landowners to aid law enforcement. The Service management in a very similar manner to on their private land may take a wolf may also authorize agencies to take any that allowed under the special that is observed in the act of physically wolf or wolf-like canid it determines is regulations for the two nonessential attacking (biting, grasping, etc.) showing abnormal behavioral or experimental population areas in livestock (defined to include cattle, physical characteristics.

TABLE 1.—COMPARISON OF THE NEW SPECIAL RULE FOR THE WESTERN GRAY WOLF DPS AND THE CONTINUING EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION SPECIAL RULES [Refer to the regulations in 50 CFR for the complete wording and reporting requirements.]

Experimental Populations Special Rules 50 CFR Provision: 17.40(n): New Section 4(d) Special Rule 50 CFR 17.40(n):

Geographic area ...... This special rule applies only to wolves within the areas This special rule will apply to any gray wolves that of two Nonessential Experimental Populations (NEP), occur in those parts of the Western DPS (WDPS) which together include Wyoming, the southern por- that are outside of the NEP areas: Washington, Or- tion of Montana, and Idaho south of Interstate 90. egon, California, Nevada, northern Idaho, northern Montana, northern Utah, and northern Colorado. Interagency Coordination Federal agency consultation with the U.S. Fish and Federal agency consultation with the Service on agen- (Sec. 7 consultation). Wildlife Service on agency actions that may affect cy actions that may affect gray wolves is required, gray wolves is not required within the two NEPs, un- but will not result in land-use restrictions on Federal less those actions are on lands of the National Park land unless needed to avoid take at active den sites System or the National Wildlife Refuge System. between April 1 and June 30, except in National Parks or National Wildlife Refuges where other re- strictions may be applied. Take in self defense ...... Any person may take a wolf in self defense or in de- Same as the current experimental population special fense of others. rules. Protection of human life and The Service, or agencies authorized by the Service, Similar to the current experimental population special safety. may promptly remove (that is, place in captivity or rules, but applies to the Service, other Federal land kill) any wolf determined by the Service or authorized management agencies, and State or tribal conserva- agency to be a threat to human life or safety. tion agencies.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15865

TABLE 1.—COMPARISON OF THE NEW SPECIAL RULE FOR THE WESTERN GRAY WOLF DPS AND THE CONTINUING EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION SPECIAL RULES—Continued [Refer to the regulations in 50 CFR for the complete wording and reporting requirements.]

Experimental Populations Special Rules 50 CFR Provision: 17.40(n): New Section 4(d) Special Rule 50 CFR 17.40(n):

Opportunistic harassment.... Landowners and grazing allotment holders can Same as the current experimental population special opportunistically harass gray wolves in a noninjurious rules. manner without a Service permit. Intentional harassment Per- No specific provision for intentional harassment permits The Service can issue a 90-day permit to private land- mits. owners or to livestock producers for use on public grazing allotments after verified persistent wolf activ- ity on their private land or public grazing allotment; permit would allow intentional and potentially inju- rious, but nonlethal, harassment of wolves. Taking wolves ‘‘in the act’’ Livestock producers on their private land may take a Similar to the current experimental population special on PRIVATE land. gray wolf in the act of killing, wounding, or biting live- rules, but this provision is broadened to also apply to stock. Injured or dead livestock must be in evidence gray wolves attacking dogs and livestock herding and to verify the wolf attack. guarding animals. Permits for taking persistent If six breeding pairs of wolves are established in an Same permits are available, but they can be issued re- problem wolves ‘‘in the NEP area, livestock producers and permittees with gardless of the wolf population level. act’’ on PUBLIC land. current valid livestock grazing allotments on public ‘‘Livestock’’ is defined to also include herding or guard land can get a 45-day permit from the Service or animals. other agencies designated by the Service, to take ‘‘Public land’’ is defined to include Federal land and any gray wolves in the act of killing, wounding, or biting other public land designated in State and tribal wolf livestock. The Service must have verified previous at- management plans. tacks by wolves, and must have completed agency efforts to resolve the problem. Permits for additional taking No specific provision for such permits. However, see If we confirm two separate depredation incidents on by private citizens on their provision below for ‘‘Permits for recovery actions that livestock or dogs on the subject private property or PRIVATE land for chronic include take of gray wolves’’. on an adjacent private property and we have con- wolf depredation. firmed that wolves are routinely present on the sub- ject property and present a significant risk to live- stock or dogs, a private landowner may receive a permit from the Service to take those wolves, under specified conditions. Government take of PROB- The Service or agencies designated by the Service ‘‘Problem wolves’’ is defined to have the same mean- LEM WOLVES. may take wolves that attack livestock or that twice in ing: wolves that (1) attack livestock or (2) twice in a a calendar year attack domestic animals other than calendar year attack domestic animals other than livestock. When six or more breeding pairs are estab- livestock. lished in an NEP, lethal control of problem wolves or Criteria to determine when take will be initiated are permanent placement in captivity may be authorized similar to those for the NEP: (1) evidence of the at- by the Service or agency designated by the Service. tack, (2) reason to believe that additional attacks will When five or fewer breeding pairs are established in occur, (3) no evidence of unusual wolf attractants, an NEP, taking may be limited to nonlethal measures and (4) any previously specified animal husbandry such as aversive conditioning, nonlethal control, and/ practices have been implemented, if on public lands. or translocating wolves. No numerical threshold applies, so all control meas- If during depredation control activities on Federal or ures, including lethal control, can be used regardless other public lands, prior to six breeding pairs becom- of the number of breeding pairs in a State. ing established in an NEP and prior to October 1, a No upper threshold of six breeding pairs limiting protec- female wolf having pups is captured, the female and tion of females and their pups applies. Thus, females her pups will be released at or near the site of cap- and their pups will be released if captured on public ture. All problem wolves on private land, including fe- lands as defined above, prior to October 1, unless male wolves with pups, may be removed (including depredation continues. [Note: This is more restrictive lethal control) if continued depredation occurs. than the experimental population regulations.] All chronic problem wolves (wolves that depredate on All problem wolves that attack domestic animals more domestic animals after being moved once for pre- than twice in a calendar year may be moved or re- vious domestic animal depredations) will be removed moved from the wild, including females with pups. from the wild (killed or placed in captivity). Govt. translocation (capture States and tribes may capture and translocate wolves Similar to the current experimental population special and moving) of wolves to to other areas within the same NEP area, if the gray rules, but moved wolves may be released to other reduce impacts on wild wolf predation is negatively impacting localized wild areas within the Western DPS. ungulates. ungulate populations at an unacceptable level, as de- Additionally: After 10 breeding pairs are established in fined by the States and tribes. State/tribal wolf man- the State, we, in cooperation with the States and agement plans must be approved by the Service be- tribes, may move wolves that we determine are im- fore such movement of wolves may be conducted, pacting localized wild ungulate populations at unac- and the Service must determine that such ceptable levels. translocations will not inhibit wolf population growth toward recovery levels. Incidental take ...... Any person may take a gray wolf if the take is inci- Similar to the current experimental population special dental to an otherwise lawful activity, and is acci- rules. dental, unavoidable, unintentional, and not resulting from negligent conduct lacking reasonable due care, and due care was exercised to avoid taking the wolf.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15866 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—COMPARISON OF THE NEW SPECIAL RULE FOR THE WESTERN GRAY WOLF DPS AND THE CONTINUING EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION SPECIAL RULES—Continued [Refer to the regulations in 50 CFR for the complete wording and reporting requirements.]

Experimental Populations Special Rules 50 CFR Provision: 17.40(n): New Section 4(d) Special Rule 50 CFR 17.40(n):

Permits for recovery actions Available for scientific purposes, enhancement of prop- Same as the current experimental population special that include take of gray agation or survival, zoological exhibition, educational rules. wolves. purposes, or other purposes consistent with the Act (50 CFR 17.32). Additional taking provisions Any employee or agent of the Service or appropriate Similar to the current experimental population special for agency employees. Federal, State, or tribal agency, who is designated in rules, except it has additional provisions that allow writing for such purposes by the Service, when acting such take of wolves for ‘‘disposing of a dead speci- in the course of official duties, may take a wolf from men’’; and for ‘‘preventing wolves with abnormal the wild, if such action is for: (A) Scientific purposes; physical or behavioral characteristics, as determined (B) to avoid conflict with human activities; (C) to relo- by the Service, from passing on those traits to other cate a wolf within the NEP areas to improve its sur- wolves.’’ vival and recovery prospects; (D) to return wolves that have wandered outside of the NEP areas; (E) to aid or euthanize sick, injured, or orphaned wolves; (F) to salvage a dead specimen which may be used for scientific study; or (G) to aid in law enforcement investigations involving wolves. Land-use restrictions on When five or fewer breeding pairs of wolves are in an Land-use restrictions may be employed for wolf recov- Federal lands. experimental population area, temporary land-use re- ery purposes on National Parks and National Wildlife strictions may be employed on Federal public lands Refuges. to control human disturbance around active wolf den Between April 1 and June 30 land-use restrictions may sites. These restrictions may be required between be employed to prevent take of wolves at active den April 1 and June 30, within 1 mile of active wolf den sites on Federal lands. or rendezvous sites, and would only apply to Federal public lands or other such lands designated in State and tribal wolf management plans. When six or more breeding pairs are established in an experimental population area, no land-use restrictions may be em- ployed on Federal public lands outside of National Parks or National Wildlife Refuges, unless that wolf population fails to maintain positive growth rates for two consecutive years.

Under the new section 4(d) rule, Increased wariness and avoidance of wolves attacking livestock herding or landowners will be allowed to harass humans could also possibly preclude guard animals or dogs on private land wolves from areas where potential the opportunity for people to illegally outside of the experimental areas. conflicts are of greatest concern, such as kill wolves. Fewer wolf depredations on Furthermore, the new special regulation private property and near grazing livestock and pets should result from will allow us to issue permits to take livestock. In addition to the authority more focused and more unpleasant wolves seen attacking livestock and for landowners and livestock producers harassment of the problem wolves. livestock guard or herding animals on to opportunistically harass gray wolves Fewer depredations will result in fewer federally managed land. (The special in a noninjurious manner (as already control actions, and consequently fewer regulations that will continue to apply allowed by the current special wolves will be killed by management to the two experimental population regulations within the two experimental agencies. This provision allows us to areas do not allow such permits to be populations), the new 4(d) rule will work closely with the public to avoid issued for attacks on guard or herding allow us to issue temporary permits for conflicts between wolves and livestock animals, and do not allow such permits deliberate harassment of wolves in an or dogs, thereby reducing the need for to be issued if there are fewer than six injurious manner under certain wolf control. Because we will have to breeding pairs of wolves in the situations, as is also allowed under the confirm persistent wolf activity, and experimental population area.) Because experimental population rules. each intentional harassment permit will such take has to be reported and Harassment methods that will be contain the conditions under which confirmation of livestock attacks must allowed under this provision include such harassment could occur, there be made by agency investigators, we rubber bullets and other specially should be little potential for abuse of anticipate that no additional significant designed less-than-lethal munitions. this management flexibility. wolf mortality will result from this Since all such harassment would be Under the new special regulation for provision. However, those few wolves nonlethal, and most is expected to be the Western DPS, landowners will be that are killed will be animals with noninjurious to wolves, no effect on allowed to take (kill or injure) wolves behavioral traits that were not wolf population growth is expected to actually seen attacking their livestock conducive to the long-term survival and occur. This provision could make on private land (as currently allowed by recovery of the wolf in the northern wolves more wary around people and the existing special regulations for the Rocky Mountains. The required human activity areas, reducing the two experimental populations). The confirmation process will greatly reduce potential for livestock depredations and new special regulation will also expand the chances that wolves that have not subsequent agency control actions. this provision so that it applies to attacked these types of domestic

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:28 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15867

animals will be killed under this seasonal restrictions to avoid the take of agencies and the public to find provision. Once a depredating wolf is wolves at active den sites. These innovative solutions to potential shot, no further control on the pack will seasonal restrictions will likely run from conflicts between wolves and humans. be implemented by the agencies unless April 1 to June 30 of each year and Overall, we believe that this new special additional livestock are attacked. This apply to land within one mile of the regulation is consistent with the could result in even fewer wolves being active den site. Our experience since conservation of the gray wolf and that taken in agency control actions, because 1987 with managing wolves in the it will speed the species’ recovery in the the wolf that is killed will be the northern Rocky Mountains has shown northern U.S. Rocky Mountains. individual most likely to have been that successful wolf recovery does not Therefore, we find that this special rule involved in the actual attack on depend upon land-use restrictions due is necessary and advisable to provide for livestock. to the wolves’ ability to thrive in a the conservation of the Western DPS of The new special regulation will allow variety of land uses. We believe there is the gray wolf. us or other agencies and the public to little, if any, need for land-use New Special Regulations for Most of the continue to take wolves in the rare event restrictions to protect wolves in most Eastern DPS that they threaten human life or safety. situations, with the possible exception While this is a highly unlikely situation, of temporary restrictions around active The former endangered status of gray and one that is already addressed by the den sites on federally managed lands. wolves restricted depredation control Act and the current special regulation, Additionally, the public is much more activities throughout the eastern half of emphasizing the Act’s provision to tolerant of wolves if restrictive the United States (except Minnesota) to defend human life and safety should government regulations do not result capturing depredating wolves and reduce the public’s concern about from the presence of wolves. While the releasing them at another location in the human safety. threatened status of wolves will require respective State. Wolves released in this The new special regulation will allow Federal agencies to consult under manner may return to the vicinity of government agencies to remove problem section 7, the new special regulation their capture and resume their wolves (wolves that attack livestock or will simplify that process by stating that depredating habits, begin pursuing twice in a year attack other domestic no land-use restrictions are likely to be domestic animals at their new location, animals) outside the experimental areas required except to protect wolves at or be killed by resident wolf packs in using lethal methods regardless of the active den sites on federally managed the release area. Thus, in order for number of breeding pairs present in the lands, as described above. translocation to have a reasonable area. (The previous special regulations Other provisions of the new section probability of assisting wolf recovery, that will continue to apply within the 4(d) special regulation for the Western there must be unoccupied wolf habitat two experimental population areas DPS are identical or very similar to the available within the State, but at a great allow lethal methods only if there are previous special regulations that will distance from the depredation incident six or more breeding pairs present in continue to apply to the two site, in order for the translocated wolf to that experimental population area.) nonessential experimental populations survive and reproduce without causing Prior to October 1 of each year, the in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains. additional depredation problems. new special regulation will require the Prior to this rule, any western gray As the Michigan and Wisconsin wolf release of trapped female wolves with wolves that lived outside of, or populations expand in number and pups that are involved in livestock dispersed beyond, those experimental range, the frequency of depredation depredations for the first time, areas were protected under the Act as incidents is increasing, yet there are regardless of the number of breeding endangered gray wolves; thus, wolves in fewer suitable release sites available. pairs on federally managed land. (The and around Glacier National Park in Releases of depredating wolves at previous special regulations that will northwestern Montana were endangered marginal locations (that is, near existing continue to apply within the two wolves. In contrast, the new wolf packs or too close to their capture experimental population areas require reclassification to threatened status and site) are likely to fail. For example, a the release of such female wolves with the new section 4(d) special regulation depredating wolf recently released into pups only if there are fewer than six will apply a degree of greater the Nicolet National Forest in breeding pairs present in that management flexibility across the rest of Wisconsin at a location 46 miles from experimental population area.) the area defined as the Western DPS, his initial capture had returned to The new special regulation will allow which includes all of seven States and within 23 miles of his capture location us to issue permits for private portions of two others. where he was mistaken for a coyote and landowners to take wolves on their In conclusion, the new 4(d) rule for shot only 13 days after his release. private lands if we have determined that the Western Gray Wolf DPS will Further compounding the problem of wolves are routinely present on that continue to protect wolves from human successfully moving and releasing land and present a significant risk to persecution outside of the two depredating wolves is the local livestock, herding or guard animals, and experimental population areas, but will opposition that has recently arisen to dogs. (The previous special regulations improve and expand the management such releases in some Wisconsin that will continue to apply within the options for problem wolves. By focusing counties, with at least one county board two experimental areas have no specific management efforts on the occasional passing a resolution opposing releases provision for this type of permit to take problem wolf, we believe that the public by the DNR. wolves, but such permits can potentially will become more tolerant of Similar problems with relocating be issued under 50 CFR 17.32.) nondepredating wolves. On the basis of depredating wolves have occurred in The new special regulation addresses our experience with wolf recovery in northwestern Montana. Between 1987 public concerns about the presence of Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the end of 2001, 117 wolves were wolves disrupting traditional human Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, we relocated because of conflicts with uses of Federal land. Except for within expect this increased public tolerance to livestock. Few of these wolves National Parks and National Wildlife result in fewer illegal killings of contributed toward wolf recovery and Refuges, the only potential restrictions Western DPS wolves and more many often caused additional livestock on federally managed lands may be opportunity for us to work with local depredations or did not survive long

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:40 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15868 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

enough to reproduce. A review of wolf expansion in either of these States. As Dakota and South Dakota means that relocation as a means of reducing their wolf populations already exceed depredating wolves are likely to travel depredations on livestock in the Federal numerical delisting a greater distance from the depredation northwestern Montana concluded that criterion, this take will have no effect on site to secure cover, we will allow lethal relocation should be discontinued and the recovery of wolves in the Eastern depredation control actions to be that both livestock losses and DPS. The level and effects of this take undertaken up to 4 miles from the depredation control costs could be will be closely monitored by continuing depredation site. reduced by killing, instead of relocating, the annual monitoring of wolf The other Eastern DPS States that are depredating wolves (63 FR 20212, April populations in these States and the west of Pennsylvania, and thus are 23, 1998; Bangs 1998; Bangs et al. 1998). required reporting of the lethal take subject to this special regulation, have This new special regulation allows us, within 15 days under this special had few reports of wolves in the last 100 the Michigan and Wisconsin DNRs, the regulation. years. The number of gray wolves that wildlife management agencies of North These new depredation control will be taken under its provisions will Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, activities will be limited to an area be very small, and will be of no Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, within one mile of the depredation site consequence to ongoing wolf recovery Indiana, and Ohio, or tribes within these in Wisconsin and Michigan. Because programs. In the event that a gray wolf States, or the designated agents of these wolf pack territories are large (in disperses into one of these States and agencies and tribes to carry out the full Wisconsin and Michigan they range attacks domestic animals, it will be spectrum of depredation control actions, from 52 to 518 sq km (20 to 200 sq mi), important for the State or tribe to have from nonlethal opportunistic and the locations of Wisconsin and this lethal control authority, because harassment to lethal control of Michigan wolf packs are much more most of these areas have no suitable depredating wolves. The restrictions for precisely known (due primarily to the locations to release a depredating wolf. lethal depredation control actions will high percentage of radio-tracked packs Due to the extremely low probability be similar to those used for the in these States) than is the case for that a nondepredating wolf will be Minnesota wolf depredation control Minnesota wolf packs, it will be mistakenly taken instead of the program since 1985: (1) Wolf possible for depredation control actions depredating wolf, we are applying the 4- depredation on lawfully present to be directed at only the depredating mile limit in these States, as well. domestic animals must be verified, (2) pack. Thus, the one-mile limit is Therefore, because of the anticipated the depredation is likely to be repeated, sufficiently large to enable depredation low level of additional mortality that (3) the taking must occur within one control trappers to focus their trapping will result from this special regulation, mile of the depredation site in Michigan within the activity areas of the target and the likely larger increase in illegal and Wisconsin, and within 4 miles of pack without being so large that it wolf killing and loss of public support the depredation site in other area of the results in a significant risk of for wolf recovery that we expect to be Eastern DPS that are west of accidentally trapping wolves from prevented by this 4(d) rule, we find that Pennsylvania, (4) taking, wolf handling, nearby nondepredating packs. this special rule is necessary and and euthanizing must be carried out in The situation in North Dakota and advisable to provide for the a humane manner, which includes the South Dakota is quite different from that conservation of the Eastern DPS of the use of steel leghold traps, and (5) any in Michigan or Wisconsin. Wolves that gray wolf. appear in North Dakota and South young of the year trapped before August Available Conservation Measures 1 must be released. Dakota are dispersing individuals from Lethal depredation control has been Minnesota and Canada, or rarely may be Conservation measures provided to successful in reducing conflicts between from a pair or small pack along North species listed as endangered or the recovering wolf population and Dakota’s border with Canada. None of threatened under the Act include domestic animals in Minnesota. It our recovery plans or recovery programs recognition, recovery actions, resolves the immediate depredation recommends actions to promote gray requirements for Federal protection, and problem without the removal of wolf restoration in either of these two prohibitions against certain practices. excessive numbers of wolves, and States, and we do not believe the Act Recognition through listing encourages avoids removing any wolves when the requires or encourages such recovery and results in conservation actions by depredation was not verified as being actions. We also recognize that, due to Federal, State, and private agencies, caused by wolves or is not likely to be the more open landscape of these States, groups, and individuals. The Act repeated. It is significantly less and the high likelihood that dispersing provides for possible land acquisition expensive, less labor-intensive, and wolves will encounter livestock, wolves and cooperation with the States and more effective than translocating such are more likely to become involved in requires that recovery actions be carried problem wolves, and thus is more depredations on domestic animals. out for all listed species. Most of these appropriate for the rapidly expanding Therefore, we believe we should measures have already been wolf populations that now exist in provide a mechanism for prompt control successfully applied to gray wolves in Michigan and Wisconsin. of depredating wolves in these States. the conterminous 48 States. Based upon Minnesota wolf Because there are very few or no Under this final rule, the protections depredation control data from the early established wolf packs in these States, of the Act will continue to apply to the 1980s when the wolf population was and there are very few wolves gray wolves in the endangered probably less than 1,500 animals, we dispersing into these States, we believe Southwestern Gray Wolf DPS, to the estimate that a maximum of about 2 to there is minimal risk, when taking threatened Eastern and Western Gray 3 percent of Wisconsin and Michigan control actions under this special Wolf DPSs, and to the gray wolves in wolves will be taken annually under the regulation, of accidentally trapping or the three nonessential experimental provisions of this special regulation. At shooting wolves from a nearby populations. The protections of the Act current population levels this will be nondepredating pack or dispersers that are removed only from parts or all of 16 about 6 to 9 wolves per State. This level are not involved in the depredation. For States where gray wolves did not of take should not appreciably affect the this reason, as well as recognition that historically occur. This final rule does wolf population or its continued the much more open landscape of North not modify or withdraw the existing

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:40 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15869

special regulations or the nonessential listing under the Act, except where the (3) Taking of gray wolves within the experimental population designations species occurs on an area within the Western DPS in a manner not for the reintroduced gray wolf National Wildlife Refuge System or the authorized under the provisions of the populations in Idaho, Montana, National Park System. For all other 4(d) special regulations finalized by this Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, and purposes of the Act, gray wolves that are document, or in a manner not Texas, nor does it make any changes to currently designated as experimental authorized under the existing the threatened classification and populations shall continue to be treated experimental population regulations existing section 4(d) special regulation as a threatened species. Furthermore, which will continue to apply to gray for gray wolves in Minnesota. Similarly, the existing special regulations found in wolves in Wyoming and in parts of the existing critical habitat designations 50 CFR 17.84(i) and 17.84(k) regarding Idaho and Montana; for portions of Minnesota and Michigan the taking of wolves depredating on (4) Taking of gray wolves within the will remain unchanged, and will livestock in these experimental Eastern DPS in a manner not authorized continue to be considered during population areas continue to apply. in the existing section 4(d) special consultations with other Federal The Act and implementing regulation for Minnesota, in the section agencies under section 7 of the Act. This regulations set forth a series of general 4(d) special regulation finalized by this final rule does not affect the listing or prohibitions and exceptions that apply document for other States in this DPS protection of the red wolf (Canis rufus). to endangered and threatened wildlife. that are west of Pennsylvania, or in 50 The protection required of Federal The prohibitions codified at 50 CFR CFR 17.31 for the Eastern DPS States agencies and the prohibitions against 17.21 and 17.31 in part make it illegal east of Ohio; taking and harm are discussed in the for any person subject to the jurisdiction (5) Intentional killing of a live-trapped Summary of Factors Affecting the of the United States to take (including wild canid that is demonstrably too Species section, factor D, The adequacy harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, large to be a coyote (that is, greater than or inadequacy of existing regulatory wound, kill, trap, or collect; or to 27 kg (60 lb)) in the Northeastern States mechanisms, above. attempt any of these), import or export, that are included in the Eastern DPS; or Section 7(a) of the Act requires ship in interstate commerce in the (6) Killing or injuring of, or engaging Federal agencies to evaluate their course of commercial activity, or sell or in the interstate commerce of, captive actions with respect to any species that offer for sale in interstate or foreign gray wolves which originated from, or is listed as endangered or threatened commerce, any listed species. It also is whose ancestors originated from, the and with respect to its critical habitat, illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, areas included within the Western, if any is being designated. Regulations transport, or ship any such wildlife that Eastern, or Southwestern DPSs, unless implementing this interagency has been taken illegally. Certain authorized in a Service permit. cooperation provision of the Act are exceptions apply to agents of the We believe, based on the best codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section Service and State conservation agencies. available information, that the following 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to Additionally, as discussed above, actions will not result in a violation of ensure that activities they authorize, special regulations promulgated under section 9: fund, or carry out are not likely to (1) Taking of a gray wolf in defense sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act jeopardize the continued existence of of human life, or a taking by designated provide additional exceptions to these any species listed as endangered or agency personnel in response to a general prohibitions for the gray wolf. threatened, or to destroy or adversely demonstrable, but nonimmediate threat It is our policy (59 FR 34272; July 1, modify its critical habitat. If a Federal to human safety; action may affect a listed species or its 1994) to identify, to the maximum (2) Taking of wild gray wolves in the critical habitat, the responsible Federal extent practicable at the time a species 16–State area where we have delisted agency must enter into consultation is listed, those activities that would or the gray wolf; with us. If a Federal action is likely to would not constitute a violation of (3) Taking of gray wolves under the jeopardize a species proposed to be section 9 of the Act. The intent of this provisions of the existing special listed as threatened or endangered or policy is to increase public awareness of regulations established for the three destroy or adversely modify proposed the effect of the listing on proposed and designated nonessential experimental critical habitat, the responsible Federal ongoing activities within a species’ populations in Arizona, New Mexico, agency must confer with us. range. Activities that we believe could Texas, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana as Federal agency actions that may potentially harm or kill the gray wolf in long as those designations and special require consultation or conferencing, as the area where it will remain listed as regulations remain in effect; described in the preceding paragraph, threatened or endangered and may (4) Taking of gray wolves under the include activities by the U.S. Forest result in a violation of section 9 include, provisions of the special regulations Service, the National Park Service, the but are not limited to: under section 4(d) of the Act, as U.S. Geological Survey, USDA/APHIS- (1) Taking of gray wolves by any finalized at this time for threatened gray Wildlife Services, the Bureau of Land means or manner not authorized under wolves in the Western DPS or the Management, the U.S. Department of the provisions of the existing special Eastern Gray Wolf DPS States which are Transportation, the U.S. Environmental regulation established for the designated west of Pennsylvania and excluding Protection Agency, and activities that nonessential experimental population in Minnesota; we may undertake. Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas as (5) Taking of gray wolves under the However, under section 10(j)(2)(C) of long as that designation and special provisions of the existing special the Act, for those three areas currently regulation remain in effect; regulation at 50 CFR 17.40(d) for designated as nonessential experimental (2) Taking captive Southwestern Minnesota wolves; or populations in Montana, Idaho, (Mexican) gray wolves unless such (6) taking of captive Southwestern Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, and taking results from implementation of (Mexican) gray wolves in accordance Texas, for the purpose of interagency husbandry protocols approved under with husbandry protocols approved consultation under section 7 of the Act the Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan under the Mexican Wolf Species the gray wolf will continue to be or are otherwise approved or permitted Survival Plan or other approvals or considered a species proposed for by the Service; permits issued by the Service.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:40 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15870 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

Permits may be issued to carry out where they are listed as threatened. A geographically scattered and minor, otherwise prohibited activities special regulation exists for Minnesota economic benefits will occur for involving endangered and threatened wolves that allows the Service, the MN livestock producers in the other Eastern wildlife under certain circumstances. DNR, other designated agencies, and DPS States west of Pennsylvania where Regulations governing permits are at 50 their agents to manage wolves to ensure this new 4(d) rule will also apply. CFR 13, 17.22, 17.23, and 17.32. For minimal economic impact. That current The majority of wolves in the West endangered species such permits are special regulation allows some direct are protected under nonessential available for scientific purposes, to ‘‘take’’ of wolves. A State program experimental population designations enhance the propagation or survival of compensates livestock producers up to that cover Wyoming, most of Idaho, and the species, for incidental take in full market value if they suffer southern Montana and that treat wolves connection with otherwise lawful confirmed livestock losses by wolves. as threatened species. A smaller, but activities, and/or for economic The value of the confirmed livestock naturally occurring population of about hardship. For threatened species such losses amounted to an annual average of 84 wolves is found in northwestern permits are also available for zoological about $64,000 over the last five years Montana. The wolves with the exhibition, educational purposes, and/ (Paul 2001). Because this new regulation nonessential experimental population or for special purposes consistent with does not affect the existing special designations were reintroduced into the purposes of the Act, but not for regulations for Minnesota wolves, there these States from Canada. Special economic hardship. will be no resulting economic effect on regulations exist for these experimental Questions regarding whether specific livestock producers or other economic populations that allow government activities may constitute a violation of activities in Minnesota. employees and designated agents, as well as livestock producers, to take section 9 should be directed to the This regulation reclassifies wolves in problem wolves. Because this final rule nearest regional or Ecological Services Michigan and Wisconsin from does not change the nonessential field office of the Service. Requests for endangered to threatened and provides experimental designation or associated copies of the regulations regarding listed special regulations similar to those special regulations, it will have no species and inquiries about prohibitions already existing for Minnesota, as economic impact on livestock producers and permits may be addressed to any described above. Thus, specified State, or other entities in these areas. Service Regional Office or to the tribal, and Federal agencies and their However, the naturally occurring Washington headquarters office. The designated agents will be allowed to kill location, address, and phone number of wolves in northwestern Montana wolves that have been verified as killing (outside of the nonessential the nearest regional or Ecological or attacking domestic animals. Under Services field office may be obtained by experimental population areas) and the normal protections of the Act, that wolves that may occur in other western calling us at 703–358–2171 or by using is, without the benefit of these special our World Wide Web site at: http:// States are now reclassified from regulations for Michigan and Wisconsin, endangered to threatened status. Under www.fws.gov/where/index.html. permits would be required. This special This final rule is not an irreversible normal protections of the Act, that is, regulation benefits the small percentage without the benefit of special action on our part. Reclassifying either of livestock producers in wolf range in or both of the Eastern and Western DPSs regulations hereby put into place for the Michigan and Wisconsin that western States not included in the back to endangered status is possible, experience wolf attacks on their and will be considered, should changes nonessential experimental designation, animals. Since only about 1.2 percent of permits would be required for nearly all occur that alter the species’ status or livestock producers in nearby significantly increase the threats to the forms of take of these wolves. For Minnesota, where the wolf population is example, prior to this final rule a private survival of either of these DPSs. Because much greater (Minnesota contains more changes in status or increases in threats landowner on his or her own land in than 2,500 wolves, while Wisconsin and northwestern Montana could not take a might occur in a number of ways, it is Michigan have 323 and 278 wolves, unwise at this point to specify criteria wolf in the act of attacking livestock. respectively), are adversely affected This final rule allows such take without that would trigger a reclassification annually by wolves, the potential proposal. a permit. The reduction of the beneficial effect to livestock producers restrictions on taking problem wolves Required Determinations in Michigan and Wisconsin is small, but will make their control easier and more it may be important to a few producers. effective, thus reducing the economic Regulatory Planning and Review, In addition, State programs in Michigan losses that result from wolf depredation Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Small and Wisconsin compensate livestock on livestock and guard animals and Business Regulatory Enforcement producers if they suffer confirmed dogs. Furthermore, a private program Fairness livestock losses by wolves. In compensates livestock producers if they This rule was subject to Office of Wisconsin, compensation is paid at full suffer confirmed livestock losses by Management and Budget review under market value. Until recently, MI DNR wolves. Since 1996, average Executive Order 12866. Because this provided partial compensation, but now compensation for livestock losses has regulation is not expected to have a is paying full compensation with the been slightly over $10,000 in each significant economic effect, only a assistance of the International Wolf recovery area per year. The potential qualitative assessment of the potential Center, Defenders of Wildlife, and other effect on livestock producers in western costs and benefits is included. Because private funding sources. The net effect States outside of the experimental of the added management flexibility of the reclassification and 4(d) rule to population is small, but more flexible provided by the 4(d) regulations, this livestock producers in Michigan and wolf management will be entirely regulation is expected to result in a Wisconsin is that the control of beneficial to their operation. small economic gain to some livestock depredating wolves will become more We have delisted the gray wolf in all producers within the wolf range. efficient and effective, thus reducing the or parts of 16 States in this final rule, Currently the vast majority of wolves economic burden of livestock producers because this area is outside of the that occur in the western Great Lakes resulting from wolf recovery in those historical range of the gray wolf. These area are found in the State of Minnesota States. Similar positive, but areas currently contain no wolves, and

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:40 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15871

they should not have been included in programs are also in place to offset Government-to-Government the original listing of the species. losses to individual livestock producers. Relationship with Tribes Current regulations that protect wolves Thus, even if livestock producers In accordance with the President’s there are unnecessary and affected are small businesses, their memorandum of April 29, 1994, inappropriate. Livestock producers and combined economic effects will be ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations other economic activities in these States minimal and the effects are a benefit to with Native American Tribal have not been affected by the gray wolf small business. Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive and will not be affected by the actions b. This regulation will not cause a Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have in this final rule, because we are simply major increase in costs or prices for coordinated this rule with the affected removing the current regulations which consumers, individual industries, tribes. Throughout development of this have no effect on landowners. Federal, State, or local government a. This regulation does not have an rule, we endeavored to consult with agencies, or geographic regions. annual economic effect of $100 million Native American tribes and Native or adversely affect an economic sector, c. This regulation will not have a American organizations in order both to productivity, jobs, the environment, or significant adverse effect on provide them with a complete other units of government. As explained competition, employment, investment, understanding of the proposed changes above, this regulation will result in only productivity, innovation, or the ability and also to enable ourselves to gain an minor positive economic effects for a of U.S.-based enterprises to compete appreciation of their concerns with small percentage of livestock producers. with foreign-based enterprises. those changes. We fully considered all b. This regulation will not create of their comments on the proposed gray inconsistencies with other agencies’ Unfunded Mandates Reform Act wolf reclassification and delisting submitted during the public comment actions. This regulation reflects In accordance with the Unfunded period and have tried to address those continuing success in recovering the Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, et concerns to the extent allowed by the gray wolf through long-standing seq.): cooperative and complementary Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, programs by a number of Federal, State, a. The Service has determined and and other Federal statutes. certifies pursuant to the Unfunded and tribal agencies. Civil Justice Reform c. This regulation will not materially Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et affect entitlements, grants, user fees, seq., that this rulemaking will not In accordance with Executive Order loan programs, or the rights and impose a cost of $100 million or more 12988, this regulation does not unduly obligations of their recipients. in any given year on local or State burden the judicial system. governments or private entities. As d. This regulation raises novel legal or Paperwork Reduction Act policy issues, and for this reason, OMB stated above, this regulation will result has reviewed this rule. in only minor positive economic effects This regulation does not contain any This regulation will not have a for a very small percentage of livestock new collections of information other significant economic effect on a producers. than those permit application forms substantial number of small entities as b. This regulation will not produce a already approved under the Paperwork defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Federal mandate of $100 million or Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). As stated greater in any year; that is, it is not a and assigned Office of Management and above, this regulation will result in ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Budget clearance number 1018–0094. minor positive economic effects for a the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Executive Order 13211 very small percentage of livestock This regulation will not impose any producers. Only 1.2 percent of the additional wolf management or On May 18, 2001, the President issued livestock producers are affected protection requirements on the States or Executive Order 13211 on regulations annually in Minnesota by the other entities. that significantly affect energy supply, preexisting regulations, and a smaller distribution, and use. Executive Order number are expected to be affected by Takings Implications Assessment 13211 requires Federal agencies to these new regulations in the other prepare Statements of Energy Effects In accordance with Executive Order States. when undertaking certain actions. This This regulation will not be a major 12630, this regulation will not have rule is not expected to significantly rule under 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., the significant implications concerning affect energy supplies, distribution, or Small Business Regulatory Enforcement taking of private property by the Federal use. Therefore, this action is not a Fairness Act. Government. This regulation will significant energy action, and no a. This regulation will not produce an reduce regulatory restrictions on private Statement of Energy Effects is required. annual economic effect of $100 million. lands and, as stated above, will result in The majority of livestock producers minor positive economic effects for a National Environmental Policy Act within the range of the wolf are small small percentage of livestock producers. We have analyzed this rulemaking in family-owned dairies or ranches and the Federalism Assessment accordance with the criteria of the total number of livestock producers that National Environmental Policy Act and may be affected by wolves is small. (For In accordance with Executive Order 318 DM 2.2(g) and 6.3(D). We have example, only about 1.2 percent of 13132, this regulation will not have determined that Environmental livestock producers in Minnesota is significant Federalism effects. This Assessments and Environmental Impact affected annually by wolves where the regulation will not have a substantial Statements, as defined under the largest wolf population, by far, exists.) direct effect on the States, on the authority of the National Environmental The finalized take regulations will relationship between the States and the Policy Act of 1969, need not be further reduce the effect that wolves Federal Government, or on the prepared in connection with regulations will have on individual livestock distribution of power and adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the producers by reducing or eliminating responsibilities among the various Act. A notice outlining our reasons for permit requirements. Compensation levels of government. this determination was published in the

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:40 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15872 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 Author Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. (48 FR 49244). The primary author of this rule is 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. Section 7 Consultation Ronald Refsnider, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, ■ 2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by We do not need to complete a Minnesota Regional Office (see removing the first two entries for the gray consultation under section 7 of the Act ADDRESSES section). Substantial for this rulemaking. The actions of contributions were also made by Service wolf (Canis lupus) under MAMMALS in listing, delisting, or reclassifying species employees Michael Amaral (Concord, the List of Endangered and Threatened under the Act are not subject to the New Hampshire), Ed Bangs (Helena, Wildlife and adding in their place the requirements of section 7 of the Act. An Montana), Brian Kelly (Albuquerque, following three entries, while retaining intra-Service consultation is completed New Mexico), and Paul Nickerson the current final two entries for the gray prior to the implementation of recovery (Hadley, Massachusetts). wolf, which designate nonessential or permitting actions for listed species. experimental populations in Wyoming, Regulation Promulgation Idaho, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, References Cited ■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, sub- and Texas: A complete list of all references cited chapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulation, as set forth below: § 17.11 Endangered and threatened in this document is available upon wildlife. request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife PART 17—[AMENDED] Service Region 3 Office at Ft. Snelling, * * * * * Minnesota (see FOR FURTHER ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 (h) * * * INFORMATION CONTACT section). continues to read as follows:

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

Mammals

******* Wolf, gray ...... Canis lupus ...... Holarctic ...... Southwestern Distinct Population E 1, 6, 13, 15, NA NA Segment-U.S.A. (AZ, NM, CO 35, 631, south of Interstate Highway 70, 735. UT south of U.S. Highway 50, OK and TX, except those parts of OK and TX east of Inter- state Highway 35; except where listed as an experi- mental population); Mexico. Do ...... do ...... do ...... Eastern Distinct Population T 1, 6, 13, 15, 17.95(a) 17.40(d) Segment—U.S.A. (CT, IA, IL, 35,735. 17.40(o) IN, KS, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, SD, VT, and WI) Do ...... do ...... do ...... Western Distinct Population T 1, 6, 13, 15, NA 17.40(n) Segment—U.S.A. (CA, ID, MT, 35, 561, NV, OR, WA, WY, UT north of 562, 735. U.S. Highway 50, and CO north of Interstate Highway 70, except where listed as an ex- perimental population).

*******

■ 3. The Service amends § 17.40 by within the experimental populations survived until December 31 of the year adding new paragraphs (n) and (o) to areas in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming of their birth. read as follows: established under section 10(j) of the (iii) Domestic animals. Animals that Act and delineated in § 17.84(i). § 17.40 Special rules—mammals. have been selectively bred over many generations to enhance specific traits for * * * * * (2) Definitions of terms used in (n) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) in paragraph (n) of this section. their use by humans, including use as pets. This includes livestock (as defined Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, (i) Active den site. A den or a specific below) and dogs. Nevada, Montana, Utah north of U.S. aboveground site that is being used on Highway 50, and Colorado north of a daily basis by wolves to raise newborn (iv) Livestock. Cattle, sheep, horses, Interstate Highway 70, except where pups during the period April 1 to June mules, and herding or guard animals listed as an experimental population. 30. (llamas, donkeys, and certain special- (1) Application of this special rule to use breeds of dogs commonly used for the experimental populations located in (ii) Breeding pair. An adult male and guarding or herding livestock) or as Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. an adult female wolf that, during the otherwise defined in State and tribal Paragraphs (n) (2) through (6) of this previous breeding season, have wolf management plans as approved by section do not apply to gray wolves produced at least two pups that the Service. This excludes dogs that are

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:40 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15873

not being used for livestock guarding or harassment must occur as specifically Act and delineated in § 17.84(i). In order herding. identified in the Service permit. for this provision to apply, the States or (v) Noninjurious. Does not cause (iii) Taking by landowners on private tribes must define in their wolf either temporary or permanent physical land. Landowners may take wolves on management plan such unacceptable damage or death. privately owned land in the following impacts, describe how they will be (vi) Opportunistic harassment. two additional circumstances: measured, and identify possible Harassment without the conduct of (A) Any landowner may take a gray mitigation measures. Before wolves can prior purposeful actions to attract, track, wolf that is in the act of biting, be captured and moved, we must wait for, or search out the wolf. wounding, or killing livestock or dogs, approve these plans and determine that (vii) Problem wolves. Wolves that provided that the landowner provides such actions will not inhibit wolf attack livestock, or wolves that twice in evidence of animal(s) freshly (less than population growth toward recovery a calendar year attack domestic animals 24 hours) wounded or killed by wolves, levels. In addition, if, after 10 breeding other than livestock. and we or our designated agent are able pairs are established in the State, we (viii) Public land. Federal land and to confirm that the animal(s) were determine that wolves are causing any other public land designated in wounded or killed by wolves. The unacceptable impacts to wild ungulate State and tribal wolf management plans taking of any wolf without such populations, we may, in cooperation as approved by the Service. evidence may be referred to the with the appropriate State fish and game (ix) Remove. Place in captivity or kill appropriate authorities for prosecution. agencies or tribes, capture and move (B) A private landowner may be or release in another location. wolves to other areas within the States issued a limited duration permit identified in paragraph (n) of this (x) Wounded. Exhibiting torn flesh pursuant to § 17.32 to take a gray wolf and bleeding or other evidence of section or experimental populations on the landowner’s private land if: areas in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. physical damage caused by a wolf bite. (1) This private property or an (3) Allowable forms of take of gray adjacent private property has had at (vi) Take in defense of human life. wolves. The following activities, only in least two depredations by wolves on Any person may take a gray wolf in the specific circumstances described in livestock or dogs that have been defense of the individual’s life or the paragraph (n) of this section, are confirmed by us or our designated life of another person. The unauthorized allowed: opportunistic harassment; agent; and taking of a wolf without an immediate intentional harassment; taking on (2) We or our designated agent have and direct threat to human life may be private land; taking on public land; determined that wolves are routinely referred to the appropriate authorities taking in response to impacts on wild present on that private property and for prosecution. ungulates; taking in defense of human present a significant risk to the health (vii) Take to protect human safety. We life; taking to protect human safety; and safety of livestock or dogs. The or a Federal land management agency or taking by government agents to remove landowner must conduct the take in a State or tribal conservation agency problem wolves; incidental take; taking compliance with the permit issued by may promptly remove any wolf that we under permits; and taking per the Service. or our designated agent determines to be authorizations for agency employees. (iv) Take on public land. Under the a demonstrable but nonimmediate threat Other than as expressly provided in this authority of § 17.32, we may issue to human life or safety. rule, all the prohibitions of § 17.31(a) permits to take gray wolves under (viii) Take of problem wolves by and (b) apply, and all other take certain circumstances to livestock Service personnel or our designated activities are considered a violation of producers or permittees who are legally agent. We or our designated agent may section 9 of the Act. Any wolf, or wolf using public land under valid livestock carry out aversive conditioning, part, taken legally must be turned over grazing allotments. The permits, which nonlethal control, relocation, permanent to the Service unless otherwise may be valid for up to 45 days, can placement in captivity, or lethal control specified in paragraph (n) of this allow the take of a gray wolf that is in of problem wolves. If nonlethal section. Any taking of wolves must be the act of killing, wounding, or biting depredation control activities occurring reported to the Service as outlined in livestock, after we or our designated on public lands result in the capture, paragraph (n)(6) of this section. agent have confirmed that wolves have prior to October 1, of a female wolf (i) Opportunistic harassment. previously wounded or killed livestock, showing signs that she is still raising Landowners on their own land and and agency efforts to resolve the pups of the year (e.g., evidence of livestock producers or permittees who problem have been completed and were lactation, recent sightings with pups), are legally using public land under valid ineffective. We or our designated agent whether or not she is captured with her livestock grazing allotments may will investigate and determine if the pups, then she and her pups may be conduct opportunistic harassment of previously wounded or killed livestock released at or near the site of capture. any gray wolf in a noninjurious manner were wounded or killed by wolves. Female wolves with pups may be at any time. Opportunistic harassment There must be evidence of livestock removed if continued depredation must be reported to the Service within freshly wounded or killed by wolves. occurs. Problem wolves that depredate 7 days as outlined in paragraph (n)(6) of The taking of any wolf without such on domestic animals more than twice in this section. evidence may be referred to the a calendar year, including female (ii) Intentional harassment. After we appropriate authorities for prosecution. wolves with pups regardless of whether or our designated agent have confirmed (v) Take in response to wild ungulate on public or private lands, may be persistent wolf activity on privately impacts. If wolves are causing moved or removed from the wild. To owned land or on a public land grazing unacceptable impacts to wild ungulate determine the presence of problem allotment, we may, pursuant to § 17.32, populations, a State or tribe may capture wolves, we or our agents will consider issue a 90-day permit, with appropriate and move wolves to other areas within all of the following: conditions, to any landowner to harass the States identified in paragraph (n) of (A) Evidence of wounded livestock or wolves in a potentially injurious this section or experimental populations other domestic animals or remains of a manner (such as by projectiles designed areas in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming carcass that shows that the injury or to be nonlethal to larger mammals). The established under section 10(j) of the death was caused by wolves;

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:40 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 15874 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations

(B) The likelihood that additional export by any means whatsoever, any (2) Allowable forms of take of gray losses may occur if no control action is wolf or wolf part from the State of origin wolves. The following activities, in taken; taken in violation of the regulations in certain circumstances as described (C) Any evidence of unusual paragraph (n) of this section or in below, are allowed: Take in defense of attractants or artificial or intentional violation of applicable State or tribal human life; take to protect human feeding of wolves; and fish and wildlife laws or regulations or safety; take to aid, salvage, or dispose; (D) Evidence that, on public lands, if the Act. take for depredation control; take under animal husbandry practices were (iii) In addition to the offenses cooperative agreements; and take under previously identified in existing defined in paragraph (n) of this section, permit. As stated in § 17.31(c), the approved allotment plans and annual we consider any attempts to commit, provisions of this paragraph (o) contain operating plans for allotments, they solicitations of another to commit, or all the applicable take prohibitions and were followed. actions that cause to be committed any exceptions; all other take activities in (ix) Incidental take. Take of a gray such offenses to be unlawful. these States are considered a violation wolf is allowed if the take was (iv) Use of unlawfully taken wolves. of section 9 of the Act. Any wolf, or accidental and incidental to an No person, except for an authorized wolf part, taken legally must be turned otherwise lawful activity and if person, may possess, deliver, carry, over to the Service unless otherwise reasonable due care was practiced to transport, or ship a gray wolf taken specified in paragraph (o) of this avoid such taking. Incidental take is not unlawfully. section. Any taking of wolves must be allowed if the take is not accidental or (5) Federal land use. Restrictions on reported to the Service as outlined in if reasonable due care was not practiced the use of any Federal lands may be put paragraph (o)(4) of this section. to avoid such taking; we may refer such in place to prevent the take of wolves (i) Take in defense of human life. Any taking to the appropriate authorities for at active den sites between April 1 and person may take a gray wolf in defense prosecution. Shooters have the June 30. Otherwise, no additional land- of the individual’s life or the life of responsibility to identify their target use restrictions on Federal lands, except another person. The unauthorized before shooting. Shooting a wolf as a for National Parks or National Wildlife taking of a wolf without an immediate result of mistaking it for another species Refuges, will be necessary to reduce or and direct threat to human life may be is not considered accidental and may be prevent take of wolves solely to benefit referred to the appropriate authorities referred to the appropriate authorities gray wolf recovery under the Act. This for prosecution. (ii) Take to protect human safety. We for prosecution. prohibition does not preclude restricting or a Federal land management agency or (x) Take under permits. Any person land use when necessary to reduce a State or tribal conservation agency, or with a valid permit issued by the negative impacts of wolf restoration an agent of one of these agencies who Service under § 17.32 may take wolves efforts on other endangered or is designated in writing for such in the wild, pursuant to terms of the threatened species. purpose, may promptly remove any permit. (6) Reporting requirements. Except as wolf that the agency determines to be a (xi) Additional taking authorizations otherwise specified in paragraph (n) of demonstrable but nonimmediate threat for agency employees. When acting in this section or in a permit issued under to human life or safety. the course of official duties, any § 17.32, any taking of a gray wolf must employee of the Service or appropriate (iii) Allowable take for aiding, be reported to the Service within 24 salvaging, or disposing of specimens. Federal, State, or tribal agency, who is hours. We will allow additional designated as an agent in writing for When acting in the course of official reasonable time if access to the site is duties, any authorized employee or such purposes by the Service, may take limited. Report wolf takings, including a wolf or wolf-like canid for the agent of the Service, any other Federal opportunistic harassment, to U.S. Fish land management agency or the wildlife following purposes; such take must be and Wildlife Service, Western Gray reported to the Service within 15 days conservation agency of a State or of a Wolf Recovery Coordinator (100 N. federally recognized Native American as outlined in paragraph (n)(6) of this Park, #320, Helena, MT 59601; 406– section and specimens may be retained tribe, who is designated by his/her 449–5225 extension 204; facsimile 406– agency for such purposes, may take a or disposed of only in accordance with 449–5339), or a Service-designated directions from the Service: gray wolf in the person’s area of representative of another Federal, State, jurisdiction without a Federal permit if (A) Scientific purposes; or tribal agency. Unless otherwise (B) Avoiding conflict with human such action is necessary for the specified in paragraph (n) of this activities; following purposes; such take must be section, any wolf or wolf part, taken (C) Improving wolf survival and reported to the Service within 15 days legally must be turned over to the recovery prospects; as outlined in paragraph (o)(4) of this (D) Aiding or euthanizing sick, Service, which will determine the section, and specimens may be retained injured, or orphaned wolves; disposition of any live or dead wolves. or disposed of only in accordance with (E) Disposing of a dead specimen; (o) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) in North directions from the Service: (F) Salvaging a dead specimen that Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, (A) Aiding a sick, injured, or may be used for scientific study; Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, orphaned specimen; (G) Aiding in law enforcement Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. (B) Disposing of a dead specimen; or investigations involving wolves; or (1) Definitions of terms used in (C) Salvaging a dead specimen that (H) Preventing wolves with abnormal paragraph (o) of this section. may be useful for scientific study or for physical or behavioral characteristics, as (i) Domestic animals. Animals that traditional cultural purposes by Native determined by the Service, from passing have been selectively bred over many American tribes. on those traits to other wolves. generations to enhance specific traits for (iv) Allowable take for depredation (4) Prohibited take of gray wolves. their use by humans, including use as control. When acting in the course of (i) Any manner of take not described pets. official duties, any authorized employee under paragraph (n)(3) of this section. (ii) Livestock. Cattle, sheep, horses, or agent of the Service, of the wildlife (ii) No person may possess, sell, and mules or as otherwise defined in conservation agency of a State, or of a deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or State and tribal wolf management plans. federally recognized Native American

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:40 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 15875

tribe, who is designated by his/her respective State to carry out scientific takings in North Dakota, South Dakota, agency for such purposes, may take a research or conservation programs. Such Nebraska, and Kansas to 303–236–7540, gray wolf or wolves within the person’s takings must be reported to the Service and in Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, State or, in the case of a tribal employee, as specified in the reporting provisions Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio to within that person’s Reservation of the cooperative agreement. 612–713–5320, or a Service-designated boundaries, in response to depredation (vi) Take under permit. Any person representative of another Federal, State, by a gray wolf on lawfully present who has a permit under § 17.32 may or tribal agency. (Individuals who are livestock or domestic animals. However, carry out activities as specified by the hearing-impaired or speech-impaired such taking must be preceded by a permit with regard to gray wolves in the may call the Federal Relay Service at 1– determination by one of the agencies area covered by paragraph (o) of this 800–877–8337.) Unless otherwise listed in paragraph (o) of this section section. specified in paragraph (n) of this that the depredation was likely to have (3) Prohibited take of gray wolves. section, any wolf or wolf part, taken been caused by a gray wolf and (i) Any form of taking not described legally must be turned over to the depredation at the site is likely to in paragraph (o)(2) of this section is Service, which will determine the continue in the absence of a taking. In prohibited. disposition of any live or dead wolves. addition, such taking must be performed (ii) Export and commercial (5) Take regulations for States in the in a humane manner and occur within transactions. Except as may be Eastern Gray Wolf Distinct Population 1 mile of the place where the authorized by a permit issued Segment (DPS) not covered by this depredation occurred if in Michigan or under§ 17.32, no person may sell or paragraph (o). This special rule does not Wisconsin, and within 4 miles of the offer for sale in interstate commerce, apply to the States of Minnesota, place where the depredation occurred if import or export, or, in the course of a Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, in the remaining area covered by commercial activity, transport or receive Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode paragraph (o) of this section. Any young any gray wolves from the States, or Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and of the year taken by trapping on or portions thereof, covered by paragraph Maine. While these States are included before August 1 of that year must be (o) of this section. in the Eastern DPS, this special released. Any take for depredation (iii) In addition to the offenses regulation does not apply to the entire control must reported to the Service defined in paragraph (o) of this section, DPS, and it specifically does not apply within 15 days as outlined in paragraph we consider any attempts to commit, to these 10 States. Gray wolves in these (o)(4) of this section. The specimen may solicitations of another to commit, or States, other than Minnesota, are be retained or disposed of only in actions that cause to be committed any covered by the prohibitions of § 17.31(a) accordance with directions from the such offenses to be unlawful. and (b), which apply to all threatened Service. (iv) Use of unlawfully taken wolves. species that are not subject to a special (v) Take under section 6 cooperative No person, except for an authorized regulation. Gray wolves in Minnesota agreements. When acting in the course person, may possess, deliver, carry, are covered by a separate special of official duties, any authorized transport, or ship a gray wolf taken regulation in paragraph (d) of this employee or agent of the State wildlife unlawfully in the area covered by section. conservation agencies in the area paragraph (o) of this section. covered by paragraph (o) of this section, (4) Reporting requirements. Except as Dated: March 17, 2003. who is designated by his/her agency for otherwise specified in paragraph (o) of Steve Williams, such purposes under a cooperative this section or in a permit issued under Director. agreement under section 6 of the Act, § 17.32, any taking must be reported to [FR Doc. 03–7018 Filed 3–31–03; 8:45 am] may take a gray wolf in his/her the Service within 24 hours. Report wolf BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:40 Mar 31, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01APR2.SGM 01APR2