6052 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU54 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Final Rule Designating the 

Western Great Lakes Populations of 

Gray Wolves as a Distinct Population 

Segment; Removing the Western Great 

Lakes Distinct Population Segment of 

the Gray Wolf From the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) 

establish the Western Great Lakes 

(WGL) Distinct Population Segment 

(DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis lupus). 

The geographic extent of this DPS 

includes all of Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

and Michigan; the eastern half of North 

Dakota and South Dakota; the northern 

half of Iowa; the northern portions of 

Illinois and Indiana; and the 

northwestern portion of Ohio. We also 

remove the WGL DPS from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

established under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We are taking these actions because 

available data indicate that this DPS no 

longer meets the definitions of 

threatened or endangered under the Act. 

The threats have been reduced or 

eliminated, as evidenced by a 

population that is stable or increasing in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, 

and greatly exceeds the numerical 

recovery criteria established in its 

recovery plan. Completed State wolf 

management plans will provide 

adequate protection and management of 

the WGL DPS after delisting. This final 

rule removes this DPS from the lists of 

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife, 

removes the currently designated 

critical habitat for the gray wolf in 

Minnesota and Michigan, removes the 

current special regulations for gray 

wolves in Minnesota and takes an 

administrative action that corrects gray 

wolf designations in the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 

50 CFR 17.11 and the associated special 

regulations at § 17.40(n) and (o). 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

March 12, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this 

rule is available for inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at our Midwest Regional Office: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal 

Building, 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, 

Minnesota 55111–4056. Call 612–713– 

5350 to make arrangements. The 

comments and materials we received 

during the comment period on the 

proposed rule also are available for 

public inspection and by appointment 

during normal business hours at this 

Regional Office and at our Ecological 

Services Field Offices in Bloomington, 

Minnesota (612–725–3548); New 

Frankin, Wisconsin (920–866–1717); 

and East Lansing, Michigan (517–351– 

2555). Call those offices to make 

arrangements. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Refsnider, 612–713–5350. Direct all 

questions or requests for additional 

information to the Service using the 

Gray Wolf Phone Line—612–713–7337, 

facsimile—612–713–5292, the general 

gray wolf electronic mail address— 

GRAYWOLFMAIL@FWS.GOV, or write 

to: GRAY WOLF QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, 

1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 

55111–4056. Additional information is 

also available on our World Wide Web 

site at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ 

wolf. In the event that our internet 

connection is not functional, please 

contact the Service by the alternative 

methods mentioned above. Individuals 

who are hearing-impaired or speechimpaired may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 1–800–877–8337 for TTY 

assistance. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves 

For a discussion of the biology and 

ecology of gray wolves and general 

recovery planning efforts, see the 

proposed WGL wolf rule published on 

March 27, 2006, (71 FR 15266–15305) 

and available on our World Wide Web 

site. 

Recovery Criteria 

The 1978 Recovery Plan for the 

Eastern Timber Wolf (Recovery Plan) 

and the 1992 revised Recovery Plan 

(Revised Plan) contain the same two 

delisting criteria. The first delisting 

criterion states that the survival of the 

wolf in Minnesota must be assured. We, 

and the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery 

Team (Peterson in litt. 1997, 1998, 

1999a, 1999b), have concluded that this 

first delisting criterion remains valid. It 

addresses a need for reasonable 

assurances that future State, Tribal, and 

Federal wolf management and 

protection will maintain a viable 

recovered population of gray wolves 

within the borders of Minnesota for the 

foreseeable future. 

Although the Recovery Plan’s 

recovery criteria predate the scientific 

field of conservation biology, the 

conservation principles of 

representation (conserving the genetic 

diversity of a taxon), resilience (the 

ability to withstand demographic and 

environmental variation), and 

redundancy (sufficient populations to 

provide a margin of safety) were 

incorporated into these criteria. 

Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf 

population is vital because the 

remaining genetic diversity of gray 

wolves in the eastern United States was 

carried by the several hundred wolves 

that survived in the State into the early 

1970s. The Recovery Team insisted that 

the remnant Minnesota wolf population 

be maintained and protected to achieve 

wolf recovery in the eastern United 

States. The successful growth of that 

remnant population has maintained and 

maximized the representation of that 

genetic diversity among gray wolves in 

the WGL DPS. Furthermore, the 

Recovery Plan established a planning 

goal of 1,250–1,400 animals for the 

Minnesota wolf population (USFWS 

1992, p. 28), which would increase the 

likelihood of maintaining its genetic 

diversity over the long term. This large 

Minnesota wolf population also 

provides resiliency to reduce the 

adverse impacts of unpredictable 

demographic and environmental events. 

Furthermore, the Recovery Plan 

specifies a wolf population that is 

spread across about 40 percent of the 

State (Zones 1 through 4) (USFWS 1992, 

p. 28), adding a geographic component 

to the resiliency of the Minnesota wolf 

population. 

The second delisting criterion in the 

Recovery Plan states that at least one 

viable wolf population should be 

reestablished within the historical range 

of the eastern timber wolf outside of 

Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. 

The second population enhances both 

the resiliency and redundancy of the 

recovery program. The Recovery Plan 

provides two options for reestablishing 

this second population. If it is an 

isolated population, that is, located 

more than 100 miles (160 km) from the 

Minnesota wolf population, the second 

population should consist of at least 200 

wolves for at least 5 years (based upon 

late-winter population estimates) to be 

considered viable. Alternatively, if the 

second population is located within 100 

miles (160 km) of a self-sustaining wolf 

population (for example, the Minnesota 

wolf population), it would be 

considered viable if it maintained a 

minimum of 100 wolves for at least 5 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6053 

years. Such a nearby second population 

would be viable at a smaller size, 

because it would exchange wolves with 

the Minnesota population (that is, they 

would function as a metapopulation), 

thereby bolstering the smaller second 

population genetically and numerically. 

The Recovery Plan does not specify 

where in the eastern United States the 

second population should be 

reestablished. Therefore, the second 

population could be located anywhere 

within the triangular Minnesota-MaineFlorida area covered by the 1978 

Recovery Plan and the 1992 Revised 

Recovery Plan, except on Isle Royale 

(Michigan) or within Minnesota. The 

1992 Revised Recovery Plan retained 

potential gray wolf re-establishment 

areas in northern Wisconsin, the upper 

peninsula (UP) of Michigan, the 

Adirondack Forest Preserve of New 

York, a small area in eastern Maine, and 

a larger area of northwestern Maine and 

adjacent northern New Hampshire 

(USFWS 1992, pp. 56–58). Neither the 

1978 nor the 1992 recovery criteria 

suggest that the restoration of the gray 

wolf throughout all or most of its 

historical range in the eastern United 

States, or to all of these potential reestablishment areas, is necessary to 

achieve recovery under the Act. 

In 1998, the Eastern Timber Wolf 

Recovery Team clarified the application 

of the delisting criterion for the second 

population to the wolf population that 

had developed in northern Wisconsin 

and the adjacent UP. The Recovery 

Team recommended that the numerical 

delisting criterion for the WisconsinMichigan population will be achieved 

when 6 consecutive late-winter wolf 

surveys document that the population 

equals or exceeds 100 wolves (excluding 

Isle Royale wolves) for the 5 consecutive 

years between the 6 surveys (Peterson in 

litt. 1998). This second population is 

less than 200 miles from the Minnesota 

wolf population. 

Recovery of the Gray Wolf in the 

Western Great Lakes Area 

Minnesota Recovery 

During the pre-1965 period of wolf 

bounties and legal public trapping, 

wolves persisted in the remote 

northeastern portion of Minnesota, but 

were eliminated from the rest of the 

State. Estimated numbers of Minnesota 

wolves before their listing under the Act 

in 1974 include 450 to 700 in 1950–53 

(Fuller et al. 1992, p. 43, based on data 

in Stenlund 1955, p. 19), 350 to 700 in 

1963 (Cahalane 1964, p. 10), 750 in 1970 

(Leirfallom 1970, p. 11), 736 to 950 in 

1971–72 (Fuller et al. 1992, p. 44), and 

500 to 1,000 in 1973 (Mech and Rausch 

1975, p. 85). Although these estimates 

were based upon different 

methodologies and are not directly 

comparable, each puts the pre-listing 

abundance of wolves in Minnesota at 

1,000 or less. This was the only 

significant wolf population in the 

United States outside Alaska during 

those time-periods. 

After the wolf was listed as 

endangered under the Act, the 

Minnesota population estimates 

increased (see Table 1 below). Mech 

estimated the population to be 1,000 to 

1,200 in 1976 (USFWS 1978, pp. 4, 50–

52), and Berg and Kuehn (1982, p. 11) 

estimated that there were 1,235 wolves 

in 138 packs in the winter of 1978–79. 

In 1988–89, the Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources (MN DNR) 

repeated the 1978–79 survey and also 

used a second method to estimate wolf 

numbers in the State. The resulting 

independent estimates were 1,500 and 

1,750 wolves in at least 233 packs; the 

lower number was derived by a method 

comparable to the 1978–79 survey 

(Fuller et al. 1992, pp. 50–51). 

During the winter of 1997–98, a 

statewide wolf population and 

distribution survey was repeated by MN 

DNR, using methods similar to those of 

the two previous surveys. Field staff of 

Federal, State, Tribal, and county land 

management agencies and wood 

products companies were queried to 

identify occupied wolf range in 

Minnesota. Data from 5 concurrent radio 

telemetry studies tracking 36 packs, 

representative of the entire Minnesota 

wolf range, were used to determine 

average pack size and territory area. 

Those figures were then used to 

calculate a statewide estimate of wolf 

and pack numbers in the occupied 

range, with single (non-pack) wolves 

factored into the estimate (Berg and 

Benson 1999, pp. 1–2). 

TABLE 1.—GRAY WOLF WINTER POPULATIONS IN MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, AND MICHIGAN (EXCLUDING ISLE ROYALE) 

FROM 1976 THROUGH 2006 

[Note that there are several years between the first three estimates] 

Year Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan WI & MI total 

1976 ..................................................................................................................... 1,000–1,200 .................... .................... ............................

1978–79 ............................................................................................................... 1,235 .................... .................... ............................

1988–89 ............................................................................................................... 1,500–1,750 31 3 34 

1989–90 ............................................................................................................... ........................ 34 10 44 

1990–91 ............................................................................................................... ........................ 40 17 57 

1991–92 ............................................................................................................... ........................ 45 21 66 

1992–93 ............................................................................................................... ........................ 40 30 70 

1993–94 ............................................................................................................... ........................ 57 57 114 

1994–95 ............................................................................................................... ........................ 83 80 163 

1995–96 ............................................................................................................... ........................ 99 116 215 

1996–97 ............................................................................................................... ........................ 148 113 261 

1997–98 ............................................................................................................... 2,445 180 139 319 

1998–99 ............................................................................................................... ........................ 205 169 374 

1999–2000 ........................................................................................................... ........................ 248 216 464 

2000–01 ............................................................................................................... ........................ 257 249 506 

2001–02 ............................................................................................................... ........................ 327 278 604 

2002–03 ............................................................................................................... ........................ 335 321 656 

2003–04 ............................................................................................................... 3,020 373 360 733 

2004–05 ............................................................................................................... ........................ 435* 405 840 

2005–06 ............................................................................................................... ........................ 465 434 899 

* Previous estimate of 425 has been corrected, based on subsequent location of 5 packs missed during survey period (Wydeven et al. 2006, 

pp. 9–10). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6054 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

The 1997–98 survey concluded that 

approximately 2,445 wolves existed in 

about 385 packs in Minnesota during 

that winter period (90 percent 

confidence interval from 1,995 to 2,905 

wolves) (Berg and Benson 1999, p. 4). 

This figure indicated the continued 

growth of the Minnesota wolf 

population at an average rate of about 

3.7 percent annually from 1970 through 

1997–98. Between 1979 and 1989 the 

annual growth rate was about 3 percent, 

and it increased to between 4 and 5 

percent in the next decade (Berg and 

Benson 1999, Fuller et al. 1992, 51). As 

of the 1998 survey, the number of 

Minnesota wolves was approximately 

twice the planning goal for Minnesota, 

as specified in the Eastern Recovery 

Plan (USFWS 1992, p. 28). 

Minnesota DNR conducted another 

survey of the State’s wolf population 

and range during the winter of 2003–04, 

again using similar methodology. That 

survey concluded that an estimated 

3,020 wolves in 485 packs occurred in 

Minnesota at that time (90 percent 

confidence interval for this estimate is 

2,301 to 3,708 wolves). Due to the wide 

overlap in the confidence intervals for 

the 1997–98 and 2003–04 surveys, the 

authors conclude that, although the 

population point estimate increased by 

about 24 percent over the 6 years 

between the surveys (about 3.5 percent 

annually), there was no statistically 

significant change in the State’s wolf 

population during that period (Erb and 

Benson 2004, pp. 7 and 9). 

As wolves increased in abundance in 

Minnesota, they also expanded their 

distribution. During 1948–53, the major 

wolf range was estimated to be about 

11,954 sq mi (31,080 sq km) (Stenlund 

1955, p. 19). A 1970 questionnaire 

survey resulted in an estimated wolf 

range of 14,769 sq mi (38,400 sq km) 

(calculated by Fuller et al. 1992, p. 43, 

from Leirfallom 1970). Fuller et al. 

(1992, p. 44), using data from Berg and 

Kuehn (1982), estimated that Minnesota 

primary wolf range included 14,038 sq 

mi (36,500 sq km) during winter 1978–

79. By 1982–83, pairs or breeding packs 

of wolves were estimated to occupy an 

area of 22,000 sq mi (57,050 sq km) in 

northern Minnesota (Mech et al. 1988, 

p. 86). That study also identified an 

additional 15,577 sq mi (40,500 sq km) 

of peripheral range, where habitat 

appeared suitable but no wolves or only 

lone wolves existed. The 1988–89 study 

produced an estimate of 23,165 sq mi 

(60,200 sq km) as the contiguous wolf 

range at that time in Minnesota (Fuller 

et al. 1992, pp. 48–49; Berg and Benson 

1999, p. 3, 5), an increase of 65 percent 

over the primary range calculated for 

1978–79. The 1997–98 study concluded 

that the contiguous wolf range had 

expanded to 33,971 sq mi (88,325 sq 

km), a 47 percent increase in 9 years 

(Berg and Benson 1999, p. 5). By that 

time the Minnesota wolf population was 

using most of the occupied and 

peripheral range identified by Mech et 

al. (1988, p. 86). The wolf population in 

Minnesota had recovered to the point 

that its contiguous range covered 

approximately 40 percent of the State 

during 1997–98. In contrast, the 2003–

04 survey failed to show a continuing 

expansion of wolf range in Minnesota, 

and any actual increase in wolf numbers 

since 1997–98 was attributed to 

increased wolf density within a 

stabilized range (Erb and Benson 2004, 

p. 7). 

Although Minnesota DNR does not 

conduct a formal wolf population 

survey annually, it includes the species 

in its annual carnivore track survey. 

This survey, standardized and 

operational since 1994, provides an 

annual index of abundance for several 

species of large carnivores by counting 

their tracks along 51 standardized 

survey routes in the northern portion of 

Minnesota. Based on these surveys, the 

wolf track indices for winter 2004–05 

showed little change from the previous 

winter, and no statistically significant 

trends are apparent since 1994. 

However, the data show some 

indication of an increase in wolf density 

(Erb 2005, p. 2, 5). Thus, the winter 

track survey results are consistent with 

a stable or slowly increasing wolf 

population in northern Minnesota over 

this 11-year period. 

Wisconsin Recovery 

Wolves were considered to have been 

extirpated from Wisconsin by 1960. No 

formal attempts were made to monitor 

the State’s wolf population from 1960 

until 1979. From 1960 through 1975, 

individual wolves and an occasional 

wolf pair were reported. There is no 

documentation, however, of any wolf 

reproduction occurring in Wisconsin, 

and the wolves that were reported may 

have been dispersing animals from 

Minnesota. 

Wolves are believed to have returned 

to Wisconsin in more substantial 

numbers around 1975, and the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WI DNR) began wolf 

population monitoring in 1979–80 and 

estimated a statewide population of 25 

wolves at that time (Wydeven and 

Wiedenhoeft 2000, pp. 151, 159). This 

population remained relatively stable 

for several years, then declined slightly 

to approximately 15 to 19 wolves in the 

mid-1980s. In the late 1980s, the 

Wisconsin wolf population began an 

increase that has continued into 2006 

(Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 35). 

Wisconsin DNR intensively surveys 

its wolf population annually using a 

combination of aerial, ground, and 

satellite radio telemetry, complemented 

by snow tracking and wolf sign surveys 

(Wydeven et al. 2006, pp. 4–5). Wolves 

are trapped from May through 

September and fitted with radio collars, 

with a goal of having at least one radiocollared wolf in about half of the wolf 

packs in Wisconsin. Aerial locations are 

obtained from each functioning radiocollar about once per week, and pack 

territories are estimated and mapped 

from the movements of the individuals 

who exhibit localized patterns. From 

December through March, the pilots 

make special efforts to visually locate 

and count the individual wolves in each 

radio-tracked pack. Snow tracking is 

used to supplement the information 

gained from aerial sightings and to 

provide pack size estimates for packs 

lacking a radio-collared wolf. Tracking 

is done by assigning survey blocks to 

trained trackers who then drive snowcovered roads in their blocks and follow 

all wolf tracks they encounter. 

Snowmobiles are used to locate wolf 

tracks in more remote areas with few 

roads. The results of the aerial and 

ground surveys are carefully compared 

to properly separate packs and to avoid 

over-counting (Wydeven et al. 2006a, 

pp. 4–5). The number of wolves in each 

pack is estimated based on the aerial 

and ground observations made of the 

individual wolves in each pack over the 

winter. 

Because the monitoring methods 

focus on wolf packs, lone wolves are 

likely undercounted in Wisconsin. As a 

result, the annual population estimates 

are probably slight underestimates of 

the actual wolf population within the 

State during the late-winter period. 

Fuller (1989, p. 19) noted that lone 

wolves are estimated to compose from 2 

to 29 percent of the total population in 

the area. Also, these estimates are made 

at the low point of the annual wolf 

population cycle; the late-winter 

surveys produce an estimate of the wolf 

population at a time when most winter 

mortality has already occurred and 

before the birth of pups. Thus, 

Wisconsin wolf population estimates 

are conservative in two respects: they 

undercount lone wolves and the count 

is made at the annual low point of the 

population. This methodology is 

consistent with the recovery criteria 

established in the 1992 Recovery Plan, 

which established numerical criteria to 

be measured with data obtained by latewinter surveys. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6055 

From mid-September 2005 through 

mid-April 2006, 43 radio collars were 

active on Wisconsin wolves, including 

38 packs. An estimated 465 to 502 

wolves in 115 packs, including 16 to 17 

wolves on Native American 

reservations, were in the State in early 

2006, representing a 7 percent increase 

from 2005 (Wydeven et al. 2006, pp. 1, 

6). 

Wisconsin population estimates for 

1985 through 2006 increased from 15 to 

465–502 wolves (see Table 1 above) and 

from 4 to 115 packs (Wydeven et al. 

2006, pp. 1, 35). This represents an 

annual increase of 21 percent through 

2000, and an average annual increase of 

11 percent for the most recent 6 years. 

In 1995, wolves were first 

documented in Jackson County, 

Wisconsin, well to the south of the 

northern Wisconsin area occupied by 

other Wisconsin wolf packs. The 

number of wolves in this central 

Wisconsin area has dramatically 

increased since that time. During the 

winter of 2004–05, there were 53–56 

wolves in 14 packs in the central forest 

wolf range (Zone 2 in the Wisconsin 

Wolf Management Plan; WI DNR 1999, 

p. 18) and an additional 17–19 wolves 

in 7 packs in the marginal habitat in 

Zone 3, located between Zone 1 

(northern forest wolf range) and Zones 

2 and 4 (Wydeven et al. 2006, pp. 6, 33). 

During the winter of 2002–03, 7 

wolves were believed to be primarily 

occupying Native American reservation 

lands in Wisconsin (Wydeven et al. 

2003, p. 9); this increased to 11 to 13 

wolves in the winter of 2004–05 

(Wydeven in litt. 2005) and 16–17 in 

2005–06. The 2005–06 animals 

consisted of 2 packs totaling 7 to 8 

wolves on the Bad River Chippewa 

Reservation and a pack of 4 wolves on 

the Lac Courtes Oreilles Chippewa 

Reservation, both in northwestern 

Wisconsin. There also was a single pack 

of three wolves on the Lac du Flambeau 

Reservation and a two-wolf pack on the 

Menominee Reservation, in northcentral and northeastern Wisconsin, 

respectively (Wydeven et al. 2006, pp. 

27, 28, 33). Additional wolves have 

spent some time on the Red Cliff 

Chippewa Reservation, the St. Croix 

Chippewa Reservation, and the Ho 

Chunk Reservation in the last few years. 

It is likely that the Potowatomi 

Reservation lands will also host wolves 

in the near future (Wydeven in litt. 

2005). Of these reservations the HoChunk, St. Croix Chippewa, and 

Potowatomi are composed mostly of 

scattered parcels of land, and are not 

likely to provide significant amounts of 

wolf habitat. 

In 2002, wolf numbers in Wisconsin 

alone surpassed the Federal criterion for 

a second population, as identified in the 

1992 Recovery Plan (i.e., 100 wolves for 

a minimum of 5 consecutive years, as 

measured by 6 consecutive late-winter 

counts). Furthermore, in 2004 

Wisconsin wolf numbers exceeded the 

Recovery Plan criterion of 200 animals 

for 6 successive late-winter surveys for 

an isolated wolf population. The 

Wisconsin wolf population continues to 

increase, although the slower rates of 

increase seen since 2000 may be the first 

indications that the State’s wolf 

population growth and geographic 

expansion are beginning to level off. 

Mladenoff et al. (1997, p. 47) and 

Wydeven et al. (1999, p. 49) estimated 

that occupancy of primary wolf habitat 

in Wisconsin would produce a wolf 

population of about 380 animals in the 

northern forest area of the State plus an 

additional 20–40 wolves in the central 

forest area. If wolves occupy secondary 

habitat (areas with a 10–50 percent 

probability of supporting a wolf pack) in 

the State, their estimated population 

could be 50 percent higher or more 

(Wydeven et al. 1999, p. 49) resulting in 

a statewide population of 600 or more 

wolves. 

Michigan Recovery 

Wolves were extirpated from 

Michigan as a reproducing species long 

before they were listed as endangered in 

1974. Prior to 1991, and excluding Isle 

Royale, the last known breeding 

population of wild Michigan wolves 

occurred in the mid-1950s. However, as 

wolves began to reoccupy northern 

Wisconsin, the Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources (MI DNR) began 

noting single wolves at various locations 

in the UP of Michigan. In 1989, a wolf 

pair was verified in the central UP, and 

it produced pups in 1991. Since that 

time, wolf packs have spread 

throughout the UP, with immigration 

occurring from Wisconsin on the west 

and possibly from Ontario on the east. 

They now are found in every county of 

the UP, with the possible exception of 

Keweenaw County (Huntzinger et al 

2005, p. 6). 

The MI DNR annually monitors the 

wolf population in the UP by intensive 

late-winter tracking surveys that focus 

on each pack. The UP is divided into 

seven monitoring zones, and specific 

surveyors are assigned to each zone. 

Pack locations are derived from 

previous surveys, citizen reports, and 

extensive ground and aerial tracking of 

radio-collared wolves. During the winter 

of 2004–05 at least 87 wolf packs were 

resident in the UP (Huntzinger et al. 

2005, p. 6). A minimum of 40 percent 

of these packs had members with active 

radio-tracking collars during the winter 

of 2004–05 (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 

6–7). Care is taken to avoid doublecounting packs and individual wolves, 

and a variety of evidence is used to 

distinguish adjacent packs and 

accurately count their members. 

Surveys along the border of adjacent 

monitoring zones are coordinated to 

avoid double-counting of wolves and 

packs occupying those border areas. In 

areas with a high density of wolves, 

ground surveys by 4 to 6 surveyors with 

concurrent aerial tracking are used to 

accurately delineate territories of 

adjacent packs and count their members 

(Beyer et al. 2004, pp. 2–3, Huntzinger 

et al. 2005, pp. 3–6; Potvin et al. 2005, 

p. 1661). As with Wisconsin, the 

Michigan surveys likely miss many lone 

wolves, thus underestimating the actual 

population. 

Annual surveys have documented 

minimum late-winter estimates of 

wolves occurring in the UP as 

increasing from 57 wolves in 1994 to 

434 in 91 packs in 2006 (see Table 1 

above). Over the last 10 years the 

annualized rate of increase has been 

about 18 percent (Beyer et al. 2006, p. 

35; Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6; MI DNR 

2006a; Roell in litt. 2006a). The rate of 

annual increase has varied from year to 

year during this period, but there 

appears to be two distinct phases of 

population growth, with relatively rapid 

growth (24.3 to 25.9 percent per year) 

from 1997 through 2000 and slower 

growth (11.6 to 15.5 percent from 2000 

through 2005 and 7.2 percent in 2006) 

since then. As with the Wisconsin 

wolves, the number of wolves in the 

Michigan UP wolf population by itself 

has surpassed the recovery criterion for 

a second population in the eastern 

United States (i.e., 100 wolves for a 

minimum of 5 consecutive years, based 

on 6 late-winter estimates), as specified 

in the Federal Recovery Plan, since 

2001. In addition, the UP numbers have 

now surpassed the Federal criterion for 

an isolated wolf population of 200 

animals for 6 successive late-winter 

surveys (USFWS 1992, pp. 24–26). 

To date, no wolf packs are known to 

be primarily using tribal-owned lands in 

Michigan (Roell in litt. 2006b). Native 

American tribes in the UP of Michigan 

own small, scattered parcels of land. As 

such, no one tribal property would 

likely support a wolf pack. However, as 

wolves occur in all counties in the UP 

and range widely, tribal land is likely 

utilized periodically by wolves. 

The wolf population of Isle Royale 

National Park, Michigan, is not 

considered to be an important factor in 

the recovery or long-term survival of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6056 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

wolves in the WGL DPS. This is a small 

and isolated wolf population that 

probably has not had any contact with 

mainland wolf populations since its 

founding pair crossed the Lake Superior 

ice in the late 1940s (Peterson et al. 

1998, p. 828). This wolf population 

lacks sufficient genetic uniqueness 

(Wayne et al. 1991, pp. 47–49), and due 

to the island’s small size, cannot satisfy 

the discreteness criterion for a separate 

DPS. For these same reasons it will not 

make a significant numerical 

contribution to gray wolf recovery, 

although long-term research on this wolf 

population has added a great deal to our 

knowledge of the species. The wolf 

population on Isle Royale has ranged 

from 12 to 50 wolves since 1959, and 

was 30 wolves in the winter of 2005–06 

(Peterson and Vucetich 2006, p. 6). 

Although there have been verified 

reports of wolf sightings in the Lower 

Peninsula of Michigan, resident 

breeding packs have not been confirmed 

there. In October 2004 the first gray wolf 

since 1910 was documented in the 

Lower Peninsula (LP). This wolf had 

been trapped and radio-collared by the 

MI DNR while it was a member of a 

central UP pack in late 2003. At some 

point it had moved to the LP and 

ultimately was killed by a trapper who 

believed it was a coyote (MI DNR 2004). 

Shortly after that, MI DNR biologists 

and conservation officers confirmed that 

two additional wolves were traveling 

together in Presque Isle County in the 

northern Lower Peninsula (NLP). A 

subsequent two-week survey was 

conducted in that area, but no 

additional evidence of wolf presence 

was found (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 

35). Recognizing the likelihood that 

small numbers of gray wolves will 

eventually move into the Lower 

Peninsula and form persistent packs 

(Potvin 2003, pp. 29–30, Gehring and 

Potter 2005, p. 1242; Beyer et at. 2006, 

p. 35), MI DNR has begun a revision of 

its Wolf Management Plan in part to 

incorporate provisions for wolf 

management there. 

Summary for Wisconsin and Michigan 

The two-State wolf population, 

excluding Isle Royale wolves, has 

exceeded 100 wolves since late-winter 

1993–94 and has exceeded 200 wolves 

since late-winter 1995–96. Therefore, 

the combined wolf population for 

Wisconsin and Michigan has exceeded 

the second population recovery goal of 

the 1992 Recovery Plan for a nonisolated wolf population since 1999. 

Furthermore, the two-State population 

has exceeded the recovery goal for an 

isolated second population since 2001. 

Other Areas in and Near the Western 

Great Lakes DPS 

As described earlier, the increasing 

wolf population in Minnesota and the 

accompanying expansion of wolf range 

westward and southwestward in the 

State have led to an increase in 

dispersing wolves that have been 

documented in North and South Dakota 

in recent years. No surveys have been 

conducted to document the number of 

wolves present in North Dakota or 

South Dakota. However, biologists who 

are familiar with wolves there generally 

agree that there are only occasional lone 

dispersers that appear primarily in the 

eastern portion of these States. There 

were reports of pups being seen in the 

Turtle Mountains of North Dakota, in 

1994 (Collins in litt. 1998), an adult 

male wolf was shot near Devil’s Lake, 

North Dakota in 2002, another adult 

male shot in Richland County in 

extreme southeastern North Dakota in 

2003 (Fain in litt. 2006), and a vehiclekilled adult male found near Sturgis, 

South Dakota, in 2006 (Larson in litt. 

2006a). In contrast to the other South 

Dakota wolves of the last twenty-five 

years, this animal has been genetically 

identified as having come from the 

Greater Yellowstone area (Fain in litt. 

2006). See the Delineating the WGL 

Gray Wolf DPS for a detailed discussion 

of movement of wolves. 

Wolf dispersal is expected to continue 

as wolves travel away from the more 

saturated habitats in the core recovery 

areas into areas where wolves are 

extremely sparse or absent. Unless they 

return to a core recovery population and 

join or start a pack there, they are 

unlikely to contribute to long-term 

maintenance of recovered wolf 

populations. Although it is possible for 

them to encounter a mature wolf of the 

opposite sex, to mate, and to reproduce 

outside the core wolf areas, the lack of 

large expanses of unfragmented public 

land make it unlikely that any wolf 

packs will persist in these areas, and 

this is a bottleneck that seriously 

impedes further expansion. The only 

exception is the NLP of Michigan, 

where several studies indicate that a 

persistent wolf population may develop 

(Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1242; 

Potvin 2003, 29–30), perhaps dependent 

on occasional to frequent immigration of 

UP wolves. However, currently existing 

wolf populations in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and the UP of Michigan 

have already greatly exceeded the 

Federal recovery criteria and are not 

dependent on wolves or wolf 

populations from other areas of the 

WGL DPS to maintain these recovered 

numbers. 

Previous Federal Action 

On April 1, 2003, we published a final 

rule revising the listing status of the 

gray wolf across most of the 

conterminous United States (68 FR 

15804). Within that rule, we established 

three distinct population segments 

(DPS) for the gray wolf. Gray wolves in 

the Western DPS and the Eastern DPS 

were reclassified from endangered to 

threatened, except where already 

classified as threatened or as an 

experimental population. Gray wolves 

in the Southwestern DPS retained their 

previous endangered or experimental 

population status. Three existing gray 

wolf experimental population 

designations were not affected by the 

April 1, 2003, final rule. We removed 

gray wolves from the lists of threatened 

and endangered wildlife in all or parts 

of 16 southern and eastern States where 

the species historically did not occur. 

We also established a new special rule 

under section 4(d) of the Act for the 

threatened Western DPS to increase our 

ability to effectively manage wolfhuman conflicts outside the two 

experimental population areas in the 

Western DPS. In addition, we 

established a second section 4(d) rule 

that applied provisions similar to those 

previously in effect in Minnesota to 

most of the Eastern DPS. These two 

special rules were codified in 50 CFR 

17.40(n) and (o), respectively. 

On January 31, 2005, and August 19, 

2005, U.S. District Courts in Oregon and 

Vermont, respectively, ruled that the 

April 1, 2003, final rule violated the Act 

(Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 1:03–

1348–JO, D. OR 2005; National Wildlife 

Federation v. Norton, 1:03–CV–340, D. 

VT. 2005). The Courts’ rulings 

invalidated the revisions to the gray 

wolf listing. Therefore, the status of gray 

wolves outside of Minnesota and 

outside of areas designated as 

nonessential experimental populations 

reverted back to endangered (as had 

been the case prior to the 2003 

reclassification). The courts also 

invalidated the three DPS designations 

in the April 1, 2003, rule as well as the 

associated special regulations. We 

therefore must remove the DPS 

designations from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 

50 CFR 17.11 and the associated special 

regulations at § 17.40(n) and (o). In 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), 

we find notice and comment procedures 

are unnecessary and contrary to the 

public interest because these actions are 

required by court orders. 

On March 27, 2006, we published a 

proposal (71 FR 15266–15305) to 

designate a WGL DPS of the gray wolf, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6057 

to remove the WGL DPS from the 

protections of the Act, to remove 

designated critical habitat for the gray 

wolf in Minnesota and Michigan, and to 

remove special regulations for the gray 

wolf in Minnesota. The proposal was 

followed by a 90-day comment period, 

during which we held four public 

hearings on the proposal. Please refer to 

the proposed rule for further 

information on previous Federal 

actions. 

Geographical Area of the Western 

Great Lakes Distinct Population 

Segment 

The geographical area of the WGL 

DPS is shown in Figure 1, below, and 

is described as all of Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan; the portion of 

North Dakota north and east of the 

Missouri River upstream to Lake 

Sakakawea and east of the centerline of 

Highway 83 from Lake Sakakawea to the 

Canadian border; the portion of South 

Dakota north and east of the Missouri 

River; the portions of Iowa, Illinois, and 

Indiana north of the centerline of 

Interstate Highway 80; and the portion 

of Ohio north of the centerline of 

Interstate Highway 80 and west of the 

Maumee River at Toledo. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6058 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2ER08FE07.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6059 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment 

Policy Overview 

Pursuant to the Act, we consider for 

listing any species, subspecies, or, for 

vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa if 

there is sufficient information to 

indicate that such action may be 

warranted. To interpret and implement 

the DPS provision of the Act and 

Congressional guidance, the Service and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) adopted the interagency policy 

and published it in the Federal Register 

on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). This 

policy addresses the recognition of a 

DPS for potential listing, 

reclassification, and delisting actions. 

Under our DPS policy, three factors 

are considered in a decision regarding 

the establishment and classification of a 

possible DPS. These are applied 

similarly for additions to the list of 

endangered and threatened species, 

reclassification of already listed species, 

and removals from the list. The first two 

factors—discreteness of the population 

segment in relation to the remainder of 

the taxon (in this case Canis lupus) and 

the significance of the population 

segment to the taxon to which it belongs 

bear on whether the population segment 

is a valid DPS. If a population meets 

both tests, it is then evaluated for 

endangered or threatened status. 

Analysis for Discreteness 

Under our Policy Regarding the 

Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments, a population 

segment of a vertebrate taxon may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

of the following conditions—(1) it is 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors 

(quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation); or 

(2) it is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. 

Markedly Separated From Other 

Populations of the Taxon—The western 

edge of the WGL DPS is approximately 

400 mi (644 km) from the nearest known 

wolf packs in Wyoming and Montana. 

The distance between those western 

packs and the nearest packs within the 

WGL DPS is nearly 600 miles (966 km). 

The area between Minnesota packs and 

Northern Rocky Mountain packs largely 

consists of unsuitable habitat, with only 

scattered islands of possibly suitable 

habitat, such as the Black Hills of 

eastern Wyoming and western South 

Dakota. There are no known gray wolf 

populations to the south or east of the 

WGL DPS. 

As discussed in the previous section, 

gray wolves are known to disperse over 

vast distances, but straight line 

documented dispersals of 400 mi (644 

km) or more are very rare. While we 

cannot rule out the possibility of a 

Midwest wolf traveling 600 miles or 

more and joining or establishing a pack 

in the Northern Rockies, such a 

movement has not been documented 

and is expected to happen very 

infrequently, if at all. Similar 

movements from the NRM wolf 

population into the WGL DPS are 

unknown and are expected to happen 

infrequently. The 2006 Sturgis, South 

Dakota, wolf is the closest that an NRM 

wolf has come to entering the WGL DPS 

(Fain in litt. 2006). However, the Sturgis 

wolf still had over 300 mi (500 km) to 

travel before it would encounter the 

nearest WGL DPS wolf pack. As the 

discreteness criterion requires that the 

DPS be ‘‘markedly separated’’ from 

other populations of the taxon rather 

than requiring complete isolation, this 

high degree of physical separation 

between the Western Great Lakes and 

the Northern Rocky Mountains satisfies 

the discreteness criterion. Similarly, we 

feel it is unlikely for wolves to cross the 

eastern boundary into the Laurentian 

Mixed Habitat Province of New York, 

Pennsylvania, and New England due to 

inhospitable conditions. 

Delimited by International Boundaries 

With Significant Management 

Differences Between the U.S. and 

Canada—This border has been used as 

the northern boundary of the listed 

entity since gray wolves were 

reclassified in the 48 States and Mexico 

in 1978. There remain significant crossborder differences in exploitation, 

management, conservation status, and 

regulatory mechanisms. More than 

50,000 wolves exist in Canada, where 

suitable habitat is abundant, human 

harvest of wolves is common, Federal 

protection is absent, and provincial 

regulations provide widely varying 

levels of protection. In general, 

Canadian wolf populations are 

sufficiently large and healthy so that 

harvest and population regulation, 

rather than protection and close 

monitoring, is the management focus. 

There are an estimated 4,000 wolves in 

Manitoba (Manitoba Conservation 

undated). Hunting is allowed nearly 

province-wide, including in those 

provincial hunting zones adjoining 

northwestern Minnesota, with a current 

season that runs from August 28, 2006, 

through March 31, 2007 (Manitoba 

Conservation 2006a). Trapping wolves 

is allowed province-wide except in and 

immediately around Riding Mountain 

National Park (southwestern Manitoba), 

with a current season running from 

October 14, 2006, through February 28 

or March 31, 2007 (varies with trapping 

zone) (Manitoba Conservation 2006b). 

The Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources estimates there are 8,850 

wolves in the province, based on prey 

composition and abundance, 

topography, and climate. Wolf numbers 

in most parts of the province are 

believed to be stable or increasing since 

about 1993 (Ontario MNR 2005a, pp. 7–

9). In 2005 Ontario limited hunting and 

trapping of wolves by closing the season 

from April 1 through September 14 in 

central and northern Ontario (Ontario 

MNR 2005b). In southern Ontario (the 

portion of the province that is adjacent 

to the WGL DPS), wolf hunting and 

trapping is permitted year around 

except within, and immediately around, 

Algonquin Provincial Park in 

southeastern Ontario (north of Lake 

Ontario) where seasons are closed all 

year (Ontario MNR 2005c). 

We, therefore, conclude that the 

above-described WGL DPS boundary 

satisfies both conditions that can be 

used to demonstrate discreteness of a 

potential DPS. 

Analysis for Significance 

If we determine that a population 

segment is discrete, we next consider 

available scientific evidence of its 

significance to the taxon to which it 

belongs. Our DPS policy states that this 

consideration may include, but is not 

limited to, the following—(1) 

Persistence of the discrete population 

segment in an ecological setting unusual 

or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence 

that loss of the discrete population 

segment would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the taxon; (3) 

evidence that the discrete population 

segment represents the only surviving 

natural occurrence of a taxon that may 

be more abundant elsewhere as an 

introduced population outside its 

historic range; and/or (4) evidence that 

the discrete population segment differs 

markedly from other populations of the 

species in its genetic characteristics. 

Below we address Factors 1 and 2. 

Factors 3 and 4 do not apply to the WGL 

wolf DPS and thus are not included in 

our analysis for significance. 

Unusual or Unique Ecological 

Setting—Wolves within the WGL DPS 

occupy the Laurentian Mixed Forest 

Province, a biotic province that is 

transitional between the boreal forest 

and the broadleaf deciduous forest. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6060 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Laurentian Mixed Forest consists of 

mixed conifer-deciduous stands, pure 

deciduous forest on favorable sites, and 

pure coniferous forest on less favorable 

sites. Within the United States this 

biotic province occurs across 

northeastern Minnesota, northern 

Wisconsin, the UP, and the NLP, as well 

as the eastern half of Maine, and 

portions of New York and Pennsylvania 

(Bailey 1995). In the Midwest, current 

wolf distribution closely matches this 

province, except for the NLP and the 

Door Peninsula of Wisconsin, where 

wolf packs currently are absent. To the 

best of our knowledge, wolf packs 

currently do not inhabit the New 

England portions of the Laurentian 

Mixed Forest Province, nor do we 

expect wolves from the WGL DPS to 

move into them due to the vast distance 

between these two areas and 

inhospitable terrain they would need to 

traverse. Therefore, WGL wolves 

represent the only wolf packs in the 

United States occupying this province. 

Furthermore, WGL wolves represent the 

only use by gray wolf packs of any form 

of eastern coniferous or eastern mixed 

coniferous-broadleaf forest in the United 

States. 

Significant Gap in the Range of the 

Taxon—This factor may be primarily of 

value when considering the initial 

listing of a taxon under the Act to 

prevent the development of a major gap 

in a taxon’s range (‘‘the loss of the 

discrete population segment would 

result in a significant gap in the range 

of the taxon’’ (61 FR 4725)). However, 

this successful restoration of a viable 

wolf metapopulation to large parts of 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

has filled a significant gap in the 

historical range of the wolf in the 

United States, and it provides an 

important extension of the range of the 

North American gray wolf population. 

The recovered Western Great Lakes wolf 

metapopulation is the only wolf 

population in the conterminous States 

east of the Rocky Mountains except for 

the red wolves being restored along the 

Atlantic Coast and currently holds about 

80 percent of North American gray 

wolves that occur south of Canada. 

Discrete Vertebrate Population Segment 

Conclusion 

We conclude, based on our review of 

the best available scientific data, that 

the WGL DPS is discrete from other wolf 

populations as a result of physical 

separation and the international border 

with Canada. The DPS is significant to 

the taxon to which it belongs because it 

contains the only populations of the 

species in the Laurentian Mixed Forest 

Biotic Province in the United States, it 

contains a wolf metapopulation that fills 

a large gap in the historical range of the 

taxon; and it contains the majority of 

gray wolves in the conterminous States. 

Therefore, we have determined that this 

population segment of wolves satisfies 

the discreteness and significance criteria 

required to designate it as a DPS. The 

evaluation of the appropriate 

conservation status for the WGL DPS is 

found below. 

Delineating the WGL Gray Wolf DPS 

In contrast to a species or a 

subspecies, a DPS is a biological 

population that is delineated by a 

boundary that is based on something 

other than established taxonomic 

distinctions. Therefore, the starting 

point for delineating a DPS is the 

biological population or 

metapopulation, and a geographical 

delineation of the DPS must reasonably 

represent the population/ 

metapopulation and its biological 

characteristics. 

To delineate the boundary of the WGL 

DPS, we considered the current 

distribution of wolves in the Midwest 

and the characteristic movements of 

those wolves and of gray wolves 

elsewhere. We examined the available 

scientific data on long-distance 

movements, including long-distance 

movements followed by return 

movements to the vicinity of the natal 

pack. We concluded that wolf behavior 

and the nature of wolf populations 

require that we include within the area 

of the DPS some subset of known longdistance movement locations. However, 

as described below, wolf biology and 

common sense argue against the 

inclusion within the DPS boundary of 

all known or potential long-distance 

movements. 

This analysis resulted in a WGL DPS 

boundary that is shown in Figure 1. As 

discussed below, this DPS has been 

delineated to include the core recovered 

wolf population plus a wolf movement 

zone around the core wolf populations. 

This geographic delineation is not 

intended to include all areas to which 

wolves have moved from the Great 

Lakes population. Rather, it includes the 

area currently occupied by wolf packs 

in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; 

the nearby areas in these States, 

including the Northern Lower Peninsula 

of Michigan, in which wolf packs may 

become established in the foreseeable 

future; and a surrounding area into 

which Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

Michigan wolves occasionally move but 

where persistent packs are not expected 

to be established because suitable 

habitat is rare and exists only as small 

patches. The area surrounding the core 

wolf populations includes the locations 

of most known dispersers from the core 

populations, especially the shorter and 

medium-distance movements from 

which wolves are most likely to return 

to the core areas and contribute to the 

recovered wolf population. 

The WGL areas that are regularly 

occupied by wolf packs are well 

documented in Minnesota (Erb and 

Benson 2004, p. 12, fig. 3), Wisconsin 

(Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 33, fig. 1), and 

the UP of Michigan (Huntzinger et al 

2005, pp. 25–27, figs. 4–6). Wolves have 

successfully colonized most, perhaps 

all, suitable habitat in Minnesota. 

Minnesota data from the winter of 

2003–04 indicate that wolf numbers and 

density either have continued to 

increase slowly or have stabilized since 

1997–98, and there was no expansion of 

occupied range in the State (Erb and 

Benson 2004, p. 7). Wisconsin wolves 

now occupy most habitat areas believed 

to have a high probability of wolf 

occurrence except for some areas of 

northeastern Wisconsin, and the State’s 

wolf population continues to annually 

increase in numbers and, to a lesser 

degree, in area (Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 

33). The UP of Michigan has wolf packs 

throughout, although the current 

population remains well below the 

estimated biological carrying capacity 

(Mladenoff et al. 1997, pp. 25–27, and 

figs. 5 & 7) and will likely continue to 

increase in numbers in the UP for at 

least several more years. 

When delineating the WGL DPS, we 

had to consider the high degree of 

mobility shown by wolves. The 

dispersal of wolves from their natal 

packs and territories is a normal and 

important behavioral attribute of the 

species that facilitates the formation of 

new packs, the occupancy of vacant 

territories, and the expansion of 

occupied range by the ‘‘colonization’’ of 

vacant habitat. Data on wolf dispersal 

rates from numerous North American 

studies (summarized in Fuller et al. 

2003, p. 179, Table. 6.6; Boyd and 

Pletscher 1999, p. 1102, Table 6) show 

dispersal rates of 13 to 48 percent of the 

individuals in a pack. Sometimes the 

movements are temporary, and the wolf 

returns to a location in or near its natal 

territory. In some cases a wolf may 

continue its movement for scores or 

even hundreds of miles until it locates 

suitable habitat, where it may establish 

a territory or join an existing pack. In 

other cases, a wolf is found dead at a 

distance from its original territory, 

leaving unanswered the questions of 

how far it would have gone and whether 

it eventually would have returned to its 

natal area or population. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6061 

Minnesota—The current record for a 

documented extra-territorial movement 

by a gray wolf in North America is held 

by a Minnesota wolf that moved a 

minimum (that is, the straight line 

distance from known starting point to 

most distant point) of at least 550 mi 

(886 km) northwest into Saskatchewan 

(Fritts 1983, p. 166–167). Nineteen other 

primarily Minnesota movements 

summarized by Mech (in litt. 2005) 

averaged 154 mi (248 km). Their 

minimum distance of travel ranged from 

32–532 mi (53–886 km) with the 

minimum dispersal distance shown by 

known returning wolves ranging from 

54 mi (90 km) to 307 mi (494 km). 

Wisconsin—In 2004, a wolf tagged in 

Michigan was killed by a vehicle in 

Rusk County in northwestern 

Wisconsin, 295 miles (475 km) west of 

his original capture location in the 

eastern UP (Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 4). 

A similar distance (298 mi, 480 km) was 

traveled by a north-central Wisconsin 

yearling female wolf that moved to the 

Rainy Lake region of Ontario during 

1988–89 (Wydeven et al. 1995, p. 149). 

Michigan—Drummer et al. (2002, pp. 

14–15) reported 10 long-distance 

dispersal events involving UP wolves. 

One of these wolves moved to northcentral Missouri and another to 

southeastern Wisconsin, both beyond 

the core wolf areas in the WGL. The 

average straight-line distance traveled 

by those two wolves was 377 mi (608 

km), while the average straight-line 

distance for all 10 of these wolves was 

232 mi (373 km). Their straight-line 

distances ranged from 41 to 468 mi (66 

to 753 km). 

Illinois and Indiana—The December 

2002, Marshall County, Illinois, wolf 

likely dispersed from the Wisconsin 

wolf population, nearly 200 miles (322 

km) to the north (Great Lakes Directory 

2003). The Randolph County, Indiana 

wolf had traveled a minimum distance 

of at least 420 miles (676 km) to get 

around Lake Michigan from its central 

Wisconsin birthplace; it likely traveled 

much father than that unless it went 

through the city or suburbs of Chicago 

(Wydeven et al. 2004, pp. 10–11). The 

Pike County, Illinois, wolf that was shot 

in late 2005 was about 300 mi (180 km) 

from the nearest wolf packs in central 

Wisconsin. 

North Dakota, South Dakota, and 

Nebraska—Licht and Fritts (1994, p. 77) 

tabulated seven gray wolves found dead 

in North Dakota and South Dakota from 

1981 through 1992 that are believed to 

have originated from Minnesota, based 

on skull morphometrics. Although none 

of these wolves were marked or radiotracked, making it impossible to 

determine the point of initiation of their 

journey, a minimum travel distance for 

the seven of Minnesota origin can be 

determined from the nearest wolf 

breeding range in Minnesota. For the 

seven, the average distance to the 

nearest wolf breeding range was 160 mi 

(257 km) and ranged from 29 to 329 mi 

(46 to 530 km). One of these seven 

wolves moved west of the Missouri 

River before it died. 

Genetic analysis of a wolf killed in 

Harding County, in extreme 

northwestern South Dakota, in 2001 

indicated that it originated from the 

Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf 

populations (Fain in litt. 2006). The 

straight-line travel distance to the 

nearest Minnesota wolf pack is nearly 

400 miles (644 km). 

The wolf from the Greater 

Yellowstone area that was killed by a 

vehicle on Interstate 90 near Sturgis, SD, 

in March of 2006 traveled a minimum 

straight-line distance of about 270 mi 

(435 km) from the nearest known 

Greater Yellowstone pack before it died 

(USFWS et al. 2006, in USFWS Program 

Report, Figure 1). 

A large canid was shot by a Boyd 

County, Nebraska, rancher in late 1994 

or early 1995, likely after crossing the 

frozen Missouri River from South 

Dakota (Anschutz in litt. 2006, Jobman 

in litt. 1995. It was determined to be a 

wolf that originated from the Great 

Lakes wolf populations (Fain in litt. 

2006), whose nearest pack would have 

been about 300 mi (480 km) away. A 

wolf illegally killed near Spalding, 

Nebraska, in December of 2002 also 

originated from the MinnesotaWisconsin-Michigan wolf population, as 

determined by genetic analysis 

(Anschutz in litt. 2003, Fain in litt. 

2006). The nearest Minnesota wolf pack 

is nearly 350 miles (563 km) from this 

location. 

Other notable extra-territorial 

movements—Notable are several wolves 

whose extra-territorial movements were 

radio-tracked in sufficient detail to 

provide insight into their actual travel 

routes and total travel distances for each 

trek, rather than only documenting 

straight-line distance from beginning to 

end-point. Merrill and Mech (2000, pp. 

429–431) reported on four such 

Minnesota wolves with documented 

travel distances ranging from 305 to 

2,641 mi (490 to 4,251 km) and an 

average travel route length of 988 mi 

(1590 km). Wydeven (1994, pp. 20–22) 

described a Wisconsin wolf that moved 

from northwestern Wisconsin to the 

northern suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota, 

for 2 weeks (apparently not seen or 

reported to authorities by the local 

residents), then moved back to northcentral Wisconsin. The total travel 

distance was 278 mi (447 km) from her 

natal pack into Minnesota and on to the 

north-central Wisconsin location where 

she settled down. 

While investigating the origins of 

Scandinavian wolf populations, Linnell 

et al. (2005, p. 387) compiled gray wolf 

dispersal data from 21 published 

studies, including many cited separately 

here. Twenty-two of 298 compiled 

dispersals (7.4 percent) were over 300 

km (186 mi). Eleven dispersals (3.7 

percent) were over 500 km (311 mi). 

Because of the likelihood that many 

long-distance dispersers are never 

reported, they conclude that the 

proportion of long-distance dispersers is 

probably severely underestimated. 

From these extra-territorial movement 

records we conclude that gray wolf 

movements of over 200 miles (320 km) 

straight-line distance have been 

documented on numerous occasions, 

while shorter distance movements are 

more frequent. Movements of 300 miles 

(480 km) straight-line distance or more 

are less common, but include one 

Minnesota wolf that journeyed a 

straight-line distance of 300 mi (480 km) 

and a known minimum travel distance 

of 2,550 mi (4,251 km) before it reversed 

direction, as determined by its satellitetracked collar. This wolf returned to a 

spot only 24 mi (40 km) from its natal 

territory (Merrill and Mech 2000, p. 

430). While much longer movements 

have been documented, including some 

by midwestern wolves, return 

movements to the vicinity of natal 

territories have not been documented 

for extra-territorial movements beyond 

300 mi (480 km). 

Based on these extra-territorial 

movement data, we conclude that 

affiliation with the midwestern wolf 

population has diminished and is 

essentially lost when dispersal takes a 

Midwest wolf a distance of 250 to 300 

miles (400 to 480 km) beyond the outer 

edge of the areas that are largely 

continuously occupied by wolf packs. 

Although some WGL wolves will move 

beyond this distance, available data 

indicate that longer distance dispersers 

are unlikely to return to their natal 

population. Therefore, they have lost 

their functional connection with and 

potential conservation value to, the 

WGL wolf population. 

Wolves moving substantial distances 

outward from the core areas of 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

will encounter landscape features that 

are at least partial barriers to further 

wolf movement, and that may—if 

crossed—impede attempts of wolves to 

return toward the WGL core areas. If 

such partial barriers are in a location 

that has separate utility in delineating 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6062 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

the biological extent of a wolf 

population, they can and should be 

used to delineate the DPS boundary. 

Such landscape features are the 

Missouri River in North Dakota and 

downstream to Omaha, Nebraska, and 

Interstate Highway 80 from Omaha 

eastward through Illinois, Indiana, and 

into Ohio, ending where this highway 

crosses the Maumee River in Toledo, 

Ohio. We do not believe these are 

absolute barriers to wolf movement. 

There is evidence that several 

Minnesota-origin wolves have crossed 

the Missouri River (Licht and Fritts 

1994, pp. 75 & 77, Fig. 1 and Table 1; 

Anschutz in litt. 2003, 2006) and some 

Midwest wolves have crossed interstate 

highways (Merrill and Mech 2000, p. 

430). There is also evidence that some 

wolves are hesitant to cross highways, 

(Whittington et al. 2004, pp. 7, 9; 

Wydeven et al. 2005b, p. 5; but see 

Blanco et al. 2005, pp. 315–316, 319–

320 and Kohn et al. 2000, p. 22). 

Interstate highways and smaller roads 

are a known mortality factor for wolves 

and, therefore, are a partial barrier to 

wolf movements (Blanco et al. 2005, p. 

320). 

The recent death of a NRM wolf near 

Sturgis in western South Dakota (Fain in 

litt. 2006) suggests that the area of the 

Dakotas west of the Missouri River may 

be traversed by a small number of 

wolves coming from both the NRM and 

Great Lakes wolf populations, as well as 

wolves from Canada (Licht and Fritts 

1994, pp. 75–77). Wolves in this area 

cannot be assumed to belong to the 

Great Lakes wolf population, supporting 

our belief that the DPS boundary should 

not be designed to include the locations 

of all known dispersers. As this record 

shows, an additional weakness of basing 

a DPS boundary on the location of the 

most distant dispersal is that it results 

in a boundary that is valid only until a 

more distant dispersal event is 

documented. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with the December 16, 

2004, Office of Management and 

Budget’s ‘‘Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review,’’ we have 

obtained comments from at least three 

independent scientific reviewers 

regarding the scientific data and 

interpretations contained in the March 

27, 2006, proposed rule (71 FR 15266). 

The purpose of such review is to ensure 

that our delisting proposal provided to 

the public and our delisting decision is 

based on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. Peer 

reviewer comments were received 

during the public comment period from 

ten individuals and were considered as 

we made our final decision on the 

proposal. Substantive peer reviewer 

comments are summarized in the 

remaining paragraphs of this section as 

well as discussed in greater detail in the 

appropriate Issue/Response sections 

which follow. 

All ten peer reviewers have extensive 

biological experience with gray wolves. 

Most are currently involved in wolf 

research for the Federal Government 

(three individuals in two agencies), 

Canadian Government (one reviewer), or 

universities (two individuals). One 

reviewer is a biologist for a tribe with 

extensive involvement in wolf recovery 

and management, one leads a long-term 

Federal wolf depredation control 

program, another directs an endangered 

species conservation organization, and 

the tenth is a retired State wolf biologist. 

None of the peer reviewers are 

employed by the Service or by State 

agencies within the WGL DPS. 

All eight peer reviewers who 

expressed a clear opinion supported the 

biological approach we used to establish 

the DPS and its boundaries, and they 

agreed that the delisting criteria have 

been achieved by the DPS. Three of 

these eight had previously opposed the 

proposed 2003 establishment and 2004 

delisting of the much larger Eastern 

DPS. None of the peer reviewers stated 

that the currently proposed DPS 

boundary or delisting was 

inappropriate. One peer reviewer’s 

expertise is limited to wolf diseases and 

causes of wolf mortality. This reviewer 

limited her comments to those areas. 

The remaining peer reviewer was 

unclear regarding support for, or 

opposition to, our biological basis for 

the proposed boundary of the DPS, but 

agreed that wolves in the Great Lakes 

have met the federally established 

delisting criteria. 

In general, the peer reviewers judged 

the delisting proposal to be well 

researched, thorough, and adequate to 

support delisting of the WGL DPS. 

Except for one reviewer who stated that 

the State plans need greater emphasis 

on educating and informing the public, 

all comments related to State plans and 

our analysis of the plans indicated that 

the reviewers believed the State 

population goals were adequate and the 

protection and management actions 

contained in the plans would ensure 

viable wolf populations following 

delisting. 

None of the peer reviewers expressed 

concerns with the expanded use of wolf 

control measures by the States following 

delisting. Several specifically stated that 

they were confident that the States 

would not allow human-caused 

mortality to threaten the security of 

viable populations within the three 

States. One reviewer, who has several 

decades of experience with wolf 

depredation control measures, 

expressed a belief that wolf control or 

harvest by the public will not result in 

excessive take of wolves. 

There were no criticisms of, or 

recommendations to improve, the 

current population monitoring done by 

the three States. One reviewer, while 

noting that the Minnesota population 

estimate ‘‘is probably much less 

accurate than [those developed by] MI 

or WI’’ and likely overestimates the 

State’s wolf population, went on to state 

that this is not a critical point and may 

not matter, because the Minnesota wolf 

population is well over the minimum 

number needed to delist. He also stated 

that ‘‘managers have as good a dataset 

on wolves as just about any other 

species they manage, even white-tailed 

deer * * *.’’ Another reviewer stated 

that the three States are using ‘‘adequate 

and consistent techniques’’ to develop 

their wolf population estimates. 

There were no suggestions that other 

States within the DPS should be 

developing wolf management plans or 

wolf monitoring programs. However, 

one reviewer recommended that all 

States in the DPS cooperate in the 

documenting and reporting of wolves 

dispersing from the northern Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan recovery 

areas. 

Several reviewers pointed out that, 

while there currently is sufficient 

habitat that is likely to remain secure for 

the foreseeable future, this should be 

monitored by the States after delisting. 

The fragmentation of private industrial 

forests for second homes and other 

developments was identified as a 

potential future threat to occupied wolf 

habitat. Most reviewers pointed to the 

need for effective and timely monitoring 

of wolf numbers and wolf health 

following delisting. 

None of the peer reviewers expressed 

concern that the Wisconsin and 

Michigan Plans—being updated and 

revised, respectively, at the time the 

delisting proposal was published—

would be weakened and substantially 

reduce protections for the wolves in the 

State. However, one of the reviewers 

urged that the two plans be finalized 

prior to delisting. Two peer reviewers 

specifically recommended that the 

Service complete the post-delisting 

monitoring plan prior to delisting. 

One reviewer supported the 

designation of the DPS and its delisting 

and said its boundaries ‘‘do not extend 

delisting beyond an area that is 

reasonably affected by the DPS.’’

However, this reviewer cautioned that 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6063 

in delineating a DPS the Service should 

avoid over-emphasizing ‘‘the 

importance of the biological (or 

population viability) aspect of 

‘significant portion of the range’’’ within 

the Act’s definitions of endangered and 

threatened. He provided a recent coauthored scientific publication that 

seems to argue for a primarily 

quantitative approach to determining 

what part of a species’ range is 

significant. This same reviewer objected 

to the Service’s interpretation of ‘‘range’’

to mean current range, when used in the 

context of ‘‘significant portion of the 

range.’’

Regarding the Northern Lower 

Peninsula of Michigan, one peer 

reviewer indicated his belief that wolves 

are likely to move into habitat there and 

the State should allow that to happen. 

Another reviewer agreed with the 

Service that the currently unoccupied 

habitat in the NLP is not a significant 

portion of their range in the WGL DPS. 

One peer reviewer supported the 

delisting but criticized the ‘‘bizarre 

aspect’’ of it that would result in wolves 

in areas beyond the DPS retaining the 

Act’s protection as endangered, when 

‘‘[t]he area outside the proposed DPS is 

precisely the area that the Eastern 

Timber Wolf recovery Team believed 

should not harbor wolves * * *.’’ The 

reviewer recommends delisting gray 

wolves in the unsuitable habitat areas 

beyond the WGL DPS, as well. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We received 360 total comments, 

including 310 original letters and 50 

form responses based on 2 form letters. 

These comments included 10 that we 

solicited from peer reviewers, as well as 

verbal and written comments received 

at public hearings. We received 

comments from 40 identifiable states 

and the District of Columbia, as well as 

5 foreign countries. Private individuals 

submitted 249 of the comments. 

Nineteen came from preservation, 

conservation, or animal welfare 

organizations, and 16 were submitted by 

agriculture or livestock organizations. 

State agency representatives or elected 

officials provided 12 comments, and 6 

were received from Native American 

government agencies or organizations. 

Issue 1—One commenter requested 

the Service double the length of the 

public comment period and hold 

additional public hearings in all 

‘‘recipient states.’’

Response—The Act and 

implementing regulations for adding or 

removing species from the list of 

threatened and endangered species 

require a public comment period of at 

least 60 days and holding one public 

hearing if requested within 45 days of 

the publication of the proposal (50 CFR 

424.16). We opened a 90-day public 

comment period and held four public 

hearings in the States that would be 

most affected by the proposed changes. 

Additionally, we facilitated public 

involvement in this process by 

providing a great deal of information on 

our Web site regarding wolf biology and 

behavior; wolf identification and wolfdog hybrids; threats to human safety; 

depredation control programs; and our 

summaries of State wolf management 

plans and copies of those plans. We 

mailed summaries of the proposal to 

approximately 1,600 individuals and 

organizations that had previously 

expressed interest in wolf recovery and 

delisting issues, and we provided ways 

to submit comments via the web, e-mail, 

fax, and mail, as well as at the four 

hearings. We provided ample 

opportunities for interested individuals 

and organizations to learn about the 

proposal and to provide comments 

within the 90-day comment period and 

at the four hearings; therefore, we did 

not extend the comment period nor 

schedule additional hearings. 

Issue 2—A number of comments 

expressed opposition to delisting, 

making statements such as ‘‘wolves 

should always be protected’’ by the Act, 

the Service ‘‘should abandon its goal of 

delisting wolves in the U.S.,’’ and 

wolves should not be delisted until 

‘‘their numbers reach exorbitant levels,’’

they have reached biological carrying 

capacity, or wolves have overpopulated 

and are damaging the natural ecosystem. 

Other commenters wanted the critical 

habitat designations to remain in place 

after delisting to keep the Service 

involved in preserving habitat for a 

delisted species. 

Response —The Act provides the 

Federal Government with authority to 

protect and recover threatened and 

endangered species. When a species has 

been recovered to the extent that it no 

longer meets the definition of 

‘‘threatened’’ or ‘‘endangered,’’ the Act 

provides that it be removed from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants and its 

management be returned to the 

appropriate States and tribes (in cases 

where treaties identify such authorities 

for tribes). The goal of the Act is to 

recover and delist species that have 

been listed as threatened or endangered. 

The gray wolf WGL DPS no longer 

meets the definition of threatened or 

endangered, because it has achieved 

long-standing recovery criteria by 

greatly expanding in numbers and 

geographic range and threats to its longterm viability have been reduced or 

eliminated. Therefore, the Act 

authorizes delisting the taxon, but it 

also requires that we continue to 

monitor the status of the species for a 

minimum of five years after delisting, 

and we can list it again if the monitoring 

results show that to be necessary. 

‘‘Critical habitat’’ is a legal 

designation under the Act that is given 

to geographical areas that are essential 

to the conservation of a listed species. 

Critical habitat is designated only for 

endangered or threatened species, and 

any critical habitat designations must be 

removed if the taxon is removed from 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 

Issue 3—Numerous commenters 

indicated that our delisting proposal 

was based on unspecified political 

considerations, pressure from the 

livestock industry, exaggerated fears for 

human safety, pressure from deer 

hunters and furbearer trappers, and 

pressure from States. We were asked by 

other commenters to consider the value 

of wolves as an umbrella or keystone 

species, for keeping deer numbers in 

check, to maintaining healthy ungulate 

populations, in balancing nature, and 

providing a legal mechanism to protect 

habitat needed by other species. Others 

thought we should consider the 

economic benefits provided by a large 

wolf population and recognize that 

protecting ‘‘the entire ecology of 

Minnesota’’ requires that we keep 

wolves listed under the Act. 

Response—The Act requires that 

listing and delisting decisions be based 

entirely on whether a species is 

endangered or threatened due to one or 

more categories of threats (section 

4(a)(1)) and that we make this 

determination ‘‘solely on the basis of the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available.’’ In compliance with the Act, 

the other considerations and factors 

described above have not been used in 

making this decision. 

Issue 4—Several commenters stated 

that wolf recovery should include 

repopulating suitable habitat in the 

Lower Peninsula of Michigan, or that a 

larger geographical area needs to be 

reoccupied before recovery is achieved. 

One comment stated that population 

numbers alone cannot be used ‘‘as the 

sole proof of long-term recovery.’’ Other 

commenters pointed to scientific 

publications that advocate larger 

populations with more individuals to 

ensure long-term viability of species, in 

general. 

Response—The Act states that the 

Service will develop recovery plans 

and, within these recovery plans, to the 

maximum extent practicable, establish 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6064 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘objective, measurable criteria which, 

when met, would result in a 

determination * * * that the species be 

removed from the list * * *.’’ (section 

4(f)(1)(B)(ii)). Therefore, while a 

delisting decision must include an 

evaluation of the threats to a species, we 

must also establish and utilize 

measurable criteria to assess progress 

towards recovery. Our delisting decision 

is not based on population numbers 

alone, but also on population 

distribution and threats to that 

population and its habitat, as required 

by the Act. 

Issue 5—We received several 

comments that stated that the recovery 

criteria have not been achieved because 

either the wolf population data are 

wrong, and/or because the WisconsinUpper Peninsula wolf population is not 

a second population as is required by 

the recovery criteria found in the 1992 

Recovery Plan. 

Response—We, and the peer 

reviewers of the delisting proposal, are 

fully satisfied that the wolf population 

estimates provided by the DNRs of 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

demonstrate that the numerical recovery 

criteria have been achieved for far 

longer than the five years recommended 

in the Federal Recovery Plan. The 

methods used by WI and MI DNRs 

result in a conservative count of the 

wolves that are alive at the late-winter 

annual low point of the wolf 

population. The method used by the 

Minnesota DNR for its much larger wolf 

population is less precise, but even the 

lower bound of its 90 percent 

confidence interval (CI) exceeded the 

Federal Recovery Plan’s Minnesota goal 

of 1,250–1,440 wolves back as far as the 

1988–89 survey (Fuller et al. 1992, 

p. 50) and the CI lower bound has been 

well above that goal since then (Erb and 

Benson 2004, table 1). Therefore, we see 

no problem with using these Minnesota 

population estimates. The Recovery 

Team has also expressed confidence in 

the population estimates of all three 

States (Peterson in litt.1999a, in litt. 

1999b)). 

The 1992 Federal Recovery Plan 

describes two scenarios that would 

satisfy its requirement for a second 

viable wolf population. One scenario 

deals with the development of an 

isolated wolf population; such a 

population must be composed of at least 

200 wolves over five successive years. 

The second scenario is a population that 

is located within 100 miles of another 

viable wolf population; such a 

population must consist of only 100 

wolves for five consecutive years 

(USFWS 1992, pp. 25–26). The 

Recovery Plan discusses the 

conservation tradeoffs of completely 

separate populations versus adjacent 

populations, and it specifically states 

that a wolf population larger than 100 

wolves ‘‘closely tied to the Minnesota 

population’’ will be considered a viable 

population despite its small size, 

because of immigration of wolves from 

Minnesota (USFWS 1992, pp. 24–25). 

Although this Recovery Plan was 

written prior to the common acceptance 

and use of the conservation biology term 

‘‘metapopulation,’’ this clearly was the 

concept being discussed and advocated 

in the Federal Recovery Plan. The 

second scenario describes what has 

occurred in the WGL DPS and therefore 

the wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan 

qualify as a second population. 

Issue 6—Several comments stated that 

a DPS cannot be used for delisting a 

species; DPSs can only be established 

for listing species as threatened or 

endangered. 

Response—DPSs can be utilized for 

both listing and delisting species. 

Section 4(a)(1) of the Act directs the 

Secretary of the Interior to determine 

whether ‘‘any species’’ is endangered or 

threatened. Numerous sections of the 

Act refer to adding and removing 

‘‘species’’ from the list of threatened or 

endangered plants and animals. Section 

3(15) defines ‘‘species’’ to include any 

subspecies ‘‘and any distinct population 

segment of any species of vertebrate fish 

or wildlife * * *.’’ Therefore, the Act 

authorizes us to list, reclassify, and 

delist species, subspecies, and DPSs of 

vertebrate species. Furthermore, our 

‘‘Policy Regarding the Recognition of 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments 

under the Endangered Species Act’’

states that the policy is intended for 

‘‘the purposes of listing, delisting, and 

reclassifying species under the 

Endangered Species Act * * *.’’ (61 FR 

4722, Feb. 7, 1996), and that it ‘‘guides 

the evaluation of distinct vertebrate 

population segments for the purposes of 

listing, delisting, and reclassifying 

under the Act.’’ (61 FR 4725). 

Issue 7—Several commenters, 

including State natural resource 

agencies, stated that the proposed DPS 

is too small and should be expanded to 

include all of their state (North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Iowa), and for Missouri, 

should include the northern two-thirds 

of the State. They expressed concerns 

that some gray wolves will disperse 

beyond the boundaries of the proposed 

WGL DPS, where they would have 

endangered status under the Act. If 

those wolves subsequently cause 

conflicts with livestock or other human 

activities, the States would be limited in 

the management or control actions that 

they could undertake to address the 

conflict. 

Response—We have delineated this 

DPS boundary to be based solely on the 

wolf population in the Western Great 

Lakes. Suggestions to enlarge the DPS to 

include the locations of all known 

dispersers from this recovered 

population are not practical for several 

reasons. It is not possible to predict 

where additional long-distance 

dispersers will turn up. Attempting to 

lay out the DPS boundary so that it 

circumscribes all future Midwest 

dispersers would require either an 

unacceptably large DPS, or making a 

series of future outward boundary 

adjustments to reflect new dispersal 

locations as they occur. 

Upon request we will work with the 

States where the gray wolf retains 

endangered status to identify and 

pursue options to deal with wolf-human 

conflicts that may arise there. We also 

point out that the Act’s implementing 

regulations for endangered wildlife 

specifically allow a person to take an 

endangered wolf ‘‘in defense of his own 

life or the lives of others’’ (50 CFR 

17.21(c)(3)) and provide that employees 

or agents of the Service, other Federal 

land management agencies, and State 

conservation agencies may take an 

endangered wolf that is ‘‘a demonstrable 

but nonimmediate threat to human 

safety.’’ (50 CFR 17.21(c)(3)(iv)). 

Issue 8—One comment stated that the 

DPS should not include small areas of 

northern Indiana and Ohio and instead 

the DPS should end at the southern 

border of Michigan. 

Response—We believe the use of I–80 

is preferable to the State line for several 

reasons. First, the interstate highway 

more clearly identifies the terminus of 

the DPS on the ground, making it easier 

for an individual or for law enforcement 

agents to determine the legal status of a 

wolf in the field. Second, this major 

interstate highway will serve as a partial 

barrier to wolf dispersal out of the DPS. 

Therefore, this boundary makes it less 

likely that these two States will have to 

deal with dispersing gray wolves that 

are protected as endangered within their 

state. Neither State has requested the 

proposed boundary be modified. 

Issue 9—The DPS should not include 

areas of suitable habitat that lack wolf 

packs. The DPS should not include any 

areas that lack wolf packs. 

Response—We have established the 

DPS to be closely tied to the biological 

wolf population that has been 

recovered, and to be consistent with the 

two relevant court rulings (Defenders of 

Wildlife v. Norton, 03–1348–JO, D. OR 

2005; National Wildlife Federation v. 

Norton, 1:03–CV–340, D. VT. 2005). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6065 

Wolf biology makes it unreasonable to 

define a wolf population, and hence a 

wolf DPS, solely as the area where wolf 

packs are present at viable levels. Any 

area that hosts wolf packs also is 

producing a substantial number of 

dispersing wolves, some of which return 

after short absences, while others travel 

farther and some never return. 

Delineation of a wolf population must 

recognize and account for this dispersal 

behavior to some degree. We believe our 

DPS delineation is appropriately based 

on the biological features of the species 

and the nature of a wolf population by 

being centered around the focal areas of 

the recovery program, but also including 

a reasonable portion of those wolves 

making longer distance movements from 

their natal areas. 

We have included nearby areas that 

are likely to be visited by wolves that 

have dispersed from the core recovery 

areas because we believe these wolves 

should be considered part of that 

biological population while they are 

within a reasonable distance from the 

core areas. The areas of potentially 

suitable habitat that are currently 

unoccupied are relatively small, and 

even if occupied in the future, will not 

make a significant contribution to the 

long-term viability of the gray wolf 

population in the DPS or in the United 

States. Additionally, wolves that 

ultimately occupy the NLP will have 

dispersed from the UP, so we believe 

the NLP should be included within the 

WGL DPS. 

Issue 10—One comment stated that 

other gray wolf DPSs should be 

proposed and designated 

simultaneously. Piecemeal designation 

of DPSs and delisting thwarts the intent 

of both the vertebrate population policy 

and the Act. 

Response—While in some situations 

it may be appropriate to designate 

multiple DPSs simultaneously, there is 

no requirement in the Act or the DPS 

Policy to do so. The Service lists or 

delists species when data are available 

that supports a decision that best serves 

the conservation of the taxon. 

Issue 11—Several commenters 

expressed the concern that delisting the 

WGL DPS will eliminate the possibility 

of wolf recovery in the northeastern 

United States. 

Response—Following this delisting, 

gray wolves in the northeastern states 

will retain their classification as 

endangered under the Act, thereby 

preserving the possibility of efforts to 

restore the gray wolf to that region. It 

also preserves the Federal protections of 

the Act that would aid gray wolf 

restoration actions in the northeastern 

United States if undertaken by State or 

tribal agencies, and it protects gray 

wolves immigrating from Canada. 

Issue 12—The Service must consider 

gray wolf subspecies when constructing 

DPS boundaries, and a DPS cannot 

include portions of the historical range 

of two subspecies (C. lupus lycaon and 

C. l. nubilus) within its boundary. 

Response—The gray wolf entity that 

has been protected by the Act since 

1978 is the species C. lupus in the 

United States and Mexico, rather than a 

subspecies of the gray wolf. This DPS 

creates a subunit of the species listing, 

thereby indicating that the population of 

the species within this geographical 

boundary has been recovered. It makes 

no reference to any gray wolf 

subspecies. Because the listed entity is 

the gray wolf, creating a DPS from a 

portion of the listed entity does not 

create or require a nexus with 

subspecies taxonomy. 

Issue 13—Several comments 

suggested that a separate species of wolf 

may be present in the Upper Peninsula 

and should be recognized and protected 

by the Service. 

Response—There are several scientific 

hypotheses regarding the identity of 

large canids in the eastern United States 

and adjacent Canada. One of these 

hypotheses suggests that the wolves in 

southeastern Ontario are a separate wolf 

species being referred to as the ‘‘eastern 

wolf’’ and tentatively given the 

scientific name Canis lycaon. If 

southeastern Ontario wolves are this 

separate species, those wolves may have 

contributed their genetic material to the 

wolf population in the UP via 

movement westward across the St. 

Mary’s River. However, we believe the 

UP wolf population primarily 

developed from Minnesota and 

Wisconsin wolves that made overland 

movements into the UP from the west, 

and that wolf immigration across the St. 

Mary’s River from the east was of much 

smaller magnitude. At this point there 

have been no published or peerreviewed studies of the genetic makeup 

of UP wolves. Therefore, we will 

continue to consider WGL wolves to be 

C. lupus. 

Issue 14—One comment applied the 

meaning of significance (using examples 

of unique ecological setting and 

differences in genetic characteristics) as 

used in our 1996 DPS Policy (61 FR 

4725, Feb. 7, 1996) to the usage of 

‘‘significant’’ in ‘‘significant portion of 

its range’’ as the phrase is used in the 

definitions of endangered and 

threatened in paragraphs 3(6) and 3(19), 

respectively. As a result, the comment 

concludes that we have not applied the 

DPS Policy’s examples of significance 

during our analysis of whether wolves 

have been recovered to a sufficient area 

of the DPS. 

Response—These two uses of 

significant/significance are contextspecific, do not have the same meaning, 

and should not be used interchangeably. 

When applying the DPS policy, we are 

required to evaluate whether the 

discrete group of animals under 

consideration is sufficiently important 

to the overall taxon so that it warrants 

a separate listing under the Act—that is, 

is the population significant to the 

overall taxon. In contrast, when 

applying the definitions of endangered 

and threatened to a taxon, we are 

considering whether a certain area is 

important to that same taxon. Another 

way of explaining the difference is that 

in one case we are evaluating the 

importance of a group of organisms; in 

the other case we are assessing the value 

of a portion of geographic range. The 

evaluations are not comparable and are 

dependent on different factors. 

Therefore, we believe we are correct in 

our usage of these terms in this rule. 

Issue 15—Wolves remain extirpated 

in approximately 60 percent of the DPS. 

This is a significant portion of the range 

(SPR) within the DPS; therefore, wolves 

remain endangered in the DPS. 

Response—The determination of 

whether a portion of a species’ range is 

‘‘significant’’ is based on the biological 

needs of the species and the threats to 

the species. In making this 

determination we consider the quality, 

quantity, and distribution of suitable 

habitat, the use, uniqueness, and 

importance of the habitat, and other 

biological factors appropriate to the 

species and area under consideration. 

We do not focus solely, or even 

primarily, on a quantitative assessment, 

because quantity of range might have no 

relationship to the biological needs of 

the species. In the case of the gray wolf, 

the portions of North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio 

within the WGL DPS are not significant 

portions of the range even though they 

may be sizeable pieces of historical 

range. These areas contain wolf habitat 

that is severely degraded at best, and 

even if they remained listed as 

endangered, they would not be likely to 

develop viable wolf populations in the 

foreseeable future. These areas thus are 

not important to the gray wolf 

metapopulation in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan. Similarly, the areas of 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

that currently are unoccupied by wolves 

contain only small areas of potentially 

suitable habitat, mostly in the NLP of 

Michigan, and eventual wolf pack 

occupancy of these areas will have 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6066 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

minimal influence on the viability of the 

current recovered wolf populations in 

the three States. Consequently, these 

areas have minimal biological 

significance to the conservation status of 

gray wolves in the DPS, and they are not 

a SPR within the DPS. 

Issue 16—The Service must consider 

the historical range of the gray wolf, 

rather than the currently occupied 

range, when assessing what is a 

‘‘significant part of the range’’ as that 

phrase is used in the definitions of 

endangered and threatened species. 

Response—For the purposes of this 

rule, and for determining the significant 

portion of the range of the gray wolf in 

the DPS, the Service considers the range 

of the gray wolf to be the entire 

geographical area delineated by the 

WGL DPS. We have clarified this in the 

final rule. 

Issue 17—One comment stated that a 

rangewide recovery plan is required by 

the Act before any wolf delisting actions 

can occur. 

Response—The Service has 

developed, implemented, and revised, 

as needed, three geographically based 

recovery plans for the gray wolf. The 

Act requires that we develop and 

implement recovery plans for listed 

species unless they ‘‘will not promote 

the conservation of the species * * *’’

(section 4(f)(1)). In its 2005 ruling, the 

Vermont District Court specifically 

commented on this issue, finding that 

the Service’s use of ‘‘three recovery 

plans for the gray wolf rather than one 

comprehensive plan must be afforded 

Chevron deference, and is therefore an 

appropriate agency course of action’’

(National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, 

1:03–CV–340, D. VT. 2005, p. 28). 

Issue 18—A comment letter stated 

that the Act does not permit the creation 

of a WGL DPS (and Northern Rocky 

Mountain DPS) while maintaining the 

pre-existing species listing across the 

remaining 48 States. 

Response—We believe this approach 

of creating a small DPS reflects the 

recovered status of wolves in the DPS 

and is consistent with the 2005 rulings 

(Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 03–

1348–JO, D. OR 2005; National Wildlife 

Federation v. Norton, 1:03–CV–340, D. 

VT. 2005). The Vermont ruling stated 

‘‘Nowhere in the ESA is the Secretary 

prevented from creating a ‘non-DPS 

remnant’ designation, especially when 

the remnant area was already listed as 

endangered’’ (National Wildlife 

Federation v. Norton, 1:03–CV–340, D. 

VT. 2005, p. 20). Our current creation of 

a WGL DPS, while retaining the 

remaining 48-state and Mexico gray 

wolf listing intact as endangered, is 

consistent with this aspect of the 

District Court’s ruling. 

Issue 19—The Service cannot delist 

the DPS because the gray wolf remains 

extirpated from 95 percent of its 

historical range. 

Response—We have clarified in this 

final rule that we are only delisting the 

gray wolf in the WGL DPS; we are not 

delisting the gray wolf across its 

historical range in the 48 coterminous 

States and Mexico. We have considered 

only whether the gray wolf is threatened 

or endangered within this DPS. 

Issue 20—The DPS can only delist 

wolves in the core recovery areas, rather 

than include and delist dispersing 

animals from those areas. 

Response—A critical component of 

delineating the boundaries of a DPS is 

gaining an understanding of the 

population/metapopulation that is being 

designated as a DPS. Wolf biology 

clearly shows that temporary and 

permanent movements beyond the 

pack’s territory are a key element of 

wolf population dynamics, and as such, 

these movements must be considered 

when delineating a boundary for a DPS. 

Furthermore, a biologically based DPS 

boundary cannot follow the edge of the 

fully occupied core areas, as this 

comment seems to advocate. Individual 

wolves would be constantly moving 

back and forth across such a boundary, 

and pack territories may form on both 

sides of the line in some years, and 

might disappear from one or both sides 

in subsequent years, depending on a 

number of physical, biological, and 

societal factors. We determined that the 

DPS boundary should recognize and 

accommodate the normal behavior of 

the population/metapopulation 

members. 

Issue 21—The Service did not use 

wolf dispersal data as claimed, because 

wolves disperse outside of the proposed 

DPS boundary. 

Response—In the proposed rule we 

did not attempt to include the locations 

of all known dispersing MN/WI/MI 

wolves within the proposed DPS, or to 

use the maximum known gray wolf 

dispersal distance to delineate the DPS 

boundary. We have provided further 

clarification in this final rule on the 

biological method we have used. 

Issue 22—The DPS must contain a 

uniform biotype (the Laurentian Mixed 

Forest Province), or the DPS boundaries 

must be based on biotype or habitat 

boundaries, because this is what makes 

the WGL wolves ‘‘significant.’’

Response—A number of factors 

contributed to our determination that 

the WGL DPS was significant, only one 

of which included occupancy of these 

in the Laurentian Mixed Forest 

Province. However, even if the only 

factor contributing to ‘‘significance’’ was 

the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province, 

the DPS boundaries would not use (nor 

is there a requirement to use) that 

habitat or biotype as the boundary. As 

discussed in the rule, many factors 

concerning wolf biology were 

considered in establishing the WGL 

DPS. Limiting the DPS to one habitat 

type would not make sense biologically 

for this species. 

Issue 23—Highways I–80 and the 

Missouri River cannot be used for DPS 

boundaries, because wolves cross them, 

making them arbitrary choices. 

Response—In our proposal we 

described Interstate 80 and the Missouri 

River as being ‘‘partial barriers,’’ and we 

cited data showing they have been 

crossed by a small number of wolves (p. 

15277). We did not use these features to 

establish the discreteness of the wolf 

population within the WGL DPS. 

Rather, we use them as readily 

identifiable features on the landscape 

that are in a biologically appropriate 

location for use in delineating the DPS, 

and they are also partial barriers to wolf 

movements. 

Issue 24—The 1992 Service Recovery 

Plan is outdated, and its recovery 

criteria cannot be used to justify 

delisting. 

Response—When wolf numbers in the 

Midwest appeared to be approaching 

the recovery criteria specified in the 

1992 Plan, we reconvened the Recovery 

Team in 1997 to query them regarding 

the appropriateness of those criteria. 

The Team expressed confidence that the 

recovery criteria remained ‘‘necessary 

and sufficient’’ (Peterson in litt. 1997, in 

litt. 1998). Furthermore, the peer 

reviewers overwhelmingly supported 

our conclusion that the WGL DPS 

wolves have recovered, and they 

expressed no concern with the 1992 

recovery criteria that were used as part 

of our determination. 

The population goals in the 1992 

Recovery Plan are not the sole 

determinants of whether delisting is 

appropriate. While the Act states that 

recovery plans shall contain ‘‘objective, 

measurable criteria’’ (sec. 4(f)(1)(B)(ii)) 

when practicable, achieving these 

criteria alone cannot result in a 

delisting. Rather, recovery criteria are 

important indicators that identify the 

need for consideration of delisting. The 

consideration of delisting is a broad 

review of the past, current, and likely 

future threats to the species, as required 

by the Act. The delisting decision is 

made based on the threats assessment, 

and the resulting determination of 

whether the species meets the Act’s 

definition of threatened or endangered. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6067 

Issue 25—One commenter stated that 

increasing use of off-highway vehicles 

(OHV) in Minnesota and growing 

human populations pose serious threats 

to wolves, especially in the core of 

Minnesota’s wolf range. The commenter 

pointed out that most of primary wolf 

range (e.g., Management Zone A) (MN 

DNR 2001, Appendix III) is north of 

Highway 2 and that trails in these 

forests may be subject to few limitations 

to motorized use. 

Response—As discussed in ‘‘Suitable 

Habitat in the Western Great Lakes Gray 

Wolf DPS’’ road density has largely been 

accepted as the best single predictor of 

habitat suitability in the Midwest due to 

the connection between roads and 

human-related wolf mortality. Offhighway vehicle trails introduce only a 

portion of the impacts and risk factors 

associated with roads, such as increased 

human access to areas occupied by 

wolves and increased likelihood of 

unauthorized shooting or trapping. Offhighway vehicle trails do not introduce 

significant levels of the other risk 

factors, such as more farms and 

residences, more domestic animals, a 

greater likelihood of mortality due to 

livestock-depredation control or vehicle 

collisions, and increased likelihood of 

disease transmission from domestic 

dogs. Therefore, we believe wolf 

populations are more sensitive to 

normal road infrastructure density than 

to OHV trail density. 

MN DNR is developing 

recommendations for motorized use of 

State forest lands. In preparation for this 

analysis, it completed an inventory in 

2004 of all State forest roads and access 

routes on State, county, and Federal 

lands within State forest boundaries—a 

total of 5.7 million acres. (MN DNR 

2005). This inventory found an overall 

route density of 0.8 km per km2, but did 

not differentiate between motorized and 

non-motorized trails (routes). MN DNR 

is now conducting a forest-by-forest 

review and proposing which roads and 

trails will be available for motor vehicle 

use. As of September 2006, MN DNR 

had completed reviews on 16 State 

forests and had closed approximately 57 

percent of routes to motorized use. If 

this trend continues, the density of 

routes open to motorized use in 

Minnesota State forests (State forest 

roads and OHV trails) may approximate 

0.5 km per km2. Only 3 of the 16 forests 

reviewed thus far, however, are north of 

Highway 2 and all were either 

completely closed to motorized use or 

given a ‘‘Limited’’ use designation. As 

the department begins to evaluate larger, 

more remote northern forests, however, 

this trend (i.e., about 50 percent closure) 

may change and some forests may retain 

the ‘‘managed’’ classification (i.e., open 

unless posted closed, OHV trail 

designation questions and answers, MN 

DNR Division of Trails and Waterways, 

St. Paul, MN; http:// 

www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/mgmtplans/ 

ohv/designation/index.html. 

According to the commenter, 

registered ATVs in Minnesota increased 

from 32,501 in 1990 to 266,283 in 2004. 

Although this is a sharp increase, the 

wolf population in Minnesota grew and, 

more recently, may have stabilized at 

about 3,020 wolves (Erb and Benson 

2004, Table 1) during this time. 

Therefore, there is no clear relationship 

between OHV use and wolf abundance 

statewide. Nevertheless, we agree that 

the combination of growing human 

populations and extensive use of OHV’s 

warrants careful monitoring and 

regulation to ensure that wolf 

populations are not adversely affected. 

Minnesota’s wolf management plan 

states that ‘‘in areas of sufficient size to 

sustain one or more wolf packs, land 

managers should be cautious about 

adding new road access that could 

exceed a density of one mile of road per 

square mile of land, without considering 

the potential effect on wolves’’ (MN 

DNR 2001, p. 29). We expect MN DNR 

to continue to also consider human 

densities when monitoring the extent 

and distribution of suitable wolf habitat 

in the State and to take necessary 

actions (e.g., decreasing road density in 

State forests) to maintain a population 

of at least 1,600 gray wolves if increases 

in human density erode the extent of 

suitable habitat such that the population 

falls below this level. 

Issue 26—A commenter pointed out 

that increasing volume of automobile 

traffic in Minnesota’s wolf range will 

fragment habitat, increase wolf 

mortality, destroy habitat, displace 

wolves, and contribute to urban sprawl. 

Four examples were provided. 

Response—It is clear that automobiles 

kill wolves on roads and highways and 

that wolves tend to avoid these features 

relative to road-free areas (Whittington 

et al. 2004, pp. 9–11; Whittington et al. 

2005, pp. 549–551), but highways are far 

from absolute barriers to dispersal. For 

example, in a study of U.S. Highway 53 

in northwest Wisconsin (4,700 vehicles 

per day) in the late 1990’s, Kohn et al. 

(2000, p. 2) found that 12 of 13 radiocollared wolves that encountered the 

highway successfully crossed it, some of 

them multiple times, and that each of 

these dispersing wolves subsequently 

became dominant members of packs in 

newly established territories. In 

addition, the successful reestablishment 

of wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan 

depended on a sufficient number of 

Minnesota wolves crossing Interstate 

Highway 35 where current average 

traffic volumes are greater than 15,000 

vehicles per day (http:// 

www.dot.state.mn.us/tda/maps/ 

trunkhighway/2004/state_and_metro/ 

stateflo.pdf). Wolf crossing of roads, 

however, is dependent on adjacent 

human development and habitat 

fragmentation, and land managers can 

likely influence the ability of wolves to 

disperse across highways in Minnesota’s 

wolf range by ensuring that sufficient 

road reaches occur in areas with high 

crossing potential (i.e., low 

fragmentation of adjacent habitat due to 

open or developed areas; Frair 1999, pp. 

19–20). 

Issue 27—Disease remains a serious 

threat and post-delisting disease 

monitoring is inadequate or unfunded. 

One comment states that the Michigan 

Plan only commits the DNR to monitor 

wolf health until the State wolf 

population reaches 200 wolves. 

Response—The expectation in the 

1997 Michigan Wolf Plan was that 

Federal wolf delisting would occur 

before the State reached its own 

minimum goal of 200 wolves. As a 

result, the plan states that wolf 

monitoring, including health and 

disease monitoring would continue ‘‘at 

least until the minimum population 

sustainable population goal [of 200] is 

met.’’ (MI DNR 1997, p. 21.) However, 

the 1997 Michigan Plan also states that 

wolf health and disease monitoring will 

occur ‘‘for a minimum of five years after 

Federal delisting’’ (MI DNR 1997 p. 21–

22, 45). In fact, wolf health and disease 

monitoring has continued well beyond 

the attainment of the 200-wolf 

threshold, which occurred in early 

1996. We believe the commenters’ fear 

that wolf health and disease monitoring 

will cease upon delisting is 

unwarranted by the facts or by the State 

Plan. 

Issue 28—The delisting should be 

delayed, or should be done in a manner 

to promote wolf expansion into the 

NLP. 

Response—We believe the gray wolf 

has achieved recovery in the DPS and is 

no longer threatened or endangered. 

Therefore, it should be delisted with 

management returning to the States and 

tribes. Those governments and their 

constituents will determine if additional 

wolf recovery will be promoted. We will 

consider providing technical assistance 

to further State or tribal wolf recovery 

efforts if requested. 

Issue 29—Human predation poses too 

high a risk to delist the wolf. The wolf 

cannot be delisted ‘‘until this threat has 

been adequately controlled.’’


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6068 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Response—Our detailed review of the 

past, current, and likely future threats to 

wolves within the WGL DPS identified 

human-caused mortality of all forms to 

constitute the majority of documented 

wolf deaths. However, the wolf 

populations in Wisconsin and Michigan 

have continued to expand in numbers 

and the Minnesota wolf population is at 

least maintaining itself at well over the 

population goal recommended in the 

1992 Recovery Plan and at about twice 

the minimum level established in the 

2001 Minnesota Wolf Plan. Healthy wolf 

populations clearly can withstand a 

high level of mortality, from human and 

other causes, and remain viable. 

Although the commenters do not 

provide any clarification on what is 

meant by ‘‘adequately controlled’’ we 

believe that for purposes of this 

delisting decision, the numerical growth 

and range expansion shown by WGL 

DPS wolves indicates that ‘‘adequate 

control’’ already exists since the species 

is being maintained at healthy levels. 

Issue 30—WGL DPS wolves should be 

reclassified to threatened instead of 

delisted. Another comment stated that 

only Minnesota wolves should be 

delisted now. 

Response—Minnesota wolves were 

classified as threatened in 1978. The Act 

does not require endangered species to 

first be moved to threatened status 

before delisting, but for some species 

that intermediate step is appropriate. 

The WGL DPS wolf metapopulation has 

continued to increase to the extent that 

it greatly exceeds our recovery criteria, 

and it has exceeded our numerical 

delisting criteria since 1999. Therefore, 

we believe delisting is appropriate for 

this DPS. 

Issue 31—It will be difficult to relist 

these wolves if it becomes necessary 

following delisting. 

Response—The Act requires that we 

monitor the status of a delisted species 

for at least five years after delisting. 

Section 4(g) of the Act authorizes the 

Service to make prompt use of our 

emergency listing authority under 

section 4(b)(7) to prevent a significant 

risk to the well-being of any recovered 

species. Therefore, we believe the Act 

provides the authority and the 

requirement to relist midwestern gray 

wolves if necessary. 

Issue 32—A large number of 

comments recommended that specific 

changes be made to the three State wolf 

management plans. 

Response—We have reviewed the 

2001 Minnesota Plan, the 1999 and 2006 

Updated Wisconsin Plan, and the 1997 

Michigan Plan. We reviewed these plans 

to determine if they will provide 

sufficient protection and reduce threats. 

We are primarily concerned with the 

outcome of the plan’s implementation. 

Once a species is delisted, the details of 

its management are a State or tribal 

responsibility; the Federal responsibility 

is to monitor the plan’s implementation 

and the species’ response for at least 

five years to ensure that the plan’s 

outcome is as expected. We have 

concluded that each plan provides 

adequate protection for wolves, and will 

keep threats at a sufficiently low level, 

so that the WGL DPS wolves will not 

become threatened or endangered in the 

foreseeable future. Suggestions for 

changes to the State wolf management 

plans should be directed to the 

respective State management agency for 

consideration. 

Issue 33—Wisconsin and Michigan 

DNR have not completed their wolf 

management plans, so delisting should 

be delayed until after those plans are 

completed and they are shown to be 

adequate. 

Response—The Wisconsin DNR did 

not revise its 1997 Wolf Management 

Plan. Instead, the plan has had some 

portions of the text updated, and several 

appendices have been added to deal 

with new public opinion data and a 

2004 DNR questionnaire. The Plan’s 

management goal of 350 wolves and the 

vast majority of management practices 

remain unchanged. We received the 

updated Wisconsin Wolf Management 

Plan Addendum 2006 in time to 

evaluate it as part of our delisting 

decision. 

The 1997 Michigan Wolf Management 

Plan is in the midst of revision. The 

process for its revision includes 

obtaining recommendations in the form 

of ‘‘guiding principles’’ from a 

roundtable group composed of diverse 

stakeholders, and it will not be 

completed until late in 2007. In the 

meantime, the 1997 Michigan Plan will 

remain in effect, as supplemented by 

additional guidance developed since 

1997 to deal with aspects of wolf 

management and recovery not 

adequately covered in the 1997 Plan, 

such as ‘‘Guidelines for Management 

and Lethal Control of Wolves Following 

Confirmed Depredation Events’’ (MI 

DNR 2005a). 

Issue 34—The delisting decision is 

based on the assumption that the State 

wolf management plans will be fully 

implemented after Federal delisting. 

Response—We are required to 

evaluate the likely future threats that a 

delisted wolf population will 

experience. We rely heavily on the State 

wolf management plans for our 

assessment of the degree of protection 

and monitoring that will occur after 

Federal delisting. Because these plans 

have received the necessary approvals 

within the State governments, we 

believe it is reasonable to assume the 

plans will be funded and implemented 

largely as written. Wisconsin and 

Michigan DNRs have led the efforts to 

restore wolves to their States for several 

decades, including a 1974 

reintroduction effort initiated by 

Michigan DNR (Weise et al. 1975). 

Based on their proven leadership in 

Midwest wolf recovery, we see no 

reason to doubt the continuing 

commitment of these State agencies to 

wolf conservation. 

We recognize that State wolf plans 

can be changed by the respective DNR 

or State legislature, creating some 

uncertainty regarding plan 

implementation. However, given the 

high public visibility of wolf 

management, the extent of public 

interest and involvement in the 

development and updating of the States’

plans, the vast amount of scientific data 

available regarding wolf management, 

and the status monitoring that we will 

be maintaining for the next five years, 

we believe it is reasonable and proper 

to assume that the three State wolf plans 

will not be significantly changed, nor 

will their implementation be critically 

underfunded, in a manner that would 

jeopardize the viability of any State’s 

wolf population. If this assumption 

turns out to be incorrect, we have the 

ability to relist the species, including an 

emergency relisting, if necessary. 

Issue 35—Many comments expressed 

distrust for State wolf protection, based 

on past State programs aimed at wolf 

eradication. 

Response—We acknowledge the past 

involvement of State and Federal 

government agencies in intensive, and 

largely successful, programs to eradicate 

wolves. However, we believe that public 

sentiment and agency mandates have 

changed dramatically since the 1960s 

and earlier. While wolf eradication 

might still be the wish of a small 

number of individuals, we believe there 

is broad support among the public and 

within governmental agencies to allow 

wolves to occupy our landscape, with 

some degree of management imposed to 

maintain control of the level of wolfhuman conflicts. Based on existing State 

laws and State management plans, we 

will rely upon the States to provide 

sufficient protection to wolves until and 

unless it is shown they are unwilling or 

unable to do so. 

Issue 36—The Post-Delisting 

Monitoring (PDM) Plan should be 

completed before delisting occurs. 

Response—The Act requires a 

minimum of five years of PDM. There is 

no requirement that a PDM plan be 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6069 

completed before delisting. We are 

working on a PDM plan, utilizing the 

expertise of the Recovery Team, and we 

expect to complete the plan shortly. 

Because past wolf monitoring by the 

States has been successful and adequate 

to document progress toward recovery, 

we expect that PDM will be similar to 

recovery monitoring. The PDM plan will 

organize data-gathering more than has 

been done in the past, and it will 

identify the Service office that will be 

responsible for initiating the data 

gathering and coordinating the data 

review. 

Issue 37—Several commenters stated 

that the Service must ensure that State 

wolf management strategies 

accommodate tribal interests within 

reservation boundaries as well as honor 

the tribal role and authority in wolf 

management in the ceded territories. 

Furthermore, the Federal trust 

responsibility, as it pertains to wolf 

management, must be continued after 

delisting. They asked how, and by 

whom, that Federal trust responsibility 

will be continued after the Act no longer 

provides the authority for the Service to 

protect wolves. 

Response—The Service and the 

Department of the Interior recognize the 

unique status of the federally recognized 

tribes, their right to self-governance, and 

their inherent sovereign powers over 

their members and territory. The 

Department, the Service, the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA), and other Federal 

agencies, as appropriate, will take the 

needed steps to ensure that tribal 

authority and sovereignty within 

reservation boundaries are respected as 

the States implement their wolf 

management plans and revise those 

plans in the future. Furthermore, there 

may be tribal activities or interests 

associated with the wolf encompassed 

within the tribes’ retained rights to 

hunt, fish, and gather in treaty-ceded 

territories. The Department will assist in 

the exercise of those rights. If biological 

assistance is needed, the Service may 

provide it via our field offices. The 

Service will remain involved in the 

post-delisting monitoring of the gray 

wolf, but all Service management and 

protection authority under the Act will 

end with this delisting. Legal assistance 

will be provided to the tribes by the 

Department of the Interior, and the BIA 

will be involved, when needed. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act and regulations 

(50 CFR Part 424) promulgated to 

implement the listing provisions of the 

Act set forth the procedures for listing, 

reclassifying, and delisting species. A 

species may be listed as threatened or 

endangered if one or more of the five 

factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act threaten its continued existence. A 

species may be delisted, according to 50 

CFR 424.11(d), if the best scientific and 

commercial data available substantiate 

that the species is neither endangered 

nor threatened because of (1) extinction, 

(2) recovery, or (3) error in the original 

data used for classification of the 

species. 

A recovered species is one that no 

longer meets the Act’s definition of 

threatened or endangered. Determining 

whether a species is recovered requires 

consideration of the same five categories 

of threats specified in section 4(a)(1). 

This analysis of threats is an evaluation 

of both the threats currently facing the 

species and the threats that are 

reasonably likely to affect the species in 

the foreseeable future after its delisting 

and the consequent removal of the Act’s 

protections. 

For the purposes of this notice, we 

consider ‘‘foreseeable future’’ to be 30 

years. The average gray wolf breeds at 

30 months of age and replaces itself in 

3 years. We used 10 wolf generations 

(30 years) to represent a reasonable 

biological timeframe to determine if 

impacts could be significant. This is a 

period for which we can make 

reasonable assumptions, based on recent 

and current observations, regarding the 

continuation of current trends in human 

attitudes and behaviors, regulatory 

mechanisms, and environmental factors 

that will be the primary determinants of 

threats to wolf populations in the future. 

In addition, 30 years closely 

approximates the duration of the 

Service’s wolf recovery program in the 

Midwest. It is reasonable to apply what 

we have learned regarding wolf recovery 

and human societal responses to that 

recovery to a similar period in the 

future. 

A species is ‘‘endangered’’ for 

purposes of the Act if it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ and is 

‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a ‘‘significant 

portion of its range.’’ The following 

describes how we interpret the terms 

‘‘range’’ and ‘‘significant’’ as used in the 

phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range,’’

and explains the bases for our use of 

those terms in this rule. 

‘‘Range’’ 

The word ‘‘range’’ in the phrase 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ refers 

to the range in which a species currently 

exists, not to the historical range of the 

species where it once existed. The 

context in which the phrase is used is 

crucial. Under the Act’s definitions, a 

species is ‘‘endangered’’ only if it ‘‘is in 

danger of extinction’’ in the relevant 

portion of its range. The phrase ‘‘is in 

danger’’ denotes a present-tense 

condition of being at risk of a future, 

undesired event. To say that a species 

‘‘is in danger’’ in an area that is 

currently unoccupied, such as 

unoccupied historical range, would be 

inconsistent with common usage. Thus, 

‘‘range’’ must mean ‘‘currently occupied 

range,’’ not ‘‘historical range.’’ This 

interpretation of ‘‘range’’ is further 

supported by the fact that section 

4(a)(1)(A) of the Act requires us to 

consider the ‘‘present’’ or ‘‘threatened’’

(i.e., future), rather than the past, 

‘‘destruction, modification, or 

curtailment’’ of a species’ habitat or 

range in determining whether a species 

is endangered or threatened. 

However, the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals appeared to conclude, without 

any analysis or explanation, that the 

‘‘range’ referred to in the SPR phrase 

includes the historical range of the 

species. The court stated that a species 

‘‘can be extinct ‘throughout * * * a 

significant portion of its range’ if there 

are major geographical areas in which it 

is no longer viable but once was,’’ and 

then faults the Secretary for not ‘‘at least 

explain[ing] her conclusion that the area 

in which the species can no longer live 

is not a significant portion of its range.’’

Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 

F.3d 1136, 1145 (emphasis added). This 

would suggest that the range we must 

analyze in assessing endangerment 

includes unoccupied historical range—

i.e., the places where the species was 

once viable but no longer exists. 

The statute does not support this 

interpretation. This interpretation is 

based on what appears to be an 

inadvertent misquote of the relevant 

statutory language. In addressing this 

issue, the Ninth Circuit states that we 

must determine whether a species is 

‘‘extinct throughout * * * a significant 

portion of its range.’’ Id. If that were 

true, we would have to study the 

historical range. But that is not what the 

statute says, and the Ninth Circuit 

quotes the statute correctly elsewhere in 

its opinion. Under the Act, we are not 

to determine if a species is ‘‘extinct 

throughout * * * a significant portion 

of its range,’’ but are to determine if it 

‘‘is in danger of extinction throughout 

* * * a significant portion of its range.’’

A species cannot presently be ‘‘in 

danger of extinction’’ in that portion of 

its range where it ‘‘was once viable but 

no longer is’’—if by the latter phrase the 

court meant lost historical habitat. In 

that portion of its range, the species has 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6070 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

by definition ceased to exist. In such a 

situation, it is not ‘‘in danger of 

extinction’’; it is extinct. 

Although we must focus on the range 

in which the species currently exists, 

data about the species’ historical range 

and how the species came to be extinct 

in that location may be relevant in 

understanding or predicting whether a 

species is ‘‘in danger of extinction’’ in 

its current range and therefore relevant 

to our 5 factor analysis. But the fact that 

it has ceased to exist in what may have 

been portions of its historical range does 

not necessarily mean that it is ‘‘in 

danger of extinction’’ in a significant 

portion of the range where it currently 

exists. 

For the purposes of this notice, we 

consider the range of the gray wolf to be 

the entire geographical area delineated 

by the boundaries of the WGL DPS. 

‘‘Significant’’

The Act does not clearly indicate 

what portion(s) of a species’ range 

should be considered ‘‘significant.’’

Most dictionaries list several definitions 

of ‘‘significant.’’ For example, one 

standard dictionary defines 

‘‘significant’’ as ‘‘important,’’

‘‘meaningful,’’ ‘‘a noticeably or 

measurably large amount,’’ or 

‘‘suggestive’’ (Merriam-Webster’s 

Collegiate Dictionary 1088 10th ed. 

2000). If it means a ‘‘noticeably or 

measurably large amount,’’ then we 

would have to focus on the size of the 

range in question, either in relation to 

the rest of the range or perhaps even in 

absolute terms. If it means ‘‘important,’’

then we would have to consider factors 

in addition to size in determining a 

portion of a species’ range is 

‘‘significant.’’ For example, would a key 

breeding ground of a species be 

‘‘significant,’’ even if it was only a small 

part of the species’ entire range? 

One district court interpreted the term 

to mean ‘‘a noticeably or measurably 

large amount’’ without analysis or any 

reference to other alternate meanings, 

including ‘‘important’’ or ‘‘meaningful.’’

Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 239 F. 

Supp. 2d 9, 19 (D.D.C. 2002). We 

consider the court’s interpretation to be 

unpersuasive, because the court did not 

explain why we could not employ 

another, equally plausible definition of 

‘‘significant.’’ It is impossible to 

determine from the word itself, even 

when read in the context of the entire 

statute, which meaning of ‘‘significant’’

Congress intended. Moreover, even if it 

were clear which meaning was 

intended, ‘‘significant’’ would still 

require interpretation. For example, if it 

were meant to refer to size, what size 

would be ‘‘significant’’: 30 percent, 60 

percent, 90 percent? Should the 

percentage be the same in every case or 

for each species? Moreover, what 

factors, if any, would be appropriate to 

consider in making a size 

determination? Is size all by itself 

‘‘significant,’’ or does size only become 

‘‘significant’’ when considered in 

combination with other factors? On the 

other hand, if ‘‘significant’’ were meant 

to refer to importance, what factors 

would need to be considered in 

deciding that a particular portion of a 

species’ range is ‘‘important’’ enough to 

trigger the protections of the Act? 

Where there is ambiguity in a statute, 

as with the meaning of ‘‘significant,’’ the 

agency charged with administering the 

statute, in this case the Service, has 

broad discretion to resolve the 

ambiguity and give meaning to the term. 

As the Supreme Court has stated: 

In Chevron, this Court held that 

ambiguities in statutes within an agency’s 

jurisdiction to administer are delegations of 

authority to the agency to fill the statutory 

gap in reasonable fashion. Filling these gaps, 

the Court explained, involves difficult policy 

choices that agencies are better equipped to 

make than courts. If a statute is ambiguous, 

and if the implementing agency’s 

construction is reasonable, Chevron requires 

a federal court to accept the agency’s 

construction of the statute, even if the 

agency’s reading differs from what the court 

believes is the best statutory interpretation. 

Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. 

Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 

980 (2005) (internal citations 

omitted). 

We have broad discretion in defining 

what portion of a species’ range is 

‘‘significant.’’ No ‘‘bright line’’ or 

‘‘predetermined’’ percentage of 

historical range loss is considered 

‘‘significant’’ in all cases, and we may 

consider factors other than simply the 

size of the range portion in defining 

what is ‘‘significant.’’ In light of the 

general ecosystems conservation 

purposes and findings in section 2 of 

the Act, our goal is to define 

‘‘significant’’ in such a way as to ensure 

the conservation of the species 

protected by the Act. In determining 

whether a range portion is significant, 

we consider the ecosystems on which 

the species that use that range depend 

as well as the values listed in the Act 

that would be impaired or lost if the 

species were to become extinct in that 

portion of the range or in the range as 

a whole. 

However, our discretion in defining 

‘‘significant’’ is not unlimited. The 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, while 

acknowledging that we have ‘‘a wide 

degree of discretion in delineating’’

what portion of a range is ‘‘significant,’’

appeared to set outer limits of that 

discretion. See Defenders of Wildlife v. 

Norton, 258 F.3d 1136. On the one 

hand, it rejected what it called a 

quantitative approach to defining 

‘‘significant,’’ where a ‘‘bright line’’ or 

‘‘predetermined’’ percentage of 

historical range loss is considered 

‘‘significant’’ in all cases. 258 F.3d. at 

1143. As the court explained: 

First, it simply does not make sense to 

assume that the loss of a predetermined 

percentage of habitat or range would 

necessarily qualify a species for listing. A 

species with an exceptionally large historical 

range may continue to enjoy healthy 

population levels despite the loss of a 

substantial amount of suitable habitat. 

Similarly, a species with an exceptionally 

small historical range may quickly become 

endangered after the loss of even a very small 

percentage of habitat. 

The Ninth Circuit concluded that 

what is ‘‘significant’’ must ‘‘necessarily 

be determined on a case by case basis,’’

and must take into account not just the 

size of the range but also the biological 

importance of the range to the species. 

258 F.3d. at 1143. At the other end of 

the spectrum, the Ninth Circuit rejected 

what it called ‘‘the faulty definition 

offered by the Secretary,’’ a definition 

that holds that a portion of a species’

range is ‘‘significant’’ only if the threats 

faced by the species in that area are so 

severe as to threaten the viability of the 

species as a whole. 258 F.3d. at 1143, 

1146. It thus appears that within the two 

outer boundaries set by the Ninth 

Circuit, we have wide discretion to give 

the definitive interpretation of the word 

‘‘significant’’ in the phrase ‘‘significant 

portion of its range.’’

Based on these principles, we 

consider the following factors in 

determining whether a portion of a 

range is ‘‘significant’’—quality, quantity, 

and distribution of habitat relative to the 

biological requirements of the species; 

the historical value of the habitat to the 

species; the frequency of use of the 

habitat; the uniqueness or importance of 

the habitat for other reasons, such as 

breeding, feeding, migration, wintering, 

or suitability for population expansion; 

genetic diversity; and other biological 

factors. We focus on portions of a 

species’ range that are important to the 

conservation of the species, such as 

‘‘recovery units’’ identified in approved 

Section 4 recovery plans; unique habitat 

or other ecological features that provide 

adaptive opportunities that are of 

conservation importance to the species; 

and ‘‘core’’ populations that generate 

additional individuals of a species that 

can, over time, replenish depleted 

populations or stocks at the periphery of 

the species’ range. We do not apply the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6071 

term ‘‘significant’’ to portions of the 

species’ range that constitute lessproductive peripheral habitat, 

artificially created habitat, or areas 

where wildlife species have established 

themselves in urban or suburban 

settings—such portions of the species’

range are not ‘‘significant,’’ in our view, 

to the conservation of the species in the 

wild. 

Determining the SPR for the WGL 

DPS of the gray wolf is based on the 

biological needs of the species in the 

DPS. As discussed previously in our 

proposed WGL wolf rule (71 FR 15266–

15305; March 27, 2006), wolves are 

highly adaptable habitat generalists, and 

their primary biological need is an 

adequate natural prey base of large 

ungulates. The primary current and 

likely future threats to wolves are 

excessive human-caused mortality and 

increased mortality from diseases and 

parasites. Therefore, our determination 

of the SPR for the WGL DPS of the gray 

wolf is primarily based on the portion 

of the DPS that provides an adequate 

wild prey base, suitably low levels of 

human-caused mortality, and sufficient 

representation, resiliency, and 

redundancy to buffer the impacts of 

disease and parasite-induced mortality. 

These biological needs, and the 

threats to gray wolves in the WGL DPS, 

are discussed in the following 

paragraphs addressing the five factors 

specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

We describe the necessary 

characteristics of suitable habitat and 

the necessary size and distribution of 

such habitat for it to constitute a SPR in 

the WGL DPS. Areas of habitat within 

the range of the gray wolf that are not 

suitable, or are not of sufficient size or 

appropriate geographic distribution, are 

not an SPR of the DPS. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

A common misperception is that 

wolves inhabit only remote portions of 

pristine forests or mountainous areas, 

where human developments and other 

activities have produced negligible 

change to the natural landscape. Their 

extirpation south of Canada and Alaska, 

except for the heavily forested portions 

of northeastern Minnesota, reinforced 

this popular belief. Wolves, however, 

survived in those areas not because 

those were the only places with the 

necessary habitat conditions, but 

because only in those remote areas were 

they sufficiently free of the human 

persecution that elsewhere killed 

wolves faster than the species could 

reproduce (Mech 1995a, pp. 271). 

In the western Great Lakes region, 

wolves in the densely forested 

northeastern corner of Minnesota have 

expanded into the more agricultural 

portions of central and northwestern 

Minnesota, northern and central 

Wisconsin, and the entire UP of 

Michigan. Habitats currently being used 

by wolves span the broad range from the 

mixed hardwood-coniferous forest 

wilderness area of northern Minnesota, 

through sparsely settled, but similar 

habitats in Michigan’s UP and northern 

Wisconsin, and into more intensively 

cultivated and livestock-producing 

portions of central and northwestern 

Minnesota and central Wisconsin. 

Wolf research and the expansion of 

wolf range over the last three decades 

have shown that wolves can 

successfully occupy a wide range of 

habitats, and they are not dependent on 

wilderness areas for their survival. In 

the past, gray wolf populations 

occupied nearly every type of habitat 

north of mid-Mexico that contained 

large ungulate prey species, including 

bison, elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, 

moose, and woodland caribou; thus, 

wolves historically occupied the entire 

Midwest. Inadequate prey density or 

high levels of human-caused mortality 

appear to be the only factors that limit 

wolf distribution (Mech 1995a, p. 271; 

1995b, p. 544). 

Suitable Habitat Within the Western 

Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPS 

Various researchers have investigated 

habitat suitability for wolves in the 

central and eastern portions of the 

United States. In recent years, most of 

these efforts have focused on using a 

combination of human density, deer 

density or deer biomass, and road 

density, or have used road density alone 

to identify areas where wolf populations 

are likely to persist or become 

established. (Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. 

284–285, 1997, pp. 23–27, 1998, pp. 1–

8, 1999, pp. 39–43; Harrison and Chapin 

1997, p. 3, 1998, pp. 769–770; Wydeven 

et al. 2001a, pp. 110–113; Erb and 

Benson 2004, p. 2; Potvin et al. 2005, 

pp. 1661–1668). 

Road density has largely been adopted 

as the best predictor of habitat 

suitability in the Midwest due to the 

connection between roads and humanrelated wolf mortality. Several studies 

demonstrated that wolves generally did 

not maintain breeding packs in areas 

with a road density greater than about 

0.9 to 1.1 linear miles per sq mi (0.6 to 

0.7 km per sq km) (Thiel 1985, pp. 404–

406; Jensen et al. 1986, pp. 364–366; 

Mech et al. 1988, pp. 85–87; Fuller et al. 

1992, pp. 48–51). Work by Mladenoff 

and associates indicated that colonizing 

wolves in Wisconsin preferred areas 

where road densities were less than 0.7 

mi per sq mi (0.45 km per sq km) 

(Mladenoff et al. 1995, p. 289). 

However, recent work in the UP of 

Michigan indicates that in some areas 

with low road densities, low deer 

density appears to separately limit wolf 

occupancy (Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 

1667–1668) and may prevent 

recolonization of portions of the UP. In 

Minnesota a combination of road 

density and human density is used by 

MN DNR to model suitable habitat. 

Areas with a human density up to 8 per 

sq km are suitable if they also have a 

road density less than 0.5 km per sq km. 

Areas with a human density of less than 

4 per sq km are suitable if they have 

road densities up to 0.7 km per sq km 

(Erb and Benson 2004, p. 2). 

Road density is a useful parameter 

because it is easily measured and 

mapped, and because it correlates 

directly and indirectly with various 

forms of other human-related wolf 

mortality factors. A rural area with more 

roads generally has a greater human 

density, more vehicular traffic, greater 

access by hunters and trappers, more 

farms and residences, and more 

domestic animals. As a result, there is 

a greater likelihood that wolves in such 

an area will encounter humans, 

domestic animals, and various human 

activities. These encounters may result 

in wolves being hit by motor vehicles, 

being controlled by government agents 

after becoming involved in depredations 

on domestic animals, being shot 

intentionally by unauthorized 

individuals, being trapped or shot 

accidentally, or contracting diseases 

from domestic dogs (Mech et al. 1988, 

pp. 86–87; Mech and Goyal 1993, p. 

332; Mladenoff et al. 1995, p. 282, 291). 

Based on mortality data from radiocollared Wisconsin wolves from 1979 to 

1999, natural causes of death 

predominate (57 percent of mortalities) 

in areas with road densities below 1.35 

mi per sq mi (0.84 km per sq km), but 

human-related factors produced 71 

percent of the wolf deaths in areas with 

higher road densities (Wydeven et al. 

2001a, pp. 112–113). 

Some researchers have used a road 

density of 1 mi per sq mi (0.6 km per 

sq km) of land area as an upper 

threshold for suitable wolf habitat. 

However, the common practice in more 

recent studies is to use road density to 

predict probabilities of persistent wolf 

pack presence in an area. Areas with 

road densities less than 0.7 mi per sq mi 

(0.45 km per sq km) are estimated to 

have a greater than 50 percent 

probability of wolfpack colonization 

and persistent presence, and areas 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6072 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

where road density exceeded 1 mi per 

sq mi (0.6 km per sq km) have less than 

a 10 percent probability of occupancy 

(Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. 288–289; 

Mladenoff and Sickley 1998, p. 5; 

Mladenoff et al. 1999, pp. 40–41). 

Wisconsin researchers view areas with 

greater than 50 percent probability 

‘‘primary wolf habitat,’’ areas with 10 to 

50 percent probability as ‘‘secondary 

wolf habitat,’’ and areas with less than 

10 percent probability as unsuitable 

habitat (WI DNR 1997, pp. 47–48). The 

territories of packs that do occur in 

areas of high road density, and hence 

with low expected probabilities of 

occupancy, are generally near broad 

areas of more suitable habitat that are 

likely serving as a source of wolves, 

thereby assisting in maintaining wolf 

presence in the higher road density, less 

suitable, areas (Mech 1989, pp. 387–388; 

Wydeven et al. 2001a, p.112). We note 

that the predictive ability of this model 

has recently been questioned (Mech 

2006a, 2006b) and responded to 

(Mladenoff et al. 2006), and that an 

updated analysis of Wisconsin pack 

locations and habitat has been 

completed and is being prepared for 

publication (Mladenoff et al., to be 

submitted). 

It appears that essentially all suitable 

habitat in Minnesota is now occupied, 

and the wolf population within the 

State may have slowed its increase or 

has stabilized (Erb and Benson 2004, p. 

7). This suitable habitat closely matches 

the areas designated as Wolf 

Management Zones 1 through 4 in the 

Federal Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, p. 

72), which are identical in area to 

Minnesota Wolf Management Zone A 

(see Figure 2, below; MN DNR 2001, 

Appendix III). 

Recent surveys for Wisconsin wolves 

and wolf packs show that wolves have 

now recolonized the areas predicted by 

habitat models to have high and 

moderate probability of occupancy 

(primary and secondary wolf habitat). 

The late winter 2005–06 Wisconsin wolf 

survey identified packs occurring 

throughout the central Wisconsin forest 

area (Wolf Management Zone 2, Figure 

3) and across the northern forest zone 

(Zone 1, Figure 3), with highest pack 

densities in the northwest and north 

central forest; pack densities are lower, 

but increasing, in the northeastern 

corner of the State (Wydeven et al. 2006, 

p. 33). 

Michigan wolf surveys in winter 

2003–04 and 2004–05 continue to show 

wolf pairs or packs (defined by 

Michigan DNR as three or more wolves 

traveling together) in every UP county 

except Keweenaw County (Huntzinger 

et al. 2005, p. 6), which probably lacks 

a suitable ungulate prey base during 

winter months (Potvin et al. 2005, p. 

1665). 

Such habitat suitability studies in the 

Upper Midwest indicate that the only 

large areas of suitable or potentially 

suitable habitat areas that are currently 

unoccupied by wolves are located in the 

NLP of Michigan (Mladenoff et al. 1997, 

p. 23; Mladenoff et al. 1999, p. 39; 

Potvin 2003, pp. 44–45; Gehring and 

Potter 2005, p. 1239). One published 

Michigan study (Gehring and Potter 

2005, p. 1239) estimates that these areas 

could host 46 to 89 wolves, while a 

masters degree thesis investigation 

estimates that 110–480 wolves could 

exist in the NLP (Potvin 2003, p. 39). 

The NLP is separated from the UP by 

the Straits of Mackinac, whose 4-mile 

(6.4 km) width freezes during mid- and 

late winter in some years. In recent 

years there have been two documented 

occurrences of wolves in the NLP (the 

last recorded wolf in the LP was in 

1910), but no indication of persistence 

beyond several months. In the first 

instance a radio-collared female wolf 

from the central UP was trapped and 

killed by a coyote trapper in Presque 

Isle County in late October 2004. In late 

November 2004, tracks from two wolves 

were verified in the same NLP county. 

Follow-up winter surveys by the DNR in 

early 2005 failed to find additional wolf 

tracks in the NLP (Huntzinger et al. 

2005, p. 7); additional surveys 

conducted in February and March 2006 

also failed to find evidence of continued 

NLP wolf presence (Beyer et al. 2006, p. 

35). 

These NLP patches of potentially 

suitable habitat contain a great deal of 

private land, are small in comparison to 

the occupied habitat on the UP and in 

Minnesota and Wisconsin, and are 

intermixed with agricultural and higher 

road density areas (Gehring and Potter 

2005, p. 1240). Therefore, continuing 

wolf immigration from the UP may be 

necessary to maintain a future NLP 

population. The Gehring and Potter 

study (p. 1239) concludes that NLP 

suitable habitat (i.e., areas with greater 

than a 50 percent probability of wolf 

occupancy) amounts to 850 sq mi (2,198 

sq km). Potvin, using deer density in 

addition to road density, believes there 

are about 3,090 sq mi (8,000 sq km) of 

suitable habitat in the NLP (Potvin 2003, 

p. 21). Gehring and Potter exclude from 

their calculations those NLP low-roaddensity patches that are less than 19 sq 

mi (50 sq km), while Potvin does not 

limit habitat patch size in his 

calculations (Gehring and Potter 2005, 

p. 1239; Potvin 2003, pp. 10–15). Both 

of these area estimates are well below 

the minimum area described in the 

Federal Recovery Plan, which states that 

10,000 sq mi (25,600 sq km) of 

contiguous suitable habitat is needed for 

a viable isolated gray wolf population, 

and half that area (5,000 sq mi or 12,800 

sq km) is needed to maintain a viable 

wolf population that is subject to wolf 

immigration from a nearby population 

(USFWS 1992, pp. 25–26). 

Based on the above-described studies 

and the guidance of the 1992 Recovery 

Plan, the Service has concluded that 

suitable habitat for wolves in the WGL 

DPS can be determined by considering 

four factors—road density, human 

density, prey base, and size. An 

adequate prey base is an absolute 

requirement, but in much of the WGL 

DPS the white-tailed deer density is 

well above adequate levels, causing the 

other factors to become the 

determinants of suitable habitat. Prey 

base is primarily of concern in the UP 

where severe winter conditions cause 

deer to move away from some lakeshore 

areas, making otherwise suitable areas 

locally and seasonally unsuitable. Road 

density and human density frequently 

are highly correlated; therefore, road 

density is the best single predictor of 

habitat suitability. However, areas with 

higher road density may still be suitable 

if the human density is very low, so a 

consideration of both factors is 

sometimes useful (Erb and Benson 2004, 

p. 2). Finally, although the territory of 

individual wolf packs can be relatively 

small, a single, or several, packs are not 

likely to persist as a viable population 

if they occupy a small isolated island of 

otherwise suitable habitat. The 1992 

Recovery Plan indicates that a wolf 

population needs to occupy at least 

10,000 contiguous sq mi (25,600 sq km) 

to be considered viable if it is isolated 

from other wolf populations, and must 

occupy at least half that area if it is not 

isolated from another self-sustaining 

population (USFWS 1992, pp. 25–26). 

In summary, Minnesota Wolf 

Management Zone A (Federal Wolf 

Management Zones 1–4, Figure 2), 

Wisconsin Wolf Zones 1 and 2 (Figure 

3), and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan 

contain suitable wolf habitat. The other 

areas within the DPS are unsuitable 

habitat, or are potentially habitat that is 

too small or too fragmented to be 

suitable for maintaining a viable wolf 

population. 

Determining the Significant Portion of 

the Range Within the WGL DPS 

The biological values of the various 

portions of the suitable habitat in the 

DPS are the important considerations 

for determining what constitutes SPR. 

Portions of the range that contribute 

minimally to the long-term viability of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6073 

a species are likely to be insignificant, 

even if those areas constitute 

geographically large portions of the 

species’ range. On the other hand, a 

small portion of the range that is 

necessary for a species’ survival (e.g., 

the nesting areas of a wide-ranging 

colonially nesting bird) is a significant 

portion of its range regardless of its size. 

Significance of portions of the range 

must be evaluated in a case-by-case 

context, and not only in a quantitative 

or theoretical context. 

Therefore, in determining the SPR 

within the WGL DPS we considered the 

factors listed above. These include the 

quality, quantity, and distribution of the 

habitat relative to the biological needs of 

the species, the need to maintain the 

remaining genetic diversity, the 

importance of geographic distribution in 

coping with catastrophes such as 

disease, the ability of the habitat to 

provide adequate wild prey, and the 

need to otherwise meet the conservation 

needs of the species. 

It is generally recognized that 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

provide the only sufficiently large areas 

in the Midwest having an adequate wild 

ungulate prey base and low road and 

human density for this DPS (USFWS 

1992, pp. 56–58). Based on the biology 

of the gray wolf, threats to its continued 

existence, and conservation biology 

principles, the federal Recovery Plan 

specifies that two populations (or what 

equates to a single metapopulation) are 

needed to ensure long-term viability 

(see Recovery Criteria, above). The 

Recovery Plan states the importance of 

a large wolf population throughout 

Minnesota Wolf Management Zones 1 

through 4 (geographically identical to 

Zone A in the 2001 Minnesota Wolf 

Management Plan, see Figure 2 in this 

rule) and the need for a second viable 

wolf population occupying 10,000 sq mi 

or 5,000 sq mi elsewhere in the eastern 

United States (depending on its 

isolation from the Minnesota wolf 

population) (USFWS 1992, pp. 24–29). 

These portions of Minnesota 

(Management Zones 1 through 4) and 

the portions of the range that support 

the second viable wolf population 

(Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2 and the entire 

Upper Peninsula of Michigan) are a SPR 

in the WGL DPS. 

The Recovery Plan also discusses the 

importance of low-road-density areas, 

the importance of minimizing wolfhuman conflicts, and the maintenance 

of an adequate natural prey base in the 

areas hosting these two necessary wolf 

populations. The Recovery Plan, along 

with numerous other scientific 

publications, supports the need to 

manage and reduce wolf-human 

conflicts. The Recovery Plan specifically 

recommends against managing wolves 

in large areas of unsuitable habitat, 

stating that Minnesota Zone 5 should be 

managed with a goal of zero wolves 

there, because ‘‘Zone 5 is not suitable 

for wolves. Wolves found there should 

be eliminated by any legal means’’

(USFWS 1992, p 20). Therefore, the 

Recovery Plan views Zone 5 (identical 

to Minnesota Wolf Management Zone B, 

Figure 2), which is roughly 60 percent 

of the State, as not an important part of 

the range of the gray wolf. This portion 

of the State is predominantly 

agricultural land, with high road 

densities, and high potential for wolves 

to depredate on livestock. Although 

individual wolves and some wolf packs 

occupy parts of Zone 5, these wolves are 

using habitat islands or are existing in 

other situations where conditions 

generally are not conducive to their 

long-term persistence. Therefore, 

Minnesota Wolf Management Zone B 

(Recovery Plan Zone 5) is not a 

significant portion of the range within 

the DPS. 

The second population, necessary to 

enhance both the resiliency and 

redundancy of the WGL DPR, has 

developed by naturally recolonizing 

suitable habitat areas in Wisconsin and 

the UP (see Recovery of the Gray Wolf 

in the Western Great Lakes Area, above). 

In Wisconsin, suitable habitat 

(delineated as Zones 1 and 2 in Figure 

3) is now largely occupied by wolf 

packs, but there are some gaps in the 

northeastern part of the State in Zone 1 

where there appears to be room for 

additional packs to occupy areas 

between existing packs (Wydeven et al. 

2006, p. 33). Similarly, in the UP of 

Michigan, wolf pairs or packs occur 

throughout the area identified as 

suitable (i.e., a high probability of wolf 

pack occupancy; Mladenoff et al. 1995, 

p. 287, Potvin et al. 2005, p. 1666), 

including every county of the UP except 

possibly Keweenaw County. Wolf 

density is lower in the northern and 

eastern portions of the UP where lower 

deer numbers may prevent 

establishment of packs in some 

localities (Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 1665–

1666), but over the next several years 

packs may be able to fill in some of the 

currently unoccupied areas. Based on 

the suitability of the habitat in these 

areas and the importance of this second 

population to long-term wolf population 

viability, Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2 (see 

Figure 3) and the entire UP of Michigan 

are an SPR of the gray wolf WGL DPS. 

The NLP of Michigan appears to have 

the only unoccupied potentially suitable 

wolf habitat in the Midwest that is of 

sufficient size to maintain wolf packs 

(Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1239; 

Potvin 2003, pp. 44–45), although its 

small size and fragmented nature may 

mean that NLP wolf population viability 

would be dependent upon continuing 

immigration from the UP. The only part 

of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula that 

warrants any consideration for inclusion 

as suitable habitat for the WGL DPS is 

composed of those areas of fragmented 

habitat studied by Potvin (2003, pp. 44–

45) and Gehring and Potter (2005, p. 

1239). However, these areas amount to 

less than half of the minimum area 

identified by the Recovery Plan as 

needed for the establishment of viable 

populations. These Lower Peninsula 

areas therefore might have difficulty 

maintaining wolf populations even with 

the help of occasional immigration of 

wolves from the UP (see Suitable 

Habitat Within the Western Great Lakes 

Gray Wolf DPS for additional 

discussion). While the UP wolves may 

be significant to any Lower Peninsula 

wolf population that may develop 

(occasional UP to Lower Peninsula 

movements may provide important 

genetic and demographic augmentation 

crucial to a small population founded 

by only a few individuals), the reverse 

will not be true—Lower Peninsula 

wolves would not be important to the 

wolf population in the UP. Thus, we 

conclude that the Northern Lower 

Peninsula is not a significant portion of 

the range of the gray wolf in the WGL 

DPS. 

The only area outside these three 

states and within the WGL DPS that 

potentially might hold wolves on a 

frequent or possibly constant basis is the 

Turtle Mountain region that straddles 

the international border in north central 

North Dakota in the northwestern corner 

of the DPS. Road densities within the 

Turtle Mountains are below the 

thresholds believed to limit colonization 

by wolves. However, this area is only 

about 579 sq mi (1,500 sq km), with 

approximately 394 sq mi (1,020 sq km) 

in North Dakota, and roughly 185 sq mi 

(480 sq km) in Manitoba (Licht and 

Huffman 1996, p. 172). This area is far 

smaller that the 10,000 sq mi of habitat 

considered minimally necessary to 

support an isolated wolf population 

(USFWS 1992, pp. 25–26). Furthermore, 

the Manitoba portion of the Turtle 

Mountains is outside the currently 

listed area for the gray wolf and outside 

this WGL DPS. While this area may 

provide a small area of marginal wolf 

habitat and may support limited and 

occasional wolf reproduction, the Turtle 

Mountain area within the United States 

is not an SPR of gray wolves within the 

WGL DPS, because of its very small area 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6074 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

and its setting as an island of forest 

surrounded by a landscape largely 

modified for agriculture and grazing 

(Licht and Huffman 1996, p. 173). 

Similarly, other portions of the WGL 

DPS that lack suitable habitat, or only 

have areas of suitable habitat that are 

below the area thresholds specified in 

the Recovery Plan and/or are highly 

fragmented, cannot be considered an 

SPR of the gray wolf in the WGL DPS. 

These areas include the rest of eastern 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, 

Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin Wolf 

Management Zones 3 and 4 (see Figure 

3), and most of the LP of Michigan. 

While large areas of historical range 

within the DPS boundary are either 

unoccupied by the species or occupied 

only on a transient basis, these areas are 

almost completely lacking suitable 

habitat, and there is little likelihood that 

they could ever support viable wolf 

populations. For example, of the five 

States partially included in the WGL 

DPS, the eastern halves of North Dakota 

and South Dakota arguably contain the 

best potential area for wolf recovery 

because of their low human population 

densities. Yet even there, the landscape 

is predominantly cropland and grazing 

land, the result of massive conversion 

from the native prairies where gray 

wolves once hunted bison, and it is 

covered with a network of public roads. 

Road density in eastern South Dakota is 

approximately 1.68 mi per sq mi, and 

the South Dakota Department of 

Transportation states that figure likely 

does not include the many section line 

roads that are open to public travel but 

are not on a regular maintenance 

schedule (Larson in litt. 2006b). The 

landscape of North Dakota is similar, 

with merely two percent of the State 

forested, resulting in a croplanddominated landscape in eastern North 

Dakota that provides negligible cover for 

wolf use in denning and escape, except 

in the Turtle Mountains. The road 

density across the portion of North 

Dakota within the WGL DPS is 1.01 mi 

per sq mi (Barnhardt in litt. 2006). A 

finer-grained analysis (Moffett 1997, p. 

31) shows that only small and scattered 

areas are below the 1 mi per sq mi 

threshold established by Great Lakes 

area researchers (Mladenoff et al., 1995, 

pp. 288–289) as needed for the 

maintenance of viable wolf populations, 

and none of these areas of lower road 

density come close to the minimum size 

identified by the Recovery Plan (USFWS 

1992, pp. 25–26) for a viable wolf 

population. In the open grazing and 

cropland-dominated landscape of the 

eastern Dakotas, it is likely that viable 

wolf populations would require even 

lower road densities than the threshold 

established by researchers in the much 

more wooded landscapes of Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and the UP. Therefore, the 

eastern portions of South Dakota and 

North Dakota do not provide suitable 

gray wolf habitat and these areas cannot 

be considered to be significant portions 

of gray wolf range in the WGL DPS. 

In summary, the areas that we 

determine to be a significant portion of 

the range of the WGL DPS are 

Minnesota Wolf Management Zone A 

(Figure 2), Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2 

(Figure 3), and the entire Upper 

Peninsula of Michigan. These areas 

constitute the SPR in the DPS, because 

they fully meet the biological needs of 

the species and provide the conditions 

and land base to counter the threats to 

the wolf population within the DPS. 

The other areas of the WGL DPS do not 

constitute significant portions of the 

range of the gray wolf. 

Wolf Populations on Federal Lands 

National forests, and the prey species 

found in their various habitats, have 

been important to wolf conservation and 

recovery in the core areas of the WGL 

DPS. There are five national forests with 

resident wolves (Superior, Chippewa, 

Chequamegon-Nicolet, Ottawa, and 

Hiawatha National Forests) in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. 

Their wolf populations range from 

approximately 20 on the Nicolet portion 

of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National 

Forest in northeastern Wisconsin, to 

160–170 on the UP’s Ottawa National 

Forest, to an estimated 465 (in winter of 

2003–04) on the Superior National 

Forest in northeastern Minnesota 

(Lindquist in litt. 2005). Nearly half of 

the wolves in Wisconsin currently use 

the Chequamegon portion of the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. 

Voyageurs National Park, along 

Minnesota’s northern border, has a land 

base of nearly 882 km2 (340 mi2). There 

are 40 to 55 wolves within 7 to 11 packs 

that exclusively or partially reside 

within the park, and at least 4 packs are 

located wholly inside the Park 

boundaries (Holbeck in litt. 2005, based 

on 2000–2001 data). 

Within the boundaries of the WGL 

DPS, we currently manage seven units 

within the National Wildlife Refuge 

System with significant wolf activity. 

Primary among these are Agassiz 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), 

Tamarac NWR, and Rice Lake NWR in 

Minnesota; Seney NWR in the UP of 

Michigan; and Necedah NWR in central 

Wisconsin. Agassiz NWR has had as 

many as 20 wolves in 2 to 3 packs in 

recent years. In 1999, mange and illegal 

shootings reduced them to a single pack 

of five wolves and a separate lone wolf. 

Since 2001, however, two packs with a 

total of 10 to 12 wolves have been using 

the Refuge. About 60 percent of the 

packs’ territories are located on the 

Refuge or on adjacent State-owned 

wildlife management area (Huschle in 

litt. 2005). Tamarac NWR has 2 packs, 

with a 15-year average of 12 wolves in 

one pack; adults and an unknown 

number of pups comprise the second 

pack (Boyle, in litt. 2005). Rice Lake 

NWR, in Minnesota, has one pack of 

nine animals using the Refuge in 2004; 

in 2005, the pack had at least 6 

individuals. Other single or paired 

wolves pass through the Refuge 

frequently (Stefanski pers. comm. 2004; 

McDowell in litt. 2005). In 2003, Seney 

NWR had one pack with two adults and 

two pups; in 2005 there were two pairs 

of wolves and several lone individuals 

using the Refuge (Olson in litt. 2005). 

Necedah NWR currently has 2 packs 

with at least 13 wolves in the packs 

(Trick in litt. 2005). Over the past ten 

years, Sherburne and Crane Meadows 

NWRs in central Minnesota have had 

intermittent, but reliable, observations 

and signs of individual wolves each 

year. To date, no established packs have 

been documented on either of those 

Refuges. The closest established packs 

are within 15 miles of Crane Meadows 

NWR at Camp Ripley Military 

Installation and 30 miles north of 

Sherburne NWR at Mille Lacs State 

Wildlife Management Area (Holler in 

litt. 2005). 

Suitable Habitat Ownership and 

Protection 

In Minnesota, public lands, including 

national forests, a national park, 

national wildlife refuges, tax-forfeit 

lands (managed mostly by counties), 

State forests, State wildlife management 

areas, and State parks, encompass 

approximately 42 percent of current 

wolf range. American Indians and 

Tribes own 3 percent, an additional 

1,535 square miles (2,470 sq km), in 

Minnesota’s wolf range (see Erb and 

Benson 2004, table 1). In its 2001 

Minnesota Wolf Management Plan, MN 

DNR states that it ‘‘will continue to 

identify and manage currently occupied 

and potential wolf habitat areas to 

benefit wolves and their prey on public 

and private land, in cooperation with 

landowners and other management 

agencies’’ (MN DNR 2001, p. 25). MN 

DNR will monitor deer and moose 

habitat and, when necessary and 

appropriate, improve habitat for these 

species. MN DNR maintains that several 

large public land units of State parks 

and State forests along the Wisconsin 

border will likely ensure that the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6075 

connection between the two States’ wolf 

populations will remain open to wolf 

movements. Nevertheless, MN DNR 

stated that it would cooperate with 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources to incorporate the effects of 

future development ‘‘into long-term 

viability analyses of wolf populations 

and dispersal in the interstate area’’

(MN DNR 2001, p.27). 

The MN DNR Divisions of Forestry 

and Wildlife directly administer 

approximately 5,330 square miles of 

land in Minnesota’s wolf range. DNR 

has set goals of enlarging and protecting 

its forested land base by, in part, 

‘‘minimizing the loss and fragmentation 

of private forest lands’’ (MN DNR 2000, 

p. 20) and by connecting forest habitats 

with natural corridors (MN DNR 2000, 

p. 21). It plans to achieve these goals 

and objectives via several strategies, 

including the development of 

(Ecological) Subsection Forest Resource 

Management Plans (SFRMP) and to 

expand its focus on corridor 

management and planning. 

In 2005 the Forest Stewardship 

Council (FSC) certified that 4.84 million 

acres of State-administered forest land 

are ‘‘well managed’’ (FSC 2005); the 

Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) also 

certified that MN DNR was managing 

these lands to meet its standards. For 

the FSC certification, independent 

certifiers assessed forest management 

against FSC’s Lakes States Regional 

Standard, which includes a requirement 

to maximize habitat connectivity to the 

extent possible at the landscape level 

(FSC 2005, p. 22). 

Efforts to maximize habitat 

connectivity in the range of gray wolves 

would complement measures the MN 

DNR described in its State wolf plan 

(MN DNR 2001, pp. 26–27). As part of 

its post-delisting monitoring, the 

Service will review certification 

evaluation reports issued by FSC to 

assess MN DNR’s ongoing efforts in this 

area. 

Counties manage approximately 3,860 

square miles of tax forfeit land in 

Minnesota’s wolf range (MN DNR 

unpublished data). We are aware of no 

specific measures that any county in 

Minnesota takes to conserve wolves. If 

most of the tax-forfeit lands are 

maintained for use as timber lands or 

natural areas, however, and if regional 

prey levels are maintained, management 

specifically for wolves on these lands 

will not be necessary. MN DNR manages 

ungulate populations ‘‘on a regional 

basis to ensure sustainable harvests for 

hunters, sufficient numbers for aesthetic 

and nonconsumptive use, and to 

minimize damage to natural 

communities and conflicts with humans 

such as depredation of agricultural 

crops’’ (MN DNR 2001, p. 17). 

Moreover, although counties may sell 

tax-forfeit lands subject to Minnesota 

State law, they generally manage these 

lands to ensure that they will retain 

their productivity as forests into the 

future. For example, Crow Wing 

County’s mission for its forest lands 

includes the commitment to ‘‘sustain a 

healthy, diverse, and productive forest 

for future generations to come.’’ In 

addition, at least four counties in 

Minnesota’s wolf range—Beltrami, 

Carlton, Koochiching, and St. Louis—

are certified by SFI, and four others 

(Aitkin, Cass, Itasca, and Lake) have 

been certified by FSC. About ten private 

companies with industrial forest lands 

in Minnesota’s wolf range have also 

been certified by FSC. 

There are no legal or regulatory 

requirements for the protection of wolf 

habitat, per se, on private lands in 

Minnesota. Land management activities 

such as timber harvest and prescribed 

burning carried out by public agencies 

and by private land owners in 

Minnesota’s wolf range incidentally and 

significantly improves habitat for deer, 

the primary prey for wolves in the State. 

The impact of these measures is 

apparent from the continuing high deer 

densities in Minnesota’s wolf range. The 

State’s three largest deer harvests have 

occurred in the last three years (2003–

05), and approximately one-half of the 

Minnesota deer harvest is in the Forest 

Zone, which encompasses most of the 

occupied wolf range in the State 

(Lennarz 2005, p. 93, 98). 

Given the extensive public ownership 

and management of land within 

Minnesota’s wolf range, as well as the 

beneficial habitat management expected 

from tribal lands, we believe suitable 

habitat, and especially an adequate wild 

prey base, will remain available to the 

State’s wolf population for the 

foreseeable future. Management of 

private lands for timber production will 

provide additional habitat suitable for 

wolves and white-tailed deer. 

Similarly, current lands in northern 

and central Wisconsin that are judged to 

be primary and secondary wolf habitat 

are well protected from significant 

adverse development and habitat 

degradation due to public ownership 

and/or protective management that 

preserves the habitat and wolf prey 

base. Primary habitat (that is, areas with 

greater than 50 percent probability of 

wolf pack occupancy, Wydeven et al. 

1999, pp. 47–48) totals 5,743 sq mi 

(14,874 sq km) and is 62 percent in 

Federal, State, Tribal, or county 

ownership. County lands, mostly county 

forests, comprise 29 percent of the 

primary habitat and Federal lands, 

mostly the Chequamegon-Nicolet 

National Forest, total another 17 

percent. Most tribal land (7 percent of 

primary habitat), while not public land, 

is also very likely to remain as suitable 

deer and wolf habitat for the foreseeable 

future. State forest ownership protects 8 

percent. Private industrial forest 

management practices will protect 

another 10 percent of the primary 

habitat, although unpredictable timber 

markets and the demand for second or 

vacation home sites may reduce this 

acreage over the next several decades. 

The remaining 29 percent is in other 

forms of private ownership and is 

vulnerable to loss from the primary 

habitat category to an unknown extent 

(Sickley in litt. 2006, unpublished data 

updating Table C2 of WI DNR 1999, p. 

48). 

Areas judged to be secondary wolf 

habitat by Wisconsin DNR (10 to 50 

percent probability of occupancy by 

wolf packs, Wydeven et al. 1999, pp. 

47–48) are somewhat more developed or 

fragmented habitats and are less well 

protected overall, because only slightly 

over half is in public ownership or 

under management that protects the 

habitat and prey base. Public and tribal 

ownership protects 48 percent of the 

secondary habitat, with county (17 

percent) and national (18 percent) 

forests ownership again protecting the 

largest segments. Tribal ownership 

covers 5 percent, and state ownership, 

7 percent. Private industrial forest 

ownership provides protection to 5 

percent, and the remaining 47 percent is 

in other forms of private ownership 

(Sickley in litt. 2006). 

County forest lands represent the 

single largest category of primary wolf 

habitat in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Statute 

28.11 guides the administration of 

county forests, and directs management 

for production of forest products 

together with recreational opportunities, 

wildlife, watershed protection and 

stabilization of stream flow. This Statute 

also provides a significant disincentive 

to conversion for other uses. Any 

proposed withdrawal of county forest 

lands for other uses must meet a 

standard of a higher and better use for 

the citizens of Wisconsin, and be 

approved by two-thirds of the County 

Board. As a result of this requirement, 

withdrawals are infrequent, and the 

county forest land base is actually 

increasing. 

This analysis shows that nearly threequarters of the primary habitat in 

Wisconsin receives substantial 

protection due to ownership and/or 

management for sustainable timber 

production. Over half of the secondary 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6076 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

habitat is similarly protected. Given that 

portions of the primary habitat in 

northeastern Wisconsin remain sparsely 

populated with wolf packs (Wydeven et 

al. 2006, p. 33), thereby allowing for 

continuing wolf population expansion 

in that area, we believe this degree of 

habitat protection is more than adequate 

to support a viable wolf population in 

Wisconsin for the foreseeable future. 

In the UP of Michigan, State and 

Federal ownership comprises 2.0 and 

2.1 million acres respectively, 

representing 19.3 percent and 20.1 

percent of the land surface of the UP. 

The Federal ownership is composed of 

87 percent national forest, 8 percent 

national park, and 5 percent national 

wildlife refuge. The management of 

these three categories of Federal land is 

discussed elsewhere, but clearly will 

benefit gray wolves and their prey. 

State lands on the UP are 94 percent 

State forest land, 6 percent State park, 

and less than 1 percent in fishing and 

boating access areas and State game 

areas. Part 525, Sustainable Forestry on 

State Forestlands, of the Michigan 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as 

amended, directs State forestland 

management in Michigan. It requires the 

MI DNR to manage the State forests in 

a manner consistent with sustainable 

forestry, to prepare and implement a 

management plan, and to seek and 

maintain a third party certification that 

the lands are managed in a sustainable 

fashion (MI DNR 2005c, p. 1). 

Much of the private land on the UP 

is managed or protected in a manner 

that will maintain forest cover and 

provide suitable habitat for wolves and 

white-tailed deer. Nearly 1.9 million 

acres of large-tract industrial forest 

lands and another 1.9 million acres of 

smaller private forest land are enrolled 

in the Commercial Forest Act (CFA). 

These 3.7 million acres are managed for 

long-term sustainable timber production 

under forest management plans written 

by certified foresters; in return, the 

landowners benefit from a reduction in 

property taxes. In addition, nearly 

37,000 acres on the UP are owned by 

The Nature Conservancy, and continue 

to be managed to restore and preserve 

native plant and animal communities. 

Therefore, these private land 

management practices currently are 

preserving an additional 36 percent of 

the UP as suitable habitat for wolves 

and their prey species. 

In total, 39 percent of the UP is 

federally- and State-owned land whose 

management will benefit wolf 

conservation for the foreseeable future, 

and another 36 percent is private forest 

land that is being managed, largely 

under the incentives of the CFA, in a 

way that provided provides suitable 

habitat and prey for wolf populations. 

Therefore, a minimum of nearly threequarters of the UP should continue to be 

suitable for gray wolf conservation, and 

we do not envision UP habitat loss or 

degradation as a problem for wolf 

population viability in the foreseeable 

future. 

Hearne et al. (2003), determined that 

a viable wolf population (one having 

less than 10 percent chance of 

extinction over 100 years), should 

consist of at least 175 to 225 wolves (p. 

170), and they modeled various likely 

scenarios of habitat conditions in the UP 

of Michigan and northern Wisconsin 

through the year 2020 to determine 

whether future conditions would 

support a wolf population of that size. 

Most scenarios of future habitat 

conditions resulted in viable wolf 

populations in each State through 2020. 

When the model analyzed the future 

conditions in the two States combined, 

all scenarios produced a viable wolf 

population through 2020. Their 

scenarios included increases in human 

population density, changes in land 

ownership that may result in decreased 

habitat suitability, and increased road 

density (pp. 101–151). 

The large areas of unsuitable habitat 

in the eastern Dakotas; the northern 

portions of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and 

Ohio; and the southern areas of 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; as 

well as the relatively small areas of 

unoccupied potentially suitable habitat, 

do not constitute a SPR for the WGL 

DPS. Therefore, we have determined 

that the existing and likely future 

threats to wolves outside the currently 

occupied areas, and especially to wolves 

outside of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

the UP, do not rise to the level that they 

threaten the long-term viability of wolf 

populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

and the UP of Michigan. 

In summary, wolves currently occupy 

the vast majority of the suitable habitat 

in the WGL DPS, which constitutes the 

SPR within the WGL DPS, and that 

habitat is adequately protected for the 

foreseeable future. Unoccupied areas 

that have the characteristics of suitable 

habitat exist in small and fragmented 

parcels and are not likely to develop 

viable wolf populations. Threats to 

those habitat areas, which are not a SPR 

within the WGL SPR, will not adversely 

impact the recovered wolf 

metapopulation in the DPS. 

Prey 

Wolf density is heavily dependent on 

prey availability (e.g., expressed as 

ungulate biomass, Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 

170–171), but prey availability is not 

likely to threaten wolves in the WGL 

DPS. Conservation of primary wolf prey 

in the WGL DPS, white-tailed deer and 

moose, is clearly a high priority for State 

conservation agencies. As Minnesota 

DNR points out in its wolf management 

plan (MN DNR 2001, p. 25), it manages 

ungulates to ensure a harvestable 

surplus for hunters, nonconsumptive 

users, and to minimize conflicts with 

humans. To ensure a harvestable 

surplus for hunters, MN DNR must 

account for all sources of natural 

mortality, including loss to wolves, and 

adjust hunter harvest levels when 

necessary. For example, after severe 

winters in the 1990’s, MN DNR 

modified hunter harvest levels to allow 

for the recovery of the local deer 

population (MN DNR 2001, p. 25). In 

addition to regulation of human harvest 

of deer and moose, MN DNR also plans 

to continue to monitor and improve 

habitat for these species. Land 

management carried out by other public 

agencies and by private land owners in 

Minnesota’s wolf range, including 

timber harvest and prescribed fire, 

incidentally and significantly improves 

habitat for deer, the primary prey for 

wolves in the State. The success of these 

measures is apparent from the 

continuing high deer densities in the 

Forest Zone of Minnesota, and the fact 

that the State’s three largest deer 

harvests have occurred in the last three 

years. Approximately one-half of the 

Minnesota deer harvest is in the Forest 

Zone, which encompasses most of the 

occupied wolf range in the State 

(Lennarz 2005, p. 93). There is no 

indication that harvest of deer and 

moose or management of their habitat 

will significantly depress abundance of 

these species in Minnesota’s core wolf 

range. Therefore, prey availability is not 

likely to endanger gray wolves in the 

foreseeable future in the State. 

Similarly, the deer populations in 

Wisconsin and the UP of Michigan are 

at historically high levels. Wisconsin’s 

pre-season deer population has 

exceeded 1 million animals since 1984 

(WI DNR undated a), and hunter harvest 

has exceeded 400,000 deer in 9 of the 

last 11 years (WI DNR undated b). 

Michigan’s 2005 pre-season deer 

population was approximately 1.7 

million deer, with about 336,000 

residing in the UP, and the 2006 

estimates projects slightly higher UP 

deer populations (MI DNR 2006b, pp. 2–

4) . Currently MI DNR is proposing 

revised deer management goals to guide 

management of the deer population 

through 2010. The proposed UP 2006–

2010 goal range is 323,000 to 411,000 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6077 

(MI DNR 2005d), which would 

maintain, or possibly increase, the 

current ungulate prey base for UP 

wolves. Short of a major, and unlikely, 

shift in deer management and harvest 

strategies, there will be no shortage of 

prey for Wisconsin and Michigan 

wolves for the foreseeable future. 

Summary of Factor A—The wolf 

population in the WGL DPS currently 

occupies all the suitable habitat area 

identified for recovery in the Midwest 

in the 1978 and 1992 Recovery Plans, 

which are the SPR within the DPS, and 

most of the potentially suitable habitat 

in the WGL DPS. Unsuitable habitat, 

and the small fragmented areas of 

suitable habitat away from these core 

areas, are areas where viable wolf 

populations are unlikely to develop and 

persist. Although they may have been 

historical habitat, many of these areas 

are no longer suitable for wolves, and 

none of them are important to meet the 

biological needs of the species. They 

therefore are not a SPR of the WGL DPS. 

The WGL DPS wolf population 

exceeds its numerical, temporal, and 

distributional goals for recovery. A 

delisted wolf population would be 

safely maintained above recovery levels 

for the foreseeable future within the SPR 

of the DPS. Because much important 

wolf habitat in the SPR is in public 

ownership, the States will continue to 

manage for high ungulate populations, 

and the States, Tribes, and Federal land 

management agencies will adequately 

regulate human-caused mortality of 

wolves and wolf prey. This will allow 

these three States to easily support a 

recovered and viable wolf 

metapopulation into the foreseeable 

future. We conclude that gray wolves 

within the SPR in this DPS are not in 

danger of extinction now, or likely to be 

in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future, as a result of 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Threats to wolves resulting from 

scientific or educational purposes are 

not likely to increase substantially 

following delisting of the DPS, and any 

increased use for these purposes will be 

regulated and monitored by the States 

and Tribes in the core recovery areas. 

Since their listing under the Act, no 

gray wolves have been legally killed or 

removed from the wild in any of the 

nine States included in the WGL DPS 

for either commercial or recreational 

purposes. Some wolves may have been 

illegally killed for commercial use of the 

pelts and other parts, but we think that 

illegal commercial trafficking in wolf 

pelts or parts and illegal capture of 

wolves for commercial breeding 

purposes is rare. State wolf management 

plans for Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

Michigan ensure that wolves will not be 

killed for these purposes for many years 

following Federal delisting, so these 

forms of mortality will not emerge as 

new threats upon delisting. See Factor 

D for a detailed discussion of State wolf 

management plans, and for applicable 

regulations in States lacking wolf 

management plans. 

We do not expect the use of wolves 

for scientific purposes to increase in 

proportion to total wolf numbers in the 

WGL DPS after delisting. Prior to 

delisting, the intentional or incidental 

killing, or capture and permanent 

confinement, of endangered or 

threatened gray wolves for scientific 

purposes has only legally occurred 

under permits or subpermits issued by 

the Service (under section 10(a)(1)(A)) 

or by a State agency operating under a 

cooperative agreement with the Service 

pursuant to section 6 of the Act (50 CFR 

17.21(c)(5) and 17.31(b)). Although 

exact figures are not available, 

throughout the conterminous 48 States, 

such permanent removals of wolves 

from the wild have been very limited 

and probably comprise an average of not 

more than two animals per year since 

the species was first listed as 

endangered. In the WGL DPS, these 

animals were either taken from the 

Minnesota wolf population during longterm research activities (about 15 gray 

wolves) or were accidental takings as a 

result of research activities in Wisconsin 

(4 to 5 mortalities and 1 long-term 

confinement) and in Michigan (2 

mortalities) (Berg in litt. 1998; Mech in 

litt. 1998; Roell in litt. 2004, in litt. 

2005a). 

The Minnesota DNR plans to 

encourage the study of wolves with 

radio-telemetry after delisting, with an 

emphasis on areas where they expect 

wolf-human conflicts and where wolves 

are expanding their range (MN DNR 

2001, p. 19). Similarly, Wisconsin and 

Michigan DNRs will continue to trap 

wolves for radio-collaring, examination, 

and health monitoring for the 

foreseeable future (WI DNR 1999, pp. 

19–21; MI DNR 1997, p. 22; WI DNR 

2006a, p. 14). The continued handling 

of wild wolves for research, including 

the administration of drugs, may result 

in some accidental deaths of wolves. We 

believe that capture and radiotelemetry-related injuries or mortalities 

will not increase significantly above the 

level observed before delisting in 

proportion to wolf abundance; adverse 

effects to wolves associated with such 

activities have been minimal and would 

not constitute a threat to the WGL DPS. 

No wolves have been legally removed 

from the wild for educational purposes 

in recent years. Wolves that have been 

used for such purposes are the captivereared offspring of wolves that were 

already in captivity for other reasons, 

and this is not likely to change as a 

result of Federal delisting. We do not 

expect taking for educational purposes 

to constitute any threat to Midwest wolf 

populations for the foreseeable future. 

See Factor E for a discussion of taking 

of gray wolves by Native Americans for 

religious, spiritual, or traditional 

cultural purposes. See the Depredation 

Control Programs sections under Factor 

D for discussion of other past, current, 

and potential future forms of intentional 

and accidental take by humans, 

including depredation control, public 

safety, and under public harvest. While 

public harvest may include recreational 

harvest, it is likely that public harvest 

will also serve as a management tool, so 

it is discussed in Factor D. 

Summary of Factor B—Taking wolves 

for scientific or educational purposes in 

the other WGL DPS States may not be 

regulated or closely monitored in the 

future, but the threat to wolves in those 

States will not be significant to the longterm viability of the wolf population in 

the WGL DPS. The potential limited 

commercial and recreational harvest 

that may occur in the DPS will be 

regulated by State and/or Tribal 

conservation agencies and is discussed 

under Factor D. Therefore, we conclude 

that overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes will not be a threat sufficient 

to cause the WGL DPS gray wolves to be 

in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future in all or a significant 

portion of the range within the WGL 

DPS. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease 

Many diseases and parasites have 

been reported for the gray wolf, and 

several of them have had significant 

impacts during the recovery of the 

species in the 48 conterminous States 

(Brand et al. 1995, p. 419; WI DNR 1999, 

p. 61). If not monitored and controlled 

by States, these diseases and parasites, 

and perhaps others, may threaten gray 

wolf populations in the future. Thus, to 

avoid a future decline caused by 

diseases or parasites, States and their 

partners will have to diligently monitor 

the prevalence of these pathogens in 

order to effectively respond to 

significant outbreaks. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6078 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Canine parvovirus (CPV) is a 

relatively new disease that infects 

wolves, domestic dogs, foxes, coyotes, 

skunks, and raccoons. Recognized in the 

United States in 1977 in domestic dogs, 

it appeared in Minnesota wolves (based 

upon retrospective serologic evidence) 

live-trapped as early as 1977 (Mech et 

al. 1986, p. 105). Minnesota wolves, 

however, may have been exposed to the 

virus as early as 1973 (Mech and Goyal 

1995, p. 568). Serologic evidence of gray 

wolf exposure to CPV peaked at 95 

percent for a group of Minnesota wolves 

live-trapped in 1989 (Mech and Goyal 

1993, p. 331). In a captive colony of 

Minnesota wolves, pup and yearling 

mortality from CPV was 92 percent of 

the animals that showed indications of 

active CPV infections in 1983 (Mech 

and Fritts 1987, p. 6), demonstrating the 

substantial impacts this disease can 

have on young wolves. It is believed 

that the population impacts of CPV 

occur via diarrhea-induced dehydration 

leading to abnormally high pup 

mortality (WI DNR 1999, p. 61). CPV has 

been detected in nearly every wolf 

population in North America including 

Alaska (Bailey et al. 1995, p. 443) and 

exposure in wolves is now believed to 

be almost universal. 

There is no evidence that CPV has 

caused a population decline or has had 

a significant impact on the recovery of 

the Minnesota gray wolf population. 

Mech and Goyal (1995, p. 566, Table 1, 

p. 568, Fig. 3), however, found that high 

CPV prevalence in the wolves of the 

Superior National Forest in Minnesota 

occurred during the same years in 

which wolf pup numbers were low. 

Because the wolf population did not 

decline during the study period, they 

concluded that CPV-caused pup 

mortality was compensatory, that is, it 

replaced deaths that would have 

occurred from other causes, especially 

starvation of pups. They theorized that 

CPV prevalence affects the amount of 

population increase and that a wolf 

population will decline when 76 

percent of the adult wolves consistently 

test positive for CPV exposure. Their 

data indicate that CPV prevalence in 

adult wolves in their study area 

increased by an annual average of 4 

percent during 1979–93 and was at least 

80 percent during the last 5 years of 

their study (Mech and Goyal 1995, pp. 

566, 568). Additional data gathered 

since 1995, currently in preparation for 

publication, suggests that CPV has been 

reducing pup survival both in the 

Superior National Forest and statewide, 

between 1984 and 2004; however, 

statewide there is some evidence of a 

slight increase in pup survival since 

about 1995. These conclusions are based 

upon an inverse relationship between 

pup numbers in summer captures and 

seroprevalence of CPV antibodies in 

summer-captured adult wolves (Mech in 

litt. 2006). These data provide strong 

justification for continuing population 

and disease monitoring. 

Wisconsin DNR, in conjunction with 

the U.S. Geological Survey National 

Wildlife Health Center in Madison, 

Wisconsin (formerly the National 

Wildlife Health Laboratory), has an 

extensive dataset on the incidence of 

wolf diseases, beginning in 1981. 

Canine parvovirus exposure was evident 

in 5 of 6 wolves tested in 1981, and 

probably stalled wolf population growth 

in Wisconsin during the early and mid1980s when numbers there declined or 

were static; at that time 75 percent of 32 

wolves tested positive for CPV. During 

the following years of population 

increase (1988–96) only 35 percent of 

the 63 wolves tested positive for CPV 

(WI DNR 1999, p. 62). More recent 

exposure rates for CPV continue to be 

high in Wisconsin wolves, with annual 

rates ranging from 60 to 100 percent 

among wild wolves handled from 2001 

through mid-2005. Part of the reason for 

high exposure percentages is likely an 

increased emphasis in sampling pups 

and Central Forest wolves starting in 

2001, so comparisons of post- and pre2001 data are of limited value. CPV 

appears not to be a significant cause of 

mortality, as only a single wolf (male 

pup) is known to have died from CPV 

during this period (Wydeven and 

Wiedenhoeft 2002, p. 8 Table 4; 2003a, 

pp. 11–12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 

Table 5; 2005, pp. 19–20 Table 4; 2006, 

pp. 23–25 Table 4). While the difficulty 

of discovering CPV-killed pups must be 

considered, and it is possible that CPVcaused pup mortality is being 

underestimated, the continuing increase 

of the Wisconsin wolf population 

indicates that CPV mortality is no longer 

impeding wolf population growth in the 

State. It may be that many Wisconsin 

wolves have developed some degree of 

resistance to CPV, and this disease is no 

longer a significant threat in the State. 

Similar to Wisconsin wolves, 

serological testing of Michigan wolves 

captured from 1992 through 2001 (most 

recent available data) shows that the 

majority of UP wolves have been 

exposed to CPV. Fifty-six percent of 16 

wolves captured from 1992 to 1999 and 

83 percent of 23 wolves captured in 

2001 showed antibody titers at levels 

established as indicative of previous 

CPV exposure that may provide 

protection from future infection from 

CPV (Beheler in litt. undated, in litt. 

2004). There are no data showing any 

CPV-caused wolf mortality or 

population impacts to the gray wolf 

population on the UP, but few wolf 

pups are handled in the UP (Hammill in 

litt. 2002, Beyer in litt. 2006a), so low 

levels of CPV-caused pup mortality may 

go undetected there. Mortality data are 

primarily collected from collared 

wolves, which until recently received 

CPV inoculations. Therefore, mortality 

data for the UP should be interpreted 

cautiously. 

Sarcoptic mange is caused by a mite 

(Sarcoptes scabiei) infection of the skin. 

The irritation caused by the feeding and 

burrowing mites results in scratching 

and then severe fur loss, which in turn 

can lead to mortality from exposure 

during severe winter weather. The mites 

are spread from wolf to wolf by direct 

body contact or by common use of 

‘‘rubs’’ by infested and uninfested 

animals. Thus, mange is frequently 

passed from infested females to their 

young pups, and from older pack 

members to their pack mates. In a longterm Alberta, Canada, wolf study, higher 

wolf densities were correlated with 

increased incidence of mange, and pup 

survival decreased as the incidence of 

mange increased (Brand et al. 1995, p. 

428). 

From 1991 to 1996, 27 percent of livetrapped Wisconsin wolves exhibited 

symptoms of mange. During the winter 

of 1992–93, 58 percent showed 

symptoms, and a concurrent decline in 

the Wisconsin wolf population was 

attributed to mange-induced mortality 

(WI DNR 1999, p. 61). Seven Wisconsin 

wolves died from mange from 1993 

through October 15, 1998, and severe 

fur loss affected five other wolves that 

died from other causes. During that 

period, mange was the third largest 

cause of death in Wisconsin wolves, 

behind trauma (usually vehicle 

collisions) and shooting (Thomas in litt. 

1998). Largely as a result of mange, pup 

survival was only 16 percent in 1993, 

compared to a normal 30 percent 

survival rate from birth to one year of 

age. 

Mange continues to be prevalent in 

Wisconsin, especially in the central 

Wisconsin wolf population. Mortality 

data from closely monitored radiocollared wolves provides a relatively 

unbiased estimate of mortality factors, 

especially those linked to disease or 

illegal actions, because nearly all 

carcasses are located within a few days 

of deaths. Diseased wolves suffering 

from hypothermia or nearing death 

generally crawl into dense cover and 

may go undiscovered if they are not 

radio-tracked (Wydeven et al. 2001b, p. 

14). These data show that during the 

period of 2000 through August 2006 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6079 

mange has killed as many wolves as 

were killed by illegal shooting, making 

them the two highest causes of wolf 

mortality in the State. Based on 

mortality data from closely monitored 

radio-collared wolves, mange mortality 

ranged from 14 percent of deaths in 

2002 to 30 percent of deaths in 2003, 

totaling 27 percent of radio-collared 

wolf deaths for this period. Illegal 

shootings resulted in the death of an 

identical percentage of wolves 

(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2001, p. 8, 

Table 5; 2002, p. 8, Table 4; 2003a, pp. 

11–12, Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12, Table 

5; 2005, pp. 19–20, Table 4). 

Preliminary data for 2006 show mange 

mortality and illegal shooting remain 

equal at 30 percent of radio-collared 

wolf mortality (Wydeven in litt. 2006c, 

unpublished data). Mange mortality 

does not appear to be declining in 

Wisconsin, and the incidence of mange 

may be on the increase among central 

Wisconsin wolf packs (Wydeven et al. 

2005b, p. 6). However, not all mangy 

wolves succumb; other observations 

showed that some mangy wolves are 

able to survive the winter (Wydeven et 

al. 2001b, p. 14). 

The survival of pups during their first 

winter is believed to be strongly affected 

by mange. The highest to date wolf 

mortality (30 percent of radio-collared 

wolves; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 

2004a, p. 12) from mange in Wisconsin 

in 2003 may have had more severe 

effects on pup survival than in previous 

years. The prevalence of the disease 

may have contributed to the relatively 

small population increase in 2003 (2.4 

percent in 2003 as compared to the 

average 18 percent to that point since 

1985). However, mange has not caused 

a decline in the State’s wolf population, 

and even though the rate of population 

increase has slowed in recent years, the 

wolf population continues to increase 

despite the continued prevalence of 

mange in Wisconsin wolves. Although 

mange mortality may not be the primary 

determinant of wolf population growth 

in the State, the impacts of mange in 

Wisconsin need to be closely monitored 

as identified and addressed in the 

Wisconsin wolf management plan (WI 

DNR 1999, p. 21; 2006a, p. 14). 

Seven wild Michigan wolves died 

from mange during 1993–97, making it 

responsible for 21 percent of all 

mortalities, and all disease-caused 

deaths, during that period (MI DNR 

1997, p. 39). During bioyears (mid-April 

to mid-April) 1999–04, mange-induced 

hypothermia killed 9 of the 11 radiocollared Michigan wolves whose cause 

of death was attributed to disease, and 

it represented 17 percent of the total 

mortality during those years. Mange 

caused the death of 31 percent of radiocollared wolves during the 1999–2001 

bioyears, but that rate decreased to 11 

percent during the 2001–04 bioyears. 

However, the sample sizes are too small 

to reliably detect a trend (Beyer 2005 

unpublished data). Before 2004, MI DNR 

treated all captured wolves with 

Ivermectin if they showed signs of 

mange. In addition, MI DNR vaccinated 

all captured wolves against CPV and 

canine distemper virus (CDV) and 

administered antibiotics to combat 

potential leptospirosis infections. These 

inoculations were discontinued in 2004 

to provide more natural biotic 

conditions and to provide biologists 

with an unbiased estimate of diseasecaused mortality rates in the population 

(Roell in litt. 2005b). 

Wisconsin wolves similarly had been 

treated with Ivermectin and vaccinated 

for CPV and CDV when captured, but 

the practice was stopped in 1995 to 

allow the wolf population to experience 

more natural biotic conditions. Since 

that time, Ivermectin has been 

administered only to captured wolves 

with severe cases of mange. In the 

future, Ivermectin and vaccines will be 

used sparingly on Wisconsin wolves, 

but will be used to counter significant 

disease outbreaks (Wydeven in litt. 

1998). 

Among Minnesota wolves, mange 

may always have been present at low 

levels. However, based on observations 

of wolves trapped under the Federal 

wolf depredation control program, 

mange appears to have become more 

widespread in the State during the 

1999–2005 period. Data from Wildlife 

Services trapping efforts showed only 8 

wolves showing symptoms of mange 

were trapped during a 22-month period 

in 1994–96; in contrast, Wildlife 

Services trapped 10, 6, and 19 mangy 

wolves in 2003, 2004, and 2005, 

respectively (2005 data run through 

November 22 only). These data indicate 

that 12.6 percent of Minnesota wolves 

were showing symptoms of mange in 

2005 (Paul 2005 in litt.). However, the 

thoroughness of these observations may 

not have been consistent over this 11- 

year period. In a separate study, 

mortality data from 12 years (1994–

2005) of monitoring radio-collared 

wolves in 7–9 packs in north-central 

Minnesota show that 11 percent died 

from mange (DelGiudice in litt. 2005). 

However, the sample size (17 total 

mortalities, 2 from mange in 1998 and 

2004) is far too small to deduce trends 

in mange mortality over time. 

Furthermore, these data are from mange 

mortalities, while the Wildlife Services’

data are based on mange symptoms, not 

mortalities. 

It is hypothesized that the current 

incidence of mange is more widespread 

than it would have otherwise been, 

because the WGL wolf range has 

experienced a series of mild winters 

beginning with the winter of 1997–98 

(Van Deelen 2005, Fig. 2). Mangeinduced mortality is chiefly a result of 

winter hypothermia, thus the less severe 

winters resulted in higher survival of 

mangy wolves, and increased spread of 

mange to additional wolves during the 

following spring and summer. The high 

wolf population, and especially higher 

wolf density on the landscape, may also 

be contributing to the increasing 

occurrence of mange in the WGL wolf 

population. There has been speculation 

that 500 or more Minnesota wolves died 

as a result of mange over the last 5 to 

6 years, causing a slowing or cessation 

of previous wolf population increase in 

the State (Paul in litt. 2005). 

Lyme disease, caused by the 

spirochete (Borrelia burgdorferi), is 

another relatively recently recognized 

disease, first documented in New 

England in 1975, although it may have 

occurred in Wisconsin as early as 1969. 

It is spread by ticks that pass the 

infection to their hosts when feeding. 

Host species include humans, horses, 

dogs, white-tailed deer, white-footed 

mice, eastern chipmunks, coyotes, and 

wolves. The prevalence of Lyme disease 

exposure in Wisconsin wolves averaged 

70 percent of live-trapped animals in 

1988–91, dropped to 37 percent during 

1992–97 and was back up to 56 percent 

(32 of 57 tested) in 2002–04 (Wydeven 

and Wiedenhoeft 2004b, pp. 23–24 

Table 7; 2005, pp. 23–24 Table 7). 

Clinical symptoms have not been 

reported in wolves, but infected dogs 

can experience debilitating conditions, 

and abortion and fetal mortality have 

been reported in infected humans and 

horses. It is possible that individual 

wolves may be debilitated by Lyme 

disease, perhaps contributing to their 

mortality; however, Lyme disease is not 

believed to be a significant factor 

affecting wolf populations (Kreeger 

2003, p. 212). 

The dog louse (Trichodectes canis) 

has been detected in wolves in Ontario, 

Saskatchewan, Alaska, Minnesota, and 

Wisconsin (Mech et al. 1985, pp. 404–

405; Kreeger 2003, p. 208; Paul in litt. 

2005). Dogs are probably the source of 

the initial infections, and subsequently 

wild canids transfer lice by direct 

contact with other wolves, particularly 

between females and pups. Severe 

infestations result in irritated and raw 

skin, substantial hair loss, particularly 

in the groin. However, in contrast to 

mange, lice infestations generally result 

in loss of guard hairs but not the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6080 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

insulating under fur, thus, hypothermia 

is less likely to occur and much less 

likely to be fatal (Brand et al. 1995, p. 

426). Even though observed in nearly 4 

percent in a sample of 391 Minnesota 

wolves in 2003–05 (Paul in litt. 2005), 

dog lice infestations have not been 

confirmed as a cause of wolf mortality, 

and are not expected to have a 

significant impact even at a local scale. 

Canine distemper virus (CDV) is an 

acute disease of carnivores that has been 

known in Europe since the sixteenth 

century and is now infecting dogs 

worldwide (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). CDV 

generally infects dog pups when they 

are only a few months old, so mortality 

in wild wolf populations might be 

difficult to detect (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 

420–421). CDV mortality among wild 

wolves has been documented only in 

two littermate pups in Manitoba 

(Carbyn 1982, pp. 111–112), in two 

Alaskan yearling wolves (Peterson et al. 

1984, p. 31), and in two Wisconsin 

wolves (an adult in 1985 and a pup in 

2002 (Thomas in litt. 2006; Wydeven 

and Wiedenhoeft 2003b, p. 20). Carbyn 

(1982, pp. 113–116) concluded that CDV 

was a contributor to a 50 percent 

decline of the wolf population in Riding 

Mountain National Park (Manitoba, 

Canada) in the mid-1970s. Serological 

evidence indicates that exposure to CDV 

is high among some Midwest wolves—

29 percent in northern Wisconsin 

wolves and 79 percent in central 

Wisconsin wolves in 2002–04 (Wydeven 

and Wiedenhoeft 2004b, pp. 23–24 

Table 7; 2005, pp. 23–24 Table 7). 

However, the continued strong 

recruitment in Wisconsin and elsewhere 

in North American wolf populations 

indicates that distemper is not likely a 

significant cause of mortality (Brand et 

al. 1995, p. 421). 

Other diseases and parasites, 

including rabies, canine heartworm, 

blastomycosis, bacterial myocarditis, 

granulomatous pneumonia, brucellosis, 

leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, 

hookworm, coccidiosis, and canine 

hepatitis have been documented in wild 

gray wolves, but their impacts on future 

wild wolf populations are not likely to 

be significant (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 

419–429; Hassett in litt. 2003; Johnson 

1995, p. 431, 436–438; Mech and Kurtz 

1999, pp. 305–306; Thomas in litt. 1998, 

Thomas in litt. 2006, WI DNR 1999, p. 

61; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202–214). 

Continuing wolf range expansion, 

however, likely will provide new 

avenues for exposure to several of these 

diseases, especially canine heartworm, 

raccoon rabies, and bovine tuberculosis 

(Thomas in litt. 2000, in litt. 2006), 

further emphasizing the need for disease 

monitoring programs. In addition, the 

possibility of new diseases developing 

and existing diseases, such as chronic 

wasting disease (CWD), West Nile Virus 

(WNV) and canine influenza (Crawford 

et al. 2005, 482–485), moving across 

species barriers or spreading from 

domestic dogs to wolves must all be 

taken into account, and monitoring 

programs will need to address such 

threats. Currently there is no evidence 

that CWD can directly affect canids 

(Thomas in litt. 2006). Wisconsin 

wolves have been tested for WNV at 

necropsy since the first spread of the 

virus across the State: to date all results 

have been negative. Although 

experimental infection of dogs produced 

no ill effects, WNV is reported to have 

killed two captive wolf pups, so young 

wolves may be at some risk (Thomas in 

litt. 2006). 

In aggregate, diseases and parasites 

were the cause of 21 percent of the 

diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared 

wolves in Michigan from 1999 through 

2004 (Beyer unpublished data 2005) and 

27 percent of the diagnosed mortalities 

of radio-collared wolves in Wisconsin 

and adjacent Minnesota from October 

1979 through June 2005 (Wydeven and 

Wiedenhoeft 2005, p. 21). 

Many of the diseases and parasites are 

known to be spread by wolf-to-wolf 

contact. Therefore, the incidence of 

mange, CPV, CDV, and canine 

heartworm may increase as wolf 

densities increase in the more recently 

colonized areas (Thomas in litt. 2006). 

Because wolf densities generally are 

relatively stable following the first few 

years of colonization, wolf-to-wolf 

contacts will not likely lead to a 

continuing increase in disease 

prevalence in areas that have been 

occupied for several years or more and 

are largely saturated with wolf packs 

(Mech in litt. 1998). 

Disease and parasite impacts may 

increase because several wolf diseases 

and parasites are carried and spread by 

domestic dogs. This transfer of 

pathogens from domestic dogs to wild 

wolves may increase as gray wolves 

continue to colonize non-wilderness 

areas (Mech in litt. 1998). Heartworm, 

CPV, and rabies are the main concerns 

(Thomas in litt. 1998) but dogs may 

become significant vectors for other 

diseases with potentially serious 

impacts on wolves in the future 

(Crawford et al. 2005, pp. 482–485). 

However, to date wolf populations in 

Wisconsin and Michigan have 

continued their expansion into areas 

with increased contacts with dogs and 

have shown no adverse pathogen 

impacts since the mid-1980s impacts 

from CPV. 

Disease and parasite impacts are a 

recognized concern of the Minnesota, 

Michigan, and Wisconsin DNRs. The 

Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and 

Management Plan states that necropsies 

will be conducted on all dead wolves, 

and that all live wolves that are handled 

will be examined, with blood, skin, and 

fecal samples taken to provide disease 

information. The Michigan Plan states 

that wolf health and disease monitoring 

will receive a high priority for a 

minimum of five years following 

Federal delisting (MI DNR 1997, pp. 21–

22, 45). 

Similarly, the Wisconsin Wolf 

Management Plan states that as long as 

the wolf is State-listed as a threatened 

or endangered species, the WI DNR will 

conduct necropsies of dead wolves and 

test a sample of live-captured wolves for 

diseases and parasites, with a goal of 

screening 10 percent of the State wolf 

population for diseases annually. 

However, the plan anticipates that since 

State delisting (which occurred on 

March 24, 2004), disease monitoring 

will be scaled back because the 

percentage of the wolf population that is 

live-trapped each year will decline. 

Disease monitoring of captured wolves 

currently is focusing on diseases known 

to be causing noteworthy mortality, 

such as mange, and other diseases for 

which data are judged to be sparse, such 

as Lyme disease and ehrlichiosis 

(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2006, p. 8). 

The State will continue to test for 

disease and parasite loads through 

periodic necropsy and scat analyses. 

The 2006 update to the 1999 plan also 

recommends that all wolves livetrapped for other studies should have 

their health monitored and reported to 

the WI DNR wildlife health specialists 

(WI DNR 1999, p. 21; 2006c, p. 14). 

Furthermore, the 2006 update identifies 

a need for ‘‘continued health monitoring 

to document significant disease events 

that may impact the wolf population 

and to identify new diseases in the 

population* * *.’’ (WI DNR 2006a, p. 

24). 

The Minnesota Wolf Management 

Plan states that MN DNR ‘‘will 

collaborate with other investigators and 

continue monitoring disease incidence, 

where necessary, by examination of 

wolf carcasses obtained through 

depredation control programs, and also 

through blood/tissue physiology work 

conducted by DNR and the U.S. 

Geological Survey. DNR will also keep 

records of documented and suspected 

incidence of sarcoptic mange (MN DNR 

2001, p. 32).’’ In addition, it will initiate 

‘‘(R)egular collection of pertinent tissues 

of live captured or dead wolves’’ and 

periodically assess wolf health ‘‘when 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6081 

circumstances indicate that diseases or 

parasites may be adversely affecting 

portions of the wolf population (MN 

DNR 2001, p. 19).’’ Unlike Michigan and 

Wisconsin, Minnesota has not 

established minimum goals for the 

proportion of its wolves that will be 

assessed for disease nor does it plan to 

treat any wolves, although it does not 

rule out these measures. Minnesota’s 

less intensive approach to disease 

monitoring and management seems 

warranted in light of its much greater 

abundance of wolves than in the other 

two States. 

In areas within the WGL DPS, but 

outside Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

Michigan, we lack data on the incidence 

of diseases or parasites in transient 

wolves. However, the WGL DPS 

boundary is laid out in a manner such 

that the vast majority of, and perhaps 

all, wolves that will occur in the DPS in 

the foreseeable future will have 

originated from the MinnesotaWisconsin-Michigan wolf 

metapopulation. Therefore, they will be 

carrying the ‘‘normal’’ complement of 

Midwest wolf parasites, diseases, and 

disease resistance with them. For this 

reason, any new pairs, packs, or 

populations that develop within the 

DPS are likely to experience the same 

low to moderate adverse impacts from 

pathogens that have been occurring in 

the core recovery areas. The most likely 

exceptions to this generalization would 

arise from exposure to sources of novel 

diseases or more virulent forms that are 

being spread by other canid species that 

might be encountered by wolves 

dispersing into currently unoccupied 

areas of the DPS. To increase the 

likelihood of detecting such novel, or 

more virulent diseases and thereby 

reduce the risk that they might pose to 

the core meta-population after delisting, 

we will encourage these States and 

Tribes to provide wolf carcasses or 

suitable tissue, as appropriate, to the 

USGS Madison Wildlife Health Center 

or the Service’s National Wildlife 

Forensics Laboratory for necropsy. This 

practice should provide an early 

indication of new or increasing 

pathogen threats before they reach the 

core metapopulation or impact future 

transient wolves to those areas. 

Disease summary—We believe that 

several diseases have had noticeable 

impacts on wolf population growth in 

the Great Lakes region in the past. These 

impacts have been both direct, resulting 

in mortality of individual wolves, and 

indirect, by reducing longevity and 

fecundity of individuals or entire packs 

or populations. Canine parvovirus 

stalled wolf population growth in 

Wisconsin in the early and mid-1980s 

and has been implicated in the decline 

in the mid-1980s of the isolated Isle 

Royale wolf population in Michigan, 

and in attenuating wolf population 

growth in Minnesota (Mech in litt. 

2006). Sarcoptic mange has affected 

wolf recovery in Michigan’s UP and in 

Wisconsin over the last ten years, and 

it is recognized as a continuing issue. 

Despite these and other diseases and 

parasites, the overall trend for wolf 

populations in the WGL DPS continues 

to be upward. Wolf management plans 

for Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin 

include disease monitoring components 

that we expect will identify future 

disease and parasite problems in time to 

allow corrective action to avoid a 

significant decline in overall population 

viability. We conclude that diseases and 

parasites will not prevent the 

continuation of wolf recovery or the 

maintenance of viable wolf populations 

in the DPS. Delisting wolves in the WGL 

DPS will not significantly change the 

incidence or impacts of disease and 

parasites on these wolves. Furthermore, 

we conclude that diseases and parasites 

will not be threats sufficient to cause the 

WGL DPS gray wolves to be in danger 

of extinction in the foreseeable future in 

all or a significant portion of the range 

within the WGL DPS. 

Predation 

No wild animals habitually prey on 

gray wolves. Large prey such as deer, 

elk, or moose (Mech and Nelson 1989, 

pp. 207–208; Smith et al. 2001, p. 3), or 

other predators, such as mountain lions 

(Felis concolor) or grizzly bears (Ursus 

arctos horribilis) where they are extant 

(USFWS 2005, p. 3), occasionally kill 

wolves, but this has only been rarely 

documented. This very small 

component of wolf mortality will not 

increase with delisting. 

Wolves frequently are killed by other 

wolves, most commonly when packs 

encounter and attack a dispersing wolf 

as an intruder or when two packs 

encounter each other along a territorial 

boundary (Mech 1994, p. 201). This 

form of mortality is likely to increase as 

more of the available wolf habitat 

becomes saturated with wolf pack 

territories, as is the case in northeastern 

Minnesota, but such a trend is not yet 

evident from Wisconsin or Michigan 

data. From October 1979 through June 

1998, seven (12 percent) of the 

mortalities of radio-collared Wisconsin 

wolves resulted from wolves killing 

wolves, and 8 of 73 (11 percent) 

mortalities were from this cause during 

2000–05 (Wydeven 1998, p. 16 Table 4; 

Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2001, p. 8 

Table 5; 2002, pp. 8–9 Table 4; 2003a, 

pp. 11–12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 

Table 5, 2005, p. 21 Table 5). Gogan et 

al. (2004, p. 7) studied 31 radio-collared 

wolves in northern Minnesota from 

1987–91 and found that 4 (13 percent) 

were killed by other wolves, 

representing 29 percent of the total 

mortality of radio-collared wolves. Intraspecific strife caused 50 percent of 

mortality within Voyageurs National 

Park and 20 percent of the mortality of 

wolves adjacent to the Park (Gogan et al. 

2004, p. 22). The Del Giudice data (in 

litt. 2005) show a 17 percent mortality 

rate from other wolves in another study 

area in north-central Minnesota from 

1994–2005. This behavior is normal in 

healthy wolf populations and is an 

expected outcome of dispersal conflicts 

and territorial defense, as well as 

occasional intra-pack strife. This form of 

mortality is something that the species 

has evolved with and it should not pose 

a threat to wolf populations in the WGL 

DPS following delisting. 

Humans have functioned as highly 

effective predators of the gray wolf in 

North America for several hundred 

years. European settlers in the Midwest 

attempted to eliminate the wolf entirely 

in earlier times, and the U.S. Congress 

passed a wolf bounty that covered the 

Northwest Territories in 1817. Bounties 

on wolves subsequently became the 

norm for States across the species’

range. In Michigan, an 1838 wolf bounty 

became the ninth law passed by the 

First Michigan Legislature; this bounty 

remained in place until 1960. A 

Wisconsin bounty was instituted in 

1865 and was repealed about the time 

wolves were extirpated from the State in 

1957. Minnesota maintained a wolf 

bounty until 1965. 

Subsequent to the gray wolf’s listing 

as a federally endangered species, the 

Act and State endangered species 

statutes prohibited the killing of wolves 

except under very limited 

circumstances, such as in defense of 

human life, for scientific or 

conservation purposes, or under special 

regulations intended to reduce wolf 

depredations of livestock or other 

domestic animals. The resultant 

reduction in human-caused wolf 

mortality is the main cause of the wolf’s 

reestablishment in large parts of its 

historical range. It is clear, however, 

that illegal killing of wolves has 

continued in the form of intentional 

mortality and incidental deaths. 

Illegal killing of wolves occurs for a 

number of reasons. Some of these 

killings are accidental (e.g., wolves are 

hit by vehicles, mistaken for coyotes 

and shot, or caught in traps set for other 

animals); some of these accidental 

killings are reported to State, Tribal, and 

Federal authorities. It is likely that most 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6082 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

illegal killings, however, are intentional 

and are never reported to government 

authorities. Because they generally 

occur in remote locations and the 

evidence is easily concealed, we lack 

reliable estimates of annual rates of 

intentional illegal killings. 

In Wisconsin, all forms of humancaused mortality accounted for 54 

percent of the diagnosed deaths of 

radio-collared wolves from October 

1979 through June 2005. Thirty percent 

of the diagnosed mortalities, and 55 

percent of the human-caused 

mortalities, were from shooting 

(firearms and bows). Another 14 percent 

of all the diagnosed mortalities (25 

percent of the human-caused 

mortalities) resulted from vehicle 

collisions. (These percentages and those 

in the following paragraphs exclude two 

radio-collared Wisconsin wolves that 

were killed in depredation control 

actions by USDA–APHIS-Wildlife 

Services in 2003–04. The wolf 

depredation control programs in the 

Midwest are discussed separately under 

Depredation Control, below.) 

Preliminary 2006 data through 

September (8 diagnosed mortalities of 

radio-collared wolves) show these 

mortality percentages to be unchanged, 

with 38 percent of the mortalities 

resulting from mange, 38 percent shot, 

and 13 percent from vehicle collisions 

(Wydeven in litt. 2006c). 

As the Wisconsin population has 

increased in numbers and range, vehicle 

collisions have increased as a 

percentage of radio-collared wolf 

mortalities. During the October 1979 

through June 1992 period, only 1 of 27 

(4 percent) known mortalities were from 

that cause; but from July 1992 through 

June 1998, 5 of the 26 (19 percent) 

known mortalities resulted from vehicle 

collisions (Wydeven 1998, p. 6). From 

2002 through 2004, 7 of 45 (16 percent) 

known mortalities were from that cause 

(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003a, pp. 

11–12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 Table 

5; 2005, pp. 19–20 Table 4). 

A comparison over time for diagnosed 

mortalities of radio-collared Wisconsin 

wolves shows that 18 of 57 (32 percent) 

were illegally shot from October 1979 

through 1998, while 12 of 42 (29 

percent) were illegally shot from 2002 

through 2004 (Wisconsin DNR 1999, p. 

63; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003a, 

pp. 11–12 Table 4; 2004a, pp. 11–12 

Table 4; 2005. pp. 19–20 Table 4). 

However, a more recent analysis 

incorporating 2005 and preliminary 

2006 data for radio-collared wolves 

indicates an increase in illegal killing of 

wolves since 2000 (about 32 percent) 

compared to the previous decade (about 

19 percent). The same analysis shows 

vehicle mortality declined and disease/ 

malnutrition mortality increased from 

the 1990s to the 2000s (Wiedenhoeft 

2006 unpublished data). 

In the UP of Michigan, human-caused 

mortalities accounted for 75 percent of 

the diagnosed mortalities, based upon 

34 wolves recovered from 1960 to 1997, 

including mostly non-radio-collared 

wolves. Twenty-eight percent of all the 

diagnosed mortalities and 38 percent of 

the human-caused mortalities were from 

shooting. In the UP during that period, 

about one-third of all the known 

mortalities were from vehicle collisions 

(MI DNR 1997, pp. 5–6). During the 

1998 Michigan deer hunting season, 3 

radio-collared wolves were shot and 

killed, resulting in one arrest and 

conviction (Hammill in litt. 1999, 

Michigan DNR 1999). During the 

subsequent 3 years, 8 additional wolves 

were killed in Michigan by gunshot, and 

the cut-off radio-collar from a ninth 

animal was located, but the animal was 

never found. These incidents resulted in 

6 guilty pleas, with 3 cases remaining 

open. Data collected from radio-collared 

wolves from the 1999 to 2004 bioyears 

(mid-April to mid-April) show that 

human-caused mortalities still account 

for the majority of the wolf mortalities 

(60 percent) in Michigan. Deaths from 

vehicular collisions were about 15 

percent of total mortality (25 percent of 

the human-caused mortality) and 

showed no trend over this six-year 

period. Deaths from illegal killing 

constituted 38 percent of all mortalities 

(65 percent of the human-caused 

mortality) over the period. From 1999 

through 2001 illegal killings were 31 

percent of the mortalities, but this 

increased to 42 percent during the 2002 

through 2004 bioyears (Beyer 

unpublished data 2005), 

North-central Minnesota data from 16 

diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared 

wolves over a 12-year period (1994–

2005) show that human-causes resulted 

in 69 percent of the diagnosed 

mortalities. This includes 1 wolf 

accidentally snared, 2 vehicle collisions, 

and 8 (50 percent of all diagnosed 

mortalities) that were shot (Del Giudice 

in litt. 2005). However, this data set of 

only 16 mortalities over 12 years is too 

small for reliable comparison to 

Wisconsin and Michigan data. 

A smaller mortality dataset is 

available from a 1987–1991 study of 

wolves in, and adjacent to, Minnesota’s 

Voyageurs National Park, along the 

Canadian border. Of 10 diagnosed 

mortalities, illegal killing outside the 

Park was responsible for a minimum of 

60 percent of the deaths (Gogan et al. 

2004, p. 22). 

Two Minnesota studies provide some 

limited insight into the extent of 

human-caused wolf mortality before and 

after the species’ listing. On the basis of 

bounty data from a period that predated 

wolf protection under the Act by 20 

years, Stenlund (1955, p. 33) found an 

annual human-caused mortality rate of 

41 percent. Fuller (1989, pp. 23–24) 

provided 1980–86 data from a northcentral Minnesota study area and found 

an annual human-caused mortality rate 

of 29 percent, a figure that includes 2 

percent mortality from legal depredation 

control actions. Drawing conclusions 

from comparisons of these two studies, 

however, is difficult due to the 

confounding effects of habitat quality, 

exposure to humans, prey density, 

differing time periods, and vast 

differences in study design. Although 

these figures provide support for the 

contention that human-caused mortality 

decreased after the wolf’s protection 

under the Act, it is not possible at this 

time to determine if human-caused 

mortality (apart from mortalities from 

depredation control) has significantly 

changed over the 30-year period that the 

gray wolf has been listed as threatened 

or endangered. 

Wolves were largely eliminated from 

the Dakotas in the 1920s and 1930s and 

were rarely reported from the mid-1940s 

through the late 1970s. Ten wolves were 

killed in these two States from 1981 to 

1992 (Licht and Fritts 1994, pp. 76–77). 

Six more were killed in North Dakota 

since 1992, with four of these 

mortalities occurring in 2002 and 2003; 

in 2001, one wolf was killed in Harding 

County in extreme northwestern South 

Dakota. The number of reported 

sightings of gray wolves in North Dakota 

is increasing. From 1993–98, six wolf 

depredation reports were investigated in 

North Dakota, and adequate signs were 

found to verify the presence of wolves 

in two of the cases. A den with pups 

was also documented in extreme northcentral North Dakota near the Canadian 

border in 1994. From 1999–2003, 16 

wolf sightings/depredation incidents in 

North Dakota were reported to USDA–

APHIS-Wildlife Services, and 9 of these 

incidents were verified. Additionally, 

one North Dakota wolf sighting was 

confirmed in early 2004, and two wolf 

depredation incidents were verified 

north of Garrison in late 2005. USDA–

APHIS-Wildlife Services also confirmed 

a wolf sighting along the Minnesota 

border near Gary, South Dakota, in 

1996, and a trapper with the South 

Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks 

Department sighted a lone wolf in the 

western Black Hills in 2002. Several 

other unconfirmed sightings have been 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6083 

reported from these States, including 

two reports in South Dakota in 2003. 

Wolves killed in North and South 

Dakota are most often shot by hunters 

after being mistaken for coyotes, or were 

killed by vehicles. The 2001 mortality in 

South Dakota and one of the 2003 

mortalities in North Dakota were caused 

by M–44 devices that had been legally 

set in response to complaints about 

coyotes. 

In and around the core recovery areas 

in the Midwest, a continuing increase in 

wolf mortalities from vehicle collisions, 

both in actual numbers and as a percent 

of total diagnosed mortalities, is 

expected as wolves continue their 

colonization of areas with more human 

developments and a denser network of 

roads and vehicle traffic. In addition, 

the growing wolf populations in 

Wisconsin and Michigan are producing 

greater numbers of dispersing 

individuals each year, and this also will 

contribute to increasing numbers of 

wolf-vehicle collisions. This increase 

would be unaffected by a removal of 

WGL DPS wolves from the protections 

of the Act. 

In those areas of the WGL DPS that 

are beyond the areas currently occupied 

by wolf packs in Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

and the UP, we expect that humancaused wolf mortality in the form of 

vehicle collisions, shooting, and 

trapping have been removing all, or 

nearly all, the wolves that disperse into 

these areas. We expect this to continue 

after Federal delisting. Road densities 

are high in these areas, with numerous 

interstate highways and other freeways 

and high-speed thoroughfares that are 

extremely hazardous to wolves 

attempting to move across them. 

Shooting and trapping of wolves also is 

likely to continue as a threat to wolves 

in these areas for several reasons. 

Especially outside of Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and the UP, hunters will not 

expect to encounter wolves, and may 

easily mistake them for coyotes from a 

distance, resulting in unintentional 

shootings. 

It is important to note that, despite the 

difficulty in measuring the extent of 

illegal killing of wolves, all sources of 

wolf mortality, including legal (e.g., 

depredation control) and illegal humancaused mortality, have not been of 

sufficient magnitude to stop the 

continuing growth of the wolf 

population in Wisconsin and Michigan, 

nor to cause a wolf population decline 

in Minnesota. This indicates that total 

gray wolf mortality does not threaten 

the continued viability of the wolf 

population in these three States, or in 

the WGL DPS. 

Predation summary—The high 

reproductive potential of wolves allows 

wolf populations to withstand relatively 

high mortality rates, including humancaused mortality. The principle of 

compensatory mortality is believed to 

occur in wolf populations. This means 

that human-caused mortality is not 

simply added to ‘‘natural’’ mortality, but 

rather replaces a portion of it. For 

example, some of the wolves that are 

killed during depredation control 

actions would have otherwise died 

during that year from disease, 

intraspecific strife, or starvation. Thus, 

the addition of intentional killing of 

wolves to a wolf population will reduce 

the mortality rates from other causes on 

the population. Based on 19 studies by 

other wolf researchers, Fuller et al. 

(2003, pp. 182–186) concludes that 

human-caused mortality can replace 

about 70 percent of other forms of 

mortality. 

Fuller et al. (2003, p. 182, Table 6.8) 

has summarized the work of various 

researchers in estimating mortality rates, 

especially human harvest, that would 

result in wolf population stability or 

decline. They provide a number of 

human-caused and total mortality rate 

estimates and the observed population 

effects in wolf populations in the United 

States and Canada. While variability is 

apparent, in general, wolf populations 

increased if their total average annual 

mortality was 30 percent or less, and 

populations decreased if their total 

average annual mortality was 40 percent 

or more. Four of the cited studies 

showed wolf population stability or 

increases with human-caused mortality 

rates of 24 to 30 percent. The clear 

conclusion is that a wolf population 

with high pup productivity—the normal 

situation in a wolf population—can 

withstand levels of overall and of 

human-caused mortality without 

suffering a long-term decline in 

numbers. 

The wolf populations in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan will stop 

growing when they have saturated the 

suitable habitat and are curtailed in less 

suitable areas by natural mortality 

(disease, starvation, and intraspecific 

aggression), depredation management, 

incidental mortality (e.g., road kill), 

illegal killing, and other means. At that 

time, we should expect to see 

population declines in some years 

followed by short-term increases in 

other years, resulting from fluctuations 

in birth and mortality rates. Adequate 

wolf monitoring programs, however, as 

described in the Michigan, Wisconsin, 

and Minnesota wolf management plans 

are likely to identify high mortality rates 

and/or low birth rates that warrant 

corrective action by the management 

agencies. The goals of all three State 

wolf management plans are to maintain 

wolf populations well above the 

numbers recommended in the Federal 

Eastern Recovery Plan to ensure longterm viable wolf populations. The State 

management plans recommend a 

minimum wolf population of 1,600 in 

Minnesota, 350 in Wisconsin, and 200 

in Michigan. 

Despite human-caused mortalities of 

wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

Michigan, these wolf populations have 

continued to increase in both numbers 

and range. If wolves in the WGL DPS are 

delisted, as long as other mortality 

factors do not increase significantly and 

monitoring is adequate to document, 

and if necessary counteract, the effects 

of excessive human-caused mortality 

should that occur, the MinnesotaWisconsin-Michigan wolf population 

will not decline to nonviable levels in 

the foreseeable future as a result of 

human-caused killing or other forms of 

predation either within the core wolf 

populations or in all other parts of the 

DPS. Therefore, we conclude that 

predation, including all forms of 

human-caused mortally, will not be a 

sufficient future threat to cause the WGL 

DPS gray wolves to be in danger of 

extinction in the foreseeable future in 

all or a significant portion of the range 

within the WGL DPS. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

For the reasons described in the 

following section, the Service has 

determined that over a significant 

portion of the WGL DPS range, there are 

adequate regulatory mechanisms to 

ensure that this population of gray 

wolves is neither threatened nor 

endangered. 

Regulatory Mechanisms in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan 

State Wolf Management Planning 

During the 2000 legislative session, 

the Minnesota Legislature passed wolf 

management provisions addressing wolf 

protection, taking of wolves, and 

directing MN DNR to prepare a wolf 

management plan. The MN DNR revised 

a 1999 draft wolf management plan to 

reflect the legislative action of 2000, and 

completed the Minnesota Wolf 

Management Plan (MN Plan) in early 

2001 (MN DNR 2001, pp. 8–9). 

The Wisconsin Natural Resources 

Board approved the Wisconsin Wolf 

Management Plan in October 1999 (WI 

Plan). In 2004 and 2005 the Wisconsin 

Wolf Science Advisory Committee and 

the Wisconsin Wolf Stakeholders group 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6084 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

reviewed the 1999 Plan, and the Science 

Advisory Committee subsequently 

developed updates and recommended 

modifications to the 1999 Plan. The WI 

DNR presented the Plan updates and 

modifications to the Wisconsin Natural 

Resources Board on June 28, 2006, and 

the NRB approved them at that time, 

with the understanding that some 

numbers would be updated and an 

additional reference document would be 

added (Holtz in litt. 2006). The updates 

were completed and received final NRB 

approval on November 28, 2006 (WI 

DNR 2006a, p. 1). 

In late 1997, the Michigan Wolf 

Recovery and Management Plan (MI 

Plan) was completed and received the 

necessary State approvals. However, it 

is primarily focused on wolf recovery, 

rather than long-term management of a 

large wolf population and the conflicts 

that result as a consequence of 

successful wolf restoration. In 2006 the 

MI DNR convened a Michigan Wolf 

Management Roundtable committee 

(Roundtable) to provide guiding 

principles to the DNR on changes and 

revisions to the 1997 Plan and to guide 

management of Michigan wolves and 

wolf-related issues following Federal 

delisting of the species. The MI DNR 

will rely heavily on those guiding 

principles as it drafts a new wolf 

management plan. The Roundtable is 

composed of representatives from 20 

Michigan stakeholder interests in wolf 

recovery and management, and its 

membership is roughly equal in 

numbers from the UP and the LP. 

During 2006, the Roundtable provided 

its ‘‘Recommended Guiding Principles 

for Wolf Management in Michigan’’ to 

the DNR in November (Michigan Wolf 

Management Roundtable 2006, p. 2). 

The first public draft of the revised MI 

Plan is expected to be available for 

public review and comment in March 

2007, and the plan should be completed 

in late 2007 (Hogrefe in litt. 2006). See 

The Michigan Wolf Management Plan 

section below for a detailed description 

of the efforts of the Roundtable. 

The Minnesota Wolf Management Plan 

The Minnesota Plan is based, in part, 

on the recommendations of a State wolf 

management roundtable (MN DNR 2001, 

Appendix V) and on a State wolf 

management law enacted in 2000 (MN 

DNR 2001, Appendix I). This law and 

the Minnesota Game and Fish Laws 

constitute the basis of the State’s 

authority to manage wolves. The Plan’s 

stated goal is ‘‘to ensure the long-term 

survival of wolves in Minnesota while 

addressing wolf-human conflicts that 

inevitably result when wolves and 

people live in the same vicinity’’ (MN 

DNR 2001, p. 2). It establishes a 

minimum goal of 1,600 wolves in the 

State. Key components of the plan are 

population monitoring and 

management, management of wolf 

depredation of domestic animals, 

management of wolf prey, enforcement 

of laws regulating take of wolves, public 

education, and increased staffing to 

accomplish these actions. Following 

delisting, Minnesota DNR’s management 

of wolves would differ from their 

current management while listed as 

threatened under the Act. Most of these 

differences deal with the control of 

wolves that attack or threaten domestic 

animals. 

The Minnesota Plan divides the State 

into two wolf management zones—

Zones A and B (see Figure 2 below). 

Zone A corresponds to Federal Wolf 

Management Zones 1 through 4 

(approximately 30,000 sq mi (48,000 sq 

km) in northeastern Minnesota) in the 

Service’s Eastern Recovery Plan, 

whereas Zone B constitutes zone 5 in 

the Eastern Recovery Plan (MN DNR 

2001, pp. 19–20 and Appendix III; 

USFWS 1992, p. 72). Within Zone A, 

wolves would receive strong protection 

by the State, unless they were involved 

in attacks on domestic animals. The 

rules governing the take of wolves to 

protect domestic animals in Zone B 

would be less protective than in Zone A. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6085 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2ER08FE07.003</GPH>
6086 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

The MN DNR plans to allow wolf 

numbers and distribution to naturally 

expand, with no maximum population 

goal, and if any winter population 

estimate is below 1,600 wolves, it would 

take actions to ‘‘assure recovery’’ to 

1,600 wolves (MN DNR 2001, p. 19). 

The MN DNR will continue to monitor 

wolves in Minnesota to determine 

whether such intervention is necessary. 

The MN DNR will conduct a statewide 

population survey in the first and fifth 

years after delisting and at subsequent 

five-year intervals. In addition to these 

statewide population surveys, MN DNR 

annually reviews data on depredation 

incident frequency and locations 

provided by Wildlife Services and 

winter track survey indices (see Erb 

2005) to help ascertain annual trends in 

wolf population or range (MN DNR 

2001, p. 18–19). 

Minnesota (MN DNR 2001, pp. 21–24, 

27–28) plans to reduce or control illegal 

mortality of wolves through education, 

increased enforcement of the State’s 

wolf laws and regulations, by 

discouraging new road access in some 

areas, and by maintaining a depredation 

control program that includes 

compensation for livestock losses. The 

MN DNR plans to use a variety of 

methods to encourage and support 

education of the public about the effects 

of wolves on livestock, wild ungulate 

populations, and human activities and 

the history and ecology of wolves in the 

State (MN DNR 2001, pp. 29–30). These 

are all measures that have been in effect 

for years in Minnesota, although 

‘‘increased enforcement’’ of State laws 

against take of wolves would replace 

enforcement of the Act’s take 

prohibitions. Financial compensation 

for livestock losses has been increased 

in recent years to the full market value 

of the animal, replacing previous caps of 

$400 and $750 per animal (MN DNR 

2001, p. 24). We do not expect the 

State’s efforts will result in the 

reduction of illegal take of wolves from 

existing levels, but we believe these 

measures will be crucial in ensuring 

that illegal mortality does not 

significantly increase following Federal 

delisting. 

The likelihood of illegal take 

increases in relation to road density and 

human population density, but 

changing attitudes towards wolves may 

allow them to survive in areas where 

road and human densities were 

previously thought to be too high (Fuller 

et al., 2003, p. 181). The MN DNR does 

not plan to reduce current levels of road 

access, but would encourage managers 

of land areas large enough to sustain one 

or more wolf packs to ‘‘be cautious 

about adding new road access that could 

exceed a density of one mile of road per 

square mile of land, without considering 

the potential effect on wolves’’ (MN 

DNR 2001, pp. 27–28). 

Under Minnesota law, the illegal 

killing of a wolf is a gross misdemeanor 

and is punishable by a maximum fine of 

$3,000 and imprisonment for up to one 

year. The restitution value of an illegally 

killed wolf is $2,000 (MN DNR 2001, p. 

29). The MN DNR acknowledges that 

increased enforcement of the State’s 

wolf laws and regulations would be 

dependent on increases in staff and 

resources, additional cross-deputization 

of tribal law enforcement officers, and 

continued cooperation with Federal law 

enforcement officers. They specifically 

propose after delisting to add three 

Conservation Officers ‘‘strategically 

located within current gray wolf range 

in Minnesota’’ whose priority duty 

would be to implement the gray wolf 

management plan (MN DNR 2001, pp. 

29, 32). 

Minnesota DNR will consider wolf 

population management measures, 

including public hunting and trapping 

seasons and other methods, in the 

future. However, State law and the 

Minnesota Plan state that such 

consideration will occur no sooner than 

five years after Federal delisting, and 

there would be opportunity for full 

public comment on such possible 

changes at that time (Minnesota Statutes 

97B.645 Subdiv. 9, see MN DNR 2001, 

Appendix 1, p. 6; MN DNR 2001, p. 20) 

The Minnesota Plan requires that these 

population management measures have 

to be implemented in such a way to 

maintain a statewide late-winter wolf 

population of at least 1,600 animals 

(MN DNR 2001, pp. 19–20), well above 

the Federal Recovery Plan’s 1250–1400 

for the State (USFWS 1992, p. 28). 

Depredation Control in Minnesota 

While federally-protected as a 

threatened species in Minnesota (since 

their 1978 reclassification), wolves that 

have attacked domestic animals have 

been killed by designated government 

employees under the authority of a 

special regulation (50 CFR 17.40(d)) 

under section 4(d) of the Act. However, 

no control of depredating wolves was 

allowed in Federal Wolf Management 

Zone 1, comprising about 4,500 sq mi 

(7,200 sq km) in extreme northeastern 

Minnesota (USFWS 1992, p. 72). In 

Federal Wolf Management Zones 2 

through 5, employees or agents of the 

Service (including USDA-APHISWildlife Services) have taken wolves in 

response to depredations of domestic 

animals within one-half mile of the 

depredation site. Young-of-the-year 

captured on or before August 1 must be 

released. The regulations that allow for 

this take (50 CFR 17.40(d)(2)(i)(B)(4)) do 

not specify a maximum duration for 

depredation control, but Wildlife 

Services personnel have followed 

internal guidelines under which they 

trap for no more than 10–15 days, 

except at sites with repeated or chronic 

depredation, where they may trap for up 

to 30 days (Paul pers. comm. 2004). 

During the period from 1980–2005, 

the Federal Minnesota wolf depredation 

control program euthanized from 20 (in 

1982) to 216 (in 1997) gray wolves 

annually. Annual averages (and 

percentage of statewide population) 

were 30 (2.2 percent) wolves killed from 

1980 to 1984, 49 (3.0 percent) from 1985 

to 1989, 115 (6.0 percent) from 1990 to 

1994, and 152 (6.7 percent) from 1995 

to 1999. During 2000–05 an average of 

128 wolves (4.2 percent of the wolf 

population, based on the 2003–2004 

statewide estimate) were killed under 

the program annually. Since 1980, the 

lowest annual percentage of Minnesota 

wolves killed under this program was 

1.5 percent in 1982; the highest 

percentage was 9.4 in 1997 (Paul 2004, 

pp. 2–7; 2006, p. 1). 

This level of wolf removal for 

depredation control has not interfered 

with wolf recovery in Minnesota, 

although it may have slowed the 

increase in wolf numbers in the State, 

especially since the late-1980s, and may 

be contributing to the possibly 

stabilized Minnesota wolf population 

suggested by the 2003–04 estimate (see 

additional information in Minnesota 

Recovery). Minnesota wolf numbers 

grew at an average annual rate of nearly 

4 percent between 1989 and 1998 while 

the depredation control program was 

taking its highest percentages of wolves 

(Paul 2004, pp. 2–7). 

Under a Minnesota statute, the 

Minnesota Department of Agriculture 

(MDA) compensates livestock owners 

for full market value of livestock that 

wolves have killed or severely injured. 

A university extension agent or 

conservation officer must confirm that 

wolves were responsible for the 

depredation. The agent or officer also 

evaluates the livestock operation for 

conformance to a set of Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) designed 

to minimize wolf depredation and 

provides operators with an itemized list 

of any deficiencies relative to the BMPs 

(MN DNR 2001, p. 24). The Minnesota 

statute also requires MDA to 

periodically update its BMPs to 

incorporate new practices that it finds 

would reduce wolf depredation 

(Minnesota Statutes 2005, Section 3.737, 

subdivision 5). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6087 

Post-Delisting Depredation Control in 

Minnesota 

Following Federal delisting, 

depredation control will be authorized 

under Minnesota State law and 

conducted in conformance with the 

Minnesota Wolf Management Plan (MN 

DNR 2001). The Minnesota Plan divides 

the State into Wolf Management Zones 

A and B. Zone A is composed of Federal 

Wolf Management Zones 1–4, covering 

30,728 sq mi (49,452 sq km), 

approximately the northeastern third of 

the State. Zone B is identical to the 

current Federal Wolf Management Zone 

5, and contains the 54,603 sq mi (87,875 

sq km) that make up the rest of the State 

(MN DNR 2001, pp. 19–20 and 

Appendix III; USFWS 1992, p. 72). The 

statewide survey conducted during the 

winter of 2003–04 estimated that there 

were approximately 2,570 wolves in 

Zone A and 450 in Zone B (Erb in litt. 

2005). As discussed in Recovery 

Criteria, the Federal planning goal is 

1251–1400 wolves for Zones 1–4 and no 

wolves in Zone 5 (USFWS 1992, p. 28). 

In Zone A wolf depredation control is 

limited to situations of (1) immediate 

threat and (2) following verified loss of 

domestic animals. In this zone, if DNR 

verifies that a wolf destroyed any 

livestock, domestic animal, or pet, and 

if the owner requests wolf control be 

implemented, trained and certified 

predator controllers may take wolves 

within a one-mile radius of the 

depredation site (depredation control 

area) for up to 60 days. In contrast, in 

Zone B, predator controllers may take 

wolves for up to 214 days after MN DNR 

opens a depredation control area, 

depending on the time of year. Under 

State law, the DNR may open a control 

area in Zone B anytime within five years 

of a verified depredation loss upon 

request of the landowner, thereby 

providing more of a preventative 

approach than is allowed in Zone A, in 

order to head off repeat depredation 

incidents (MN DNR 2001, p. 22). 

State law and the Minnesota Plan will 

also allow for private wolf depredation 

control throughout the State. Persons 

may shoot or destroy a gray wolf that 

poses ‘‘an immediate threat’’ to their 

livestock, guard animals, or domestic 

animals on lands that they own, lease, 

or occupy. Immediate threat is defined 

as ‘‘in the act of stalking, attacking, or 

killing.’’ This does not include trapping 

because traps cannot be placed in a 

manner such that they trap only wolves 

in the act of stalking, attacking, or 

killing. Owners of domestic pets may 

also kill wolves posing an immediate 

threat to pets under their supervision on 

lands that they do not own or lease, 

although such actions are subject to 

local ordinances, trespass law, and other 

applicable restrictions. The MN DNR 

will investigate any private taking of 

wolves in Zone A (MN DNR 2001, p. 

23). 

To protect their domestic animals in 

Zone B, individuals do not have to wait 

for an immediate threat or a depredation 

incident in order to take wolves. At 

anytime in Zone B, persons who own, 

lease, or manage lands may shoot 

wolves on those lands to protect 

livestock, domestic animals, or pets. 

They may also employ a predator 

controller to trap a gray wolf on their 

land or within one mile of their land 

(with permission of the landowner) to 

protect their livestock, domestic 

animals, or pets (MN DNR 2001, p. 23–

24). 

The Minnesota Plan will also allow 

persons to harass wolves anywhere in 

the State within 500 yards of ‘‘people, 

buildings, dogs, livestock, or other 

domestic pets or animals’’. Harassment 

may not include physical injury to a 

wolf. 

Depredation control will be allowed 

throughout Zone A, which includes an 

area (Federal Wolf Management Zone 1) 

where such control has not been 

permitted under the Act’s protection. 

Depredation in Zone 1, however, has 

been limited to 3 to 6 reported incidents 

per year, mostly of wolves killing dogs 

(Paul pers. comm. 2004), although some 

dog kills in this zone probably go 

unreported. There are few livestock in 

Zone 1; therefore, the number of verified 

future depredation incidents in that 

Zone is expected to be low, resulting in 

a correspondingly low number of 

depredating wolves being killed there 

after delisting. 

The final change in Zone A is the 

ability for owners/lessees to respond to 

situations of immediate threat by 

shooting wolves in the act of stalking, 

attacking, or killing livestock or other 

domestic animals. We believe this is not 

likely to result in the killing of many 

additional wolves, as opportunities to 

shoot wolves ‘‘in the act’’ will likely be 

few and difficult to successfully 

accomplish, a belief shared by the most 

experienced wolf depredation agent in 

the lower 48 States (Paul in litt. 2006, 

p. 5). It is also possible that illegal 

killing of wolves in Minnesota will 

decrease, because the expanded options 

for legal control of problem wolves may 

lead to an increase in public tolerance 

for wolves (Paul in litt. 2006, p. 5). 

Within Zone B, State law and the 

Minnesota Plan provide broad authority 

to landowners and land managers to 

shoot wolves at any time to protect their 

livestock, pets, or other domestic 

animals on land owned, leased, or 

managed by the individual. Such 

takings can occur in the absence of wolf 

attacks on the domestic animals. Thus, 

the estimated 450 wolves in Zone B 

could be subject to substantial reduction 

in numbers, and at the extreme, wolves 

could be eliminated from Zone B. 

However, there is no way to reasonably 

evaluate in advance the extent to which 

residents of Zone B will use this new 

authority, nor how vulnerable Zone B 

wolves will be. Thus, any estimate of 

future wolf numbers in Zone B would 

be highly speculative at this time. The 

limitation of this broad take authority to 

Zone B is fully consistent with the 

Federal Recovery Plan’s advice that 

wolves should be restored to the rest of 

Minnesota but not to Zone B (Federal 

Zone 5) because that area ‘‘is not 

suitable for wolves’’ (USFWS 1992, p. 

20). The Federal Recovery Plan 

envisioned that the Minnesota 

numerical recovery goal would be 

achieved solely in Zone A (Federal 

Zones 1–4) (USFWS 1992, p. 28), and 

that has occurred. Wolves outside of 

Zone A are not necessary to the 

establishment and long-term viability of 

a self-sustaining wolf population in the 

State, and therefore there is no need to 

establish or maintain a wolf population 

in Zone B. Therefore, there is no need 

to maintain significant protection for 

wolves in Zone B in order to maintain 

a Minnesota wolf population that 

continues to satisfy the Federal recovery 

goals after Federal delisting. 

This expansion of depredation control 

activities will not threaten the 

continued conservation of wolves in the 

State or the long-term viability of the 

wolf population in Zone A, the 

significant part of wolf range in 

Minnesota. Significant changes in wolf 

depredation control under State 

management will primarily be restricted 

to Zone B, which is outside of the area 

necessary for wolf recovery (USFWS 

1992, pp. 20, 28). Furthermore, wolves 

may still persist in Zone B despite the 

likely increased take there. The Eastern 

Timber Wolf Recovery Team concluded 

that the changes in wolf management in 

the State’s Zone A would be ‘‘minor’’

and would not likely result in 

‘‘significant change in overall wolf 

numbers in Zone A.’’ They found that, 

despite an expansion of the individual 

depredation control areas and an 

extension of the control period to 60 

days, depredation control will remain 

‘‘very localized’’ in Zone A. The 

requirement that such depredation 

control activities be conducted only in 

response to verified wolf depredation in 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6088 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Zone A played a key role in the team’s 

evaluation (Peterson in litt. 2001). 

The proposed changes in the control 

of depredating wolves in Minnesota 

under State management emphasize the 

need for post-delisting monitoring. 

Minnesota will continue to monitor 

wolf populations throughout the State 

and will also monitor all depredation 

control activities in Zone A (MN DNR 

2001, p. 18). These and other activities 

contained in their plan will be essential 

in meeting their population goal of a 

minimum statewide winter population 

of 1,600 wolves, which exceeds the 

1992 Federal Recovery Plan’s criteria of 

1,251 to 1,400 wolves (USFWS 1992, p. 

28). 

The Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan 

Both the Wisconsin and Michigan 

Wolf Management Plans are designed to 

manage and ensure the existence of wolf 

populations in the States as if they are 

isolated populations and are not 

dependent upon immigration of wolves 

from an adjacent State or Canada. We 

support this approach and believe it 

provides strong assurances that the gray 

wolf in both States will remain a viable 

component of the WGL DPS for the 

foreseeable future. 

The WI Plan allows for differing 

levels of protection and management 

within four separate management zones 

(see figure 3). The Northern Forest Zone 

(Zone 1) and the Central Forest Zone 

(Zone 2) now contain most of the wolf 

population, with less than 5 percent of 

the Wisconsin wolves in Zones 3 and 4 

(Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 27–29). Zones 

1 and 2 contain all the larger 

unfragmented areas of suitable habitat 

(see Wolf Range Ownership and 

Protection, above), so most of the State’s 

wolf packs will continue to inhabit 

those parts of Wisconsin for the 

foreseeable future. The varying levels of 

protection provided across these zones 

are fully consistent with our 

determination of the SPR in Wisconsin. 

The inclusion of all primary and 

secondary habitat in Zones 1 and 2, and 

the lack of suitable habitat in Zones 3 

and 4 (Wydeven et al. 1999, pp. 46–49), 

indicate that Zones 1 and 2 constitute 

the SPR in Wisconsin and preclude the 

need for substantial wolf protection 

outside these zones. 

At the time the Wisconsin Wolf 

Management Plan was completed, it 

recommended immediate 

reclassification from State-endangered 

to State-threatened status, because 

Wisconsin’s wolf population had 

already exceeded its reclassification 

criterion of 80 wolves for 3 years. That 

State reclassification occurred in 1999, 

after the population exceeded that level 

for 5 years. The Wisconsin Plan further 

recommends the State manage for a gray 

wolf population of 350 wolves outside 

of Native American reservations, and 

specifies that the species should be 

delisted by the State once the 

population reaches 250 animals outside 

of reservations. The species was 

proposed for State delisting in late 2003, 

and the State delisting process was 

completed in 2004. Upon State 

delisting, the species was classified as a 

‘‘protected nongame species,’’ a 

designation that continues State 

prohibitions on sport hunting and 

trapping of the species (Wydeven and 

Jurewicz 2005, p. 1; WI DNR 2006b, p. 

71). The Wisconsin Plan includes 

criteria that would trigger State relisting 

to threatened (a decline to fewer than 

250 wolves for 3 years) or endangered 

status (a decline to fewer than 80 wolves 

for 1 year). The Wisconsin Plan will be 

reviewed annually by the Wisconsin 

Wolf Advisory Committee and will be 

reviewed by the public every 5 years. 

The WI Plan was updated during 

2004–06 to reflect current wolf 

numbers, additional knowledge, and 

issues that have arisen since its 1999 

completion. This update is in the form 

of text changes, revisions to two 

appendices, and the addition of a new 

appendix to the 1999 plan, rather than 

as a major revision to the plan. Several 

components of the plan that are key to 

our delisting evaluation are unchanged. 

The State wolf management goal of 350 

animals and the boundaries of the four 

wolf management zones remain the 

same as in the 1999 Plan. The updated 

2006 Plan continues access management 

on public lands and the protection of 

active den sites. However, protection of 

pack rendezvous sites is no longer 

considered to be needed in areas where 

wolves have become well established, 

due to the transient nature of these sites 

and the larger wolf population. The 

updated Plan states that rendezvous 

sites may need protection in areas 

where wolf colonization is still 

underway or where pup survival is 

extremely poor, such as in northeastern 

Wisconsin (WI DNR 2006a, p. 17). The 

guidelines for the wolf depredation 

control program did not undergo 

significant alteration during the update 

process. The only substantive change to 

depredation control practices is to 

expand the area of depredation control 

trapping in Zones 1 and 2 to 1 mi (1.6 

km) outward from the depredation site, 

replacing the previous 0.5 mi (0.8 km) 

radius trapping zone (WI DNR 2006a, 

pp. 3–4). 

An important component of the WI 

Plan is the annual monitoring of wolf 

populations by radio collars and winter 

track surveys in order to provide 

comparable annual data to assess 

population size and growth for at least 

5 years after Federal delisting. This 

monitoring will include health 

monitoring of captured wolves and 

necropsies of dead wolves that are 

found. Wolf scat will be collected and 

analyzed to monitor for canine viruses 

and parasites. Health monitoring will be 

part of the capture protocol for all 

studies that involve the live capture of 

Wisconsin wolves (WI DNR 2006a, p. 

14). 

Cooperative habitat management will 

be promoted with public and private 

landowners to maintain existing road 

densities in Zones 1 and 2, protect wolf 

dispersal corridors, and manage forests 

for deer and beaver (WI DNR 1999, pp. 

4, 22–23; 2006a, pp. 15–17). 

Furthermore, in Zone 1, a year-around 

prohibition on tree harvest within 330 

feet of den sites, and seasonal 

restrictions to reduce disturbance 

within one-half mile of dens, will be 

DNR policy on public lands and will be 

encouraged on private lands (WI DNR 

1999, p. 23; 2006a, p. 17). 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6089 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2ER08FE07.004</GPH>
6090 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

The 1999 WI Plan contains, and the 

2006 update retains, other 

recommendations that will provide 

protection to assist in maintenance of a 

viable wolf population in the State: (1) 

Continue the protection of the species as 

a ‘‘protected wild animal’’ with 

penalties similar to those for unlawfully 

killing large game species (fines of 

$1000–2000, loss of hunting privileges 

for 3–5 years, and a possible 6-month 

jail sentence), (2) maintain closure 

zones where coyotes cannot be shot 

during deer hunting season in Zone 1, 

(3) legally protect wolf dens under the 

Wisconsin Administrative Code, (4) 

require State permits to possess a wolf 

or wolf-dog hybrid, and (5) establish a 

restitution value to be levied in addition 

to fines and other penalties for wolves 

that are illegally killed (WI DNR 1999, 

pp. 21, 27–28, 30–31; 2006a, pp. 3–4). 

The 2006 update of the WI Plan 

continues to emphasize the need for 

public education efforts that focus on 

living with a recovered wolf population, 

ways to manage wolves and wolf-human 

conflicts, and the ecosystem role of 

wolves. The Plan continues the State 

reimbursement for depredation losses 

(including dogs and missing calves), 

citizen stakeholder involvement in the 

wolf management program, and 

coordination with the Tribes in wolf 

management and investigation of illegal 

killings (WI DNR 1999, pp. 24, 28–29; 

2006a, pp. 22–23). 

Given the decline and ultimate 

termination in Federal funding for wolf 

monitoring in the future, Wisconsin and 

Michigan DNRs are seeking an effective, 

yet cost-efficient, method for detecting 

wolf population changes to replace the 

current labor-intensive and expensive 

monitoring protocols. Both DNRs have 

considered implementing a ‘‘Minnesotatype’’ wolf survey. Such methodology is 

less expensive for larger wolf 

populations than the intensive radio 

monitoring/track survey methods 

currently used by the two States, and if 

the wolf population continues to grow 

there will be increased need to develop 

and implement a less expensive 

method. However, each State conducted 

independent field testing of the 

Minnesota method several years ago and 

found that method to be unsuitable for 

both States’ lower wolf population 

density and uneven pack distribution. 

In both States the application of that 

method resulted in an overestimate of 

wolf abundance, possibly due to the 

more patchy distribution of wolves and 

packs in these States and the difficulty 

in accurately delineating occupied wolf 

range in areas where wolf pack density 

is relatively low in comparison to 

Minnesota and where agricultural lands 

are interspersed with forested areas 

(Wiedenhoeft 2005, pp. 11–12; Beyer in 

litt. 2006b). 

Both States remain interested in 

developing accurate but less costly 

alternate survey methods. WI DNR 

might test other methods following 

Federal delisting, but the State will not 

replace its traditional radio tracking/ 

snow tracking surveys during the five 

year post-delisting monitoring period 

(Wydeven in litt. 2006b). The 2006 

update to the Wisconsin Wolf 

Management Plan has not changed the 

WI DNR’s commitment to annual wolf 

population monitoring in a manner that 

ensures accurate and comparable data 

(WI DNR 1999, pp. 19–20), and we are 

confident that adequate annual 

monitoring will continue for the 

foreseeable future. 

Depredation Control in Wisconsin 

The rapidly expanding Wisconsin 

wolf population has resulted in 

increased need for depredation control. 

From 1979 through 1989, there were 

only five cases (an average of 0.4 per 

year) of verified wolf depredations in 

Wisconsin. Between 1990 and 1997, 

there were 27 verified depredation 

incidents in the State (an average of 3.4 

per year), and 82 incidents (an average 

of 16.4 per year) occurred from 1998–

2002. Depredation incidents increased 

to 23 cases (including 50 domestic 

animals killed and 4 injured) in 2003, 

and to 35 cases (53 domestic animals 

killed, 3 injured, and 6 missing) in 2004 

(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2004a, pp. 

2–3, 7–8 Table 3; Wydeven et al. 2005b, 

p. 7). In 2005, depredation grew to 45 

cases, with 53 domestic animals killed 

and 11 injured (Wydeven et al. 2006b, 

p. 7). The number of farms experiencing 

wolf depredations on livestock averaged 

2.8 annually (range 0 to 8) during the 

1990s, but jumped to an average of 14.0 

per year during 2000–2005 (WI DNR 

2006a, p. 19). During those five years an 

annual upward trend was evident, 

increasing from 10 in 2002, to 14 in 

2003, to 22 in 2004, and to 25 in 2005 

(WI DNR 2006a, p. 34). 

A significant portion of depredation 

incidents in Wisconsin involve attacks 

on dogs engaged in bear hunting 

activities or dogs being trained in the 

field for hunting. In almost all cases, 

these have been hunting dogs that were 

being used for, or being trained for, 

hunting bears and bobcats at the time 

they were attacked. It is believed that 

the dogs entered the territory of a wolf 

pack and may have been close to a den, 

rendezvous site, or feeding location, 

thus triggering an attack by wolves 

defending their territory or pups. The 

frequency of attacks on hunting dogs 

has increased as the State’s wolf 

population has grown. In 2004, 13 dogs 

involved in bear hunting or training 

were killed by wolves and 2 dogs not 

involved in hunting/training were 

killed. These incidents were believed to 

involve 7 different wolf packs, or 6 

percent of the 108 packs in Wisconsin 

in the winter of 2003–2004. Preliminary 

data from 2006 through the middle of 

October show a continuation of 

increased wolf attacks on bear hunting 

dogs, with 20 killed and 5 injured by 8 

separate wolf packs, 7 percent of the 

winter 2005–2006 packs. (http:// 

www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/ 

mammals/wolf/dogdepred.htm, 

accessed Nov. 21, 2006). While 

Wisconsin DNR compensates dog 

owners for mortalities and injuries to 

their dogs, DNR takes no action against 

the depredating pack unless the attack 

was on a dog that was leashed, 

confined, or under the owner’s control 

on the owner’s land. Instead, the DNR 

issues press releases to warn bear 

hunters and bear dog trainers of the 

areas where wolf packs have been 

attacking bear dogs (WI DNR 2005, p. 4) 

and provides maps and advice to 

hunters on the DNR Web site (see 

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/ 

mammals/wolf/dogdepred.htm). 

Post-delisting Depredation Control in 

Wisconsin 

Following Federal delisting, wolf 

depredation control in Wisconsin will 

be carried out according to the 2006 

Updated Wisconsin Wolf Management 

Plan (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 19–23), 

Wisconsin Guidelines for Conducting 

Depredation Control on Wolves 

(Wisconsin DNR 2005) which are being 

revised to conform to the 2006 Updated 

Plan, and any Tribal wolf management 

plans or guidelines that may be 

developed in the future for reservations 

in occupied wolf range. The 2006 

updates have not significantly changed 

the 1999 State Plan, and the State wolf 

management goal of 350 wolves outside 

of Indian reservations (WI DNR 2006a, 

p. 3) is unchanged. Verification of wolf 

depredation incidents will continue to 

be conducted by USDA-APHIS-Wildlife 

Services, working under a cooperative 

agreement with WI DNR, or at the 

request of a Tribe, depending on the 

location of the suspected depredation 

incident. If determined to be a 

confirmed or probable depredation by a 

wolf or wolves, one or more of several 

options will be implemented to address 

the depredation problem. These options 

include technical assistance, loss 

compensation to landowners, 

translocation or euthanizing problem 

wolves, and private landowner control 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6091 

of problem wolves in some 

circumstances (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 3–4, 

20–22). 

Technical assistance, consisting of 

advice or recommendations to prevent 

or reduce further wolf conflicts, will be 

provided. This may also include 

providing to the landowner various 

forms of non-injurious behavior 

modification materials, such as flashing 

lights, noise makers, temporary fencing, 

and fladry. Monetary compensation is 

also provided for all verified and 

probable losses of domestic animals and 

for a portion of documented missing 

calves (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23). 

The WI DNR compensates livestock 

and pet owners for confirmed losses to 

depredating wolves. The compensation 

is made at full market value of the 

animal (up to a limit of $2500 for 

hunting dogs and pets) and can include 

veterinarian fees for the treatment of 

injured animals (WI DNR 2006c 12.54). 

Compensation costs have been funded 

from the endangered resources tax 

check-off and sales of the endangered 

resources license plates. Current 

Wisconsin law requires the continuation 

of the compensation payment for wolf 

depredation regardless of Federal listing 

or delisting of the species (WI DNR 

2006c 12.50). In recent years annual 

depredation compensation payments 

have ranged from $18,630 to nearly 

$110,000 (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23, 

29). 

For depredation incidents in 

Wisconsin Zones 1 through 3, where all 

wolf packs currently reside, wolves may 

be trapped by Wildlife Services or WI 

DNR personnel and, if feasible, they are 

translocated and released at a point 

distant from the depredation site. If 

wolves are captured adjacent to an 

Indian reservation or a large block of 

public land the animals may be 

translocated locally to that area. As 

noted above, long-distance translocating 

of depredating wolves has become 

increasingly difficult in Wisconsin and 

is likely to be used infrequently in the 

future as long as the off-reservation wolf 

population is above 350 animals. In 

most wolf depredation cases where 

technical assistance and non-lethal 

methods of behavior modification are 

judged to be ineffective, wolves will be 

shot or trapped and euthanized by 

Wildlife Services or DNR personnel. 

Trapping and euthanizing will be 

conducted within a 1 mi (1.6 km) radius 

of the depredation in Zones 1 and 2, and 

within a 5 mi (8 km) radius in Zone 3. 

There is no distance limitation for 

depredation control trapping in Zone 4, 

and all wolves trapped in Zone 4 will 

be euthanized, rather than translocated 

(WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23) 

Following Federal delisting, 

Wisconsin landowners who have had a 

verified wolf depredation will be able to 

obtain limited-duration permits from WI 

DNR to kill a limited number of 

depredating wolves on land they own or 

lease. In addition, landowners and 

lessees of land statewide will be 

allowed to kill a wolf without obtaining 

a permit ‘‘in the act of killing, 

wounding, or biting a domestic animal,’’

and the incident must be reported to a 

conservation warden within 24 hours 

(WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23). 

The updated Wisconsin Plan also 

envisions the possibility of intensive 

control management actions in subzones of the larger wolf management 

zones, but such actions, and the 

triggering events for them, have yet to be 

determined (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22–23). 

These actions would be considered on 

a case-by-case basis to address specific 

problems, and would likely be carried 

out only in areas that lack suitable 

habitat, have extensive agricultural 

lands with little forest interspersion, in 

urban or suburban settings, and only 

when the State wolf population is well 

above the management goal of 350 

wolves in late winter surveys. The use 

of intensive population management in 

small areas will be adapted as 

experience is gained with implementing 

and evaluating localized control actions 

(Wydeven pers. comm. 2006). 

We have evaluated future lethal 

depredation control based upon verified 

depredation incidents over the last 

decade and the impacts of the 

implementation of similar lethal control 

of depredating wolves under 50 CFR 

17.40(d) for Minnesota, 17.40(o) for 

Wisconsin and Michigan, and section 

10(a)(1)(A) of the Act for Wisconsin and 

Michigan. Under those authorities, WI 

DNR and Wildlife Services trapped and 

euthanized 17 wolves in 2003, 24 in 

2004, 32 (including several possible 

hybrids) in 2005, and 18 in 2006 (WI 

DNR 2006a, p. 32). (Although these 

lethal control authorities applied to 

Wisconsin and Michigan DNRs for only 

a portion of 2003 (April through 

December) and 2005 (all of January for 

both States; April 1 and April 19, for 

Wisconsin and Michigan respectively, 

through September 13), they covered 

nearly all of the verified wolf 

depredations during those years, and 

thus provide a reasonable measure of 

annual lethal depredation control. 

Lethal control authority only occurred 

for about 4 months in 2006.) For 2003, 

2004, and 2005 this represents 5.1 

percent, 6.4 percent, 7.4 percent 

(including the several possible wolf-dog 

hybrids), respectively, of the late winter 

population of Wisconsin wolves during 

the previous winter. (Note that some of 

the wolves euthanized after August 1 

were young-of-the-year who were not 

present during the late winter survey, so 

the cited percentages are overestimates.) 

This level of lethal depredation control 

was followed by a wolf population 

increase of 11 percent from 2003 to 

2004, 17 percent from 2004 to 2005, and 

7 percent from 2005 to 2006. (Wydeven 

and Jurewicz 2005, p. 5; Wydeven et al. 

2006a, p. 10.) This provides strong 

evidence that this form and magnitude 

of depredation control will not 

adversely impact the viability of the 

Wisconsin wolf population. The 

locations of depredation incidents 

provide additional evidence that lethal 

control will not be an adverse impact on 

the State’s wolf population. Most 

livestock depredations are caused by 

packs near the northern forest—farm 

land interface. Few depredations occur 

in core wolf range and in large blocks 

of public land. Thus, lethal depredation 

control actions will not impact most of 

the Wisconsin wolf population (WI DNR 

2006a, p. 30). 

One substantive change to lethal 

control that likely will result from 

Federal delisting is the ability of a small 

number of private landowners, whose 

farms have a history of recurring wolf 

depredation, to obtain DNR permits to 

kill depredating wolves (WI DNR 2006a, 

p. 23). We estimate that up to 3 wolves 

from each of 5 to 10 farms may be killed 

annually under these permits in the 

several years immediately after 

delisting. Because the late-winter 2005–

06 Wisconsin wolf population was 

approaching 500 animals, the death of 

these 5 to 30 additional wolves—only 1 

to 6 percent of the State wolves—would 

not affect the viability of the population. 

Another substantive change may be 

potential proactive trapping or 

‘‘intensive control’’ of wolves in limited 

areas as described above. While it is not 

possible to estimate the number of 

wolves that might be killed via these 

actions, we are confident that they will 

not impact the long-term viability of the 

Wisconsin wolf population, because 

they will be carried out only if the 

State’s late-winter wolf population 

exceeds 350 animals. 

The State’s current guidelines for 

conducting depredation control actions 

say that no control trapping will be 

conducted on wolves that kill ‘‘dogs that 

are free-roaming, roaming at large, 

hunting, or training on public lands, 

and all other lands except land owned 

or leased by the dog owner’’ (Wisconsin 

DNR 2005, p. 4). Because of these Stateimposed limitations, we believe that 

lethal control of wolves depredating on 

hunting dogs will be rare, and therefore 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6092 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

will not be a significant additional 

source of mortality in Wisconsin. 

Lethal control of wolves that attack 

captive deer is included in the WI DNR 

depredation control program, because 

farm-raised deer are considered to be 

livestock under Wisconsin law (WI DNR 

2005, p. 4; 2006c, 12.52). However, 

Wisconsin regulations for deer farms 

fencing have been strengthened, and it 

is unlikely that more than an occasional 

wolf will need to be killed to end wolf 

depredations inside deer farms in the 

foreseeable future. Claims for wolf 

depredation compensation are rejected 

if the claimant is not in compliance 

with regulations regarding farm-raised 

deer fencing or livestock carcass 

disposal (Wisconsin Statutes 90.20 & 

90.21, WI DNR 2006c 12.54) 

Data from verified wolf depredations 

in recent years indicate that depredation 

on livestock is likely to increase as long 

as the Wisconsin wolf population 

increases in numbers and range. Most 

large areas of forest land and public 

lands are included in Wisconsin Wolf 

Management Zones 1 and 2, and they 

have already been colonized by wolves. 

Therefore, new areas likely to be 

colonized by wolves in the future will 

be in Zones 3 and 4, where they will be 

exposed to much higher densities of 

farms, livestock, and residences. During 

the period from July 2004 through June 

2005, 29 percent (8 of 28) of farms 

experiencing wolf depredation were in 

Zone 3, yet only 4 percent of the State 

wolf population occurs in this zone 

(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005, p. 3). 

Further expansion of wolves into Zone 

3 would likely lead to an increase in 

depredation incidents and an increase 

in lethal control actions against Zone 3 

wolves. However, these Zone 3 

mortalities will have no impact on wolf 

population viability in Wisconsin 

because of the much larger wolf 

populations in Zones 1 and 2. 

For the foreseeable future, the wolf 

population in Zones 1 and 2 will 

continue to greatly exceed the Federal 

recovery goal of 200 late winter wolves 

for an isolated population and 100 

wolves for a subpopulation connected to 

the larger Minnesota population, 

regardless of the extent of wolf mortality 

from all causes in Zones 3 and 4. 

Ongoing annual wolf population 

monitoring by WI DNR will provide 

timely and accurate data to evaluate the 

effects of wolf management under the 

Wisconsin Plan. 

The possibility of a public harvest of 

wolves is acknowledged in the 

Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan and 

in plan update drafts (WI DNR 1999, 

Appendix D; 2006c, p. 23). However, 

the question of whether a public harvest 

will be initiated and the details of such 

a harvest are far from resolved. Public 

attitudes toward a wolf population in 

excess of 350 would have to be fully 

evaluated, as would the impacts from 

other mortalities, before a public harvest 

could be initiated. Establishing a public 

harvest would be preceded by extensive 

public input, including public hearing, 

and would require legislative 

authorization and approval by the 

Wisconsin Natural Resources Board. 

Because of the steps that must precede 

a public harvest of wolves and the 

uncertainty regarding the possibility of, 

and the details of, any such program, it 

is not possible to evaluate the potential 

impacts of the public harvest of wolves. 

Therefore, we consider public harvest of 

Wisconsin wolves to be highly 

speculative at this time. The Service 

will closely monitor any steps taken by 

States and/or Tribes within the WGL 

DPS to establish any public harvest of 

gray wolves during our post-delisting 

monitoring program. The fact that the 

Wisconsin Plan calls for State relisting 

of the wolf as a threatened species if the 

population falls to fewer than 250 for 3 

years provides a strong assurance that 

any future public harvest is not likely to 

threaten the persistence of the 

population (WI DNR 1999, pp. 15–17). 

Based on wolf population data, the 

current Wisconsin Plan and the 2006 

updates, we believe that any public 

harvest plan would continue to 

maintain the State wolf population well 

above the recovery goal of 200 wolves 

in late winter. 

Michigan Wolf Management Plan 

The 1997 Michigan Gray Wolf 

Recovery and Management Plan (MI 

Plan) (MI DNR 1997) describes the wolf 

recovery goals and management actions 

needed to achieve a viable wolf 

population in the UP of Michigan. It 

does not address the potential need for 

wolf recovery or management in the 

Lower Peninsula, nor wolf management 

within Isle Royale National Park (where 

the wolf population is fully protected by 

the National Park Service). Necessary 

wolf management actions detailed in the 

Michigan Plan include public education 

and outreach activities, annual wolf 

population and health monitoring, 

research, depredation control, and 

habitat management. As described 

above, MI DNR currently is in the 

process of revising its plan to enable 

more effective management of a 

recovered and expanding wolf 

population. The revision is expected to 

be completed in late 2007. 

As with the WI Plan, the MI DNR has 

chosen to manage the State’s wolves as 

though they are an isolated population 

that receives no genetic or demographic 

benefits from immigrating wolves. 

Therefore, although we do not know if 

the revised Michigan Plan will contain 

any long-term minimum numerical goal 

for wolves in the UP or NLP, as a result 

of written commitments from the MI 

DNR, as discussed below, we are 

confident that the State plan will have 

a goal of maintaining a wolf population 

that is large enough so as to be viable 

for the foreseeable future and will not 

have to be listed as threatened or 

endangered under either State or 

Federal law (Moritz in litt. 2006; Koch 

in litt. 2006a). The MI DNR has assured 

us that ‘‘the new revised Plan will 

underscore commitments to wolf 

management already made in the 1997 

plan.’’ (Koch in litt. 2006b.) We strongly 

support this approach, as it provides 

assurance that a viable wolf population 

will remain in the UP regardless of the 

future fate of wolves in Wisconsin or 

Ontario. 

Until the MI Plan revision is 

completed, the 1997 Michigan Plan will 

remain in effect, as supplemented by 

additional guidance developed since 

1997 to deal with aspects of wolf 

management and recovery not 

adequately covered in the 1997 Plan, 

such as ‘‘Guidelines for Management 

and Lethal Control of Wolves Following 

Confirmed Depredation Events’’ (MI 

DNR 2005a). 

The 1997 Michigan Plan identifies 

wolf population monitoring as a priority 

activity (MI DNR 1997, pp. 21–22). As 

discussed previously, the size of the 

wolf population is determined annually 

by extensive radio and snow tracking 

surveys. Recently the Michigan DNR 

also conducted a field evaluation of a 

less expensive ‘‘Minnesota-type’’ wolf 

survey. However, similar to Wisconsin 

DNR’s experience, the evaluation 

concluded that the method 

overestimated wolf numbers, and is not 

suitable for use on the State’s wolf 

population as it currently is distributed 

(Beyer in litt. 2006b). 

The MI DNR remains interested in 

developing accurate but less costly 

alternate survey methods, and in the 

winter of 2006–2007 is planning to 

implement a sampling approach to 

increase the efficiency of the survey 

based on an analysis by Potvin et al. 

(2005, p. 1668). The UP will be stratified 

into three sampling areas, and within 

each stratum the DNR will intensively 

survey roughly 40 to 50 percent of the 

wolf habitat area annually. Computer 

simulations have shown that such a 

geographically stratified monitoring 

program will produce unbiased and 

precise estimates of the total wolf 

population which can be statistically 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6093 

compared to estimates derived from the 

previous method to detect significant 

changes in the UP wolf population 

(Beyer in litt 2006b, see attachment by 

Drummer; Lederle in litt. 2006). 

The 1997 Michigan Plan identifies 

800 wolves as the estimated biological 

carrying capacity of suitable areas in the 

UP (MI DNR 1997, p. 17). ‘‘Carrying 

capacity’’ is the number of animals that 

an area is able to support over the long 

term; for wolves, it is primarily based on 

the availability of prey animals and 

competition from other wolf packs. 

Under the 1997 Michigan Plan, wolves 

in the State will be considered 

recovered when a sustainable 

population of at least 200 wolves is 

maintained for 5 consecutive years. The 

UP has had more than 200 wolves since 

the winter of 1999–2000. Therefore, 

Michigan reclassified wolves from 

endangered to threatened in June 2002, 

and the gray wolf became eligible for 

State delisting under the Michigan 

Plan’s criteria in 2004. In Michigan, 

however, State delisting cannot occur 

until after Federal delisting; therefore 

we expect State delisting to be initiated 

in the near future. During the State 

delisting process, Michigan intends to 

amend its Wildlife Conservation Order 

to grant ‘‘protected animal’’ status to the 

gray wolf. That status would ‘‘prohibit 

take, establish penalties and restitution 

for violations of the Order, and detail 

conditions under which lethal 

depredation control measures could be 

implemented’’ (Humphries in litt. 2004). 

Population management, except for 

depredation control, is not addressed in 

the 1997 Michigan Plan beyond 

statements that the wolf population may 

need to be controlled by lethal means at 

some future time. 

Similar to the Wisconsin Plan, the 

1997 Michigan Plan recommends high 

levels of protection for wolf den and 

rendezvous sites, whether on public or 

private land. The Plan recommends that 

most land uses be prohibited at all times 

within 330 feet (100 meters) of active 

sites. Seasonal restrictions (March 

through July) should be enforced within 

0.5 mi (0.8 km) of these sites, to prevent 

high-disturbance activities, such as 

logging, from disrupting pup-rearing 

activities. These restrictions should 

remain in effect even after State 

delisting occurs (MI DNR 1997, pp. 26–

27), but they may be modified by the 

revision of the 1997 Plan, which is 

expected to be completed in late 2007. 

The 1997 Michigan Plan calls for reevaluation of the plan at 5-year 

intervals. The MI DNR initiated this reevaluation process in 2001, with the 

appointment of a committee to evaluate 

wolf recovery and management. As a 

result of that review, MI DNR concluded 

that a revision of the 1997 Plan is 

needed, and a more formal review, 

including extensive stakeholder input, 

was recently initiated. Recognizing that 

wolf recovery has been achieved in 

Michigan, additional scientific 

knowledge has been gained, and new 

social issues have arisen since the 1997 

Plan was drafted, the DNR intends the 

revised plan to be more of a wolf 

management document than a recovery 

plan. The DNR convened a Michigan 

Wolf Management Roundtable to assist 

in this endeavor. The Roundtable is a 

diverse group of 20 citizens drawn from 

organizations spanning the spectrum of 

those interested in, and impacted by, 

wolf recovery and management in 

Michigan, including Tribal entities and 

organizations focused on agriculture, 

hunting/trapping, the environment, 

animal protection, law enforcement and 

public safety, and tourism. 

To help the Roundtable produce 

guiding principles that are based on the 

best biological and sociological data 

available, the MI DNR developed a 

‘‘Review of Social and Biological 

Science Relevant to Wolf Management 

in Michigan’’ (Beyer et al. 2006). The MI 

DNR instructed the Roundtable to 

provide strategic guidance for the DNR’s 

use in subsequent development of an 

operational wolf management plan. The 

Roundtable was asked to review the 

1997 wolf management goal, to set 

priorities for management issues, and to 

recommend strategic goals or policies 

the DNR should use in addressing the 

management issues. The Roundtable 

was not asked to provide input 

regarding specific methods to achieve 

wolf management goals and objectives. 

The DNR’s instructions specified the 

‘‘wolf management working goal’’

currently is ‘‘to establish and maintain 

a population of gray wolves in the 

Upper Peninsula at a level that (1) 

assures wolf population sustainability, 

(2) is consistent with available wolf 

habitat, and (3) is compatible with 

human land-use practices’’ (Moritz in 

litt. 2006, attachment pp. 1–2). 

The Roundtable has provided this 

guidance to MI DNR in the form of a 

series of ‘‘guiding principles’’ that were 

developed by member consensus over a 

period of 10 days of meetings over a 5- 

month period. The Roundtable prefaced 

their guidance by stating that wolf 

management should have a goal of 

maintaining ‘‘acceptable levels of 

positive and negative [wolf-human] 

interactions while ensuring the longterm viability of a wolf population’’

(Michigan Wolf Management 

Roundtable 2006, p. 5). Because the 

factors that influence the levels of wolfhuman interactions vary across 

geographic scales and over time, the 

Roundtable felt that setting numerical 

goals for large geographical areas would 

be unwise. Instead, the Roundtable 

believes that local and case-by-case 

management would be better able to 

enhance opportunities for positive 

interactions and reduce negative 

interactions. Therefore, in place of 

recommending a numerical goal for the 

Michigan wolf population, the 

Roundtable provided a series of general 

guiding principles for the DNR to use in 

wolf population management (Michigan 

Wolf Management Roundtable 2006, pp. 

6–7): 

• Strategic management goals should 

be based on positive and negative wolf 

impacts, rather than on wolf numbers, 

and should consider genetic diversity, 

population sustainability, ecological 

and social benefits, impacts on wildlife 

and their habitats, human safety, and 

limiting wolf depredation on domestic 

animals. 

• Wolf-human conflicts are best 

resolved at the individual wolf or pack 

level, with broader scale wolf 

population management considered 

only when excessive wolf numbers are 

determined to be the cause of significant 

conflict. 

• Wolf management should be 

‘‘adaptive management’’ and should 

include evaluation of management 

practices. 

• Michigan wolves will need to be 

killed on a case-by-case basis to resolve 

conflicts, and hunters can be used for 

such management in the future. 

• Natural expansion of wolves to the 

NLP should be accompanied by 

education efforts to enhance public 

tolerance of that expansion. 

The Roundtable provided a series of 

guiding principles that specifically deal 

with wolf-related conflicts in order to 

minimize such conflicts and provide 

relief when they occur, with the goal of 

ensuring long-term viability of the wolf 

population (Michigan Wolf Management 

Roundtable 2006, pp. 7–9). 

• Lethal control is an accepted 

option, but more emphasis is needed on 

the development and use of non-lethal 

methods. The Roundtable does not 

recommend the use of lethal measures 

as a preventative approach where 

conflicts do not yet exist. 

• Attacks on dogs trespassing into a 

pack territory are predictable and 

normal wolf behavior, and the primary 

responsibility for reducing the attacks 

lies with the dog owner. Lethal control 

of the pack should not be used unless 

non-lethal methods are ineffective and 

the attacks become chronic. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6094 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

• Compensation for livestock losses 

should be tied to the use of best 

management practices to decrease wolflivestock conflicts. An incremental 

approach by MI DNR to resolve wolflivestock conflicts should involve 

technical support, non-lethal methods, 

and lethal control, and should be 

implemented in a manner that reflects 

the severity and frequency of the 

attacks. 

• Livestock owners should be 

allowed, without a permit, to kill 

wolves in the act of attacking livestock 

on private property. Lethal take permits 

should be available to landowners if 

non-lethal methods are ineffective 

following verified wolf depredations. 

Abuses of these permits should be 

referred for prosecution. 

While recognizing that public hunting 

or trapping of wolves is a valid 

management tool to reduce wolf-related 

conflicts under specific conditions, the 

Roundtable was unable to come to a 

consensus position on conducting a 

wolf hunting or trapping program in the 

absence of a need to reduce the wolf 

population to address identified 

conflicts. Developing guiding principles 

regarding such a public harvest of 

wolves was not possible due to the 

significantly different and deeply held 

fundamental values of various 

Roundtable members (Michigan Wolf 

Management Roundtable 2006, p. 10). 

Guiding principles also were 

provided by the Roundtable to stress the 

importance of continuing and 

enhancing information, education, and 

research components of wolf 

management and to include information 

in the management plan regarding the 

cultural and spiritual significance of the 

wolf to Native Americans. The 

Roundtable provided additional guiding 

principles that support a prohibition on 

the private possession of wolves 

without a permit, express concern that 

wolf-dog hybrids will have negative 

effects on the State’s wild wolf 

population, and encourage annual 

review by a State wolf advisory council 

and plan updates at 5-year intervals. 

Because the Michigan plan revision 

process will not be completed until late 

in 2007, we cannot evaluate the goals, 

strategies, or activities that it will 

contain. However, MI DNR has long 

been an innovative leader, not a 

reluctant follower, in wolf recovery 

efforts, exemplified by its initiation of 

the nation’s first attempt to reintroduce 

wild wolves to vacant historical wolf 

habitat in 1974 (Weise et al. 1975). MI 

DNR’s history of leadership in wolf 

recovery, its repeated written 

commitments to ensure the continued 

viability of a Michigan wolf population 

above a level that would trigger State or 

Federal listing as threatened or 

endangered, along with the protective 

‘‘Guiding Principles’’ from the Michigan 

Wolf Management Roundtable, lead us 

to conclude that both the current 

Michigan Plan, and the revised plan to 

be developed using the guidance of the 

Roundtable, will provide adequate 

regulatory mechanisms for Michigan 

wolves. The DNR’s goal remains to 

‘‘ensure the wolf population remains 

viable and above a level that would 

require either Federal or State 

reclassification as a threatened or 

endangered species’’ (Moritz in litt. 

2006) and upon Federal delisting to 

‘‘conduct management to ensure the 

persistence of a viable wolf population 

in Michigan, and thus preclude the need 

for its reclassification as threatened or 

endangered under State or Federal law’’

(Koch in litt. 2006a). 

Depredation Control in Michigan 

Data from Michigan show a general 

increase in confirmed wolf depredations 

on livestock: 3 in 1998, 1 in 1999, 5 in 

2000, 3 in 2001, 5 in 2002, 13 in 2003, 

11 in 2004, and 5 in 2005. These 

livestock depredations occurred at 34 

different UP farms; nearly three-quarters 

of the depredations were on cattle, with 

the rest on sheep, poultry and captive 

cervids ( Beyer et al. 2006, p. 85). 

Michigan has not experienced as high 

a level of attacks on dogs by wolves as 

Wisconsin, although a slight increase in 

such attacks has occurred over the last 

decade. The number of dogs killed in 

the State was one in 1996, two in 1999, 

three in 2001, four in 2002, eight in 

2003, 4 in 2004, and 2 in 2005; seven 

additional dogs were injured in wolf 

attacks during that same period (Beyer 

et al. 2006, p. 93). Similar to Wisconsin, 

MI DNR has guidelines for its 

depredation control program, stating 

that lethal control will not be used 

when wolves kill dogs that are freeroaming, hunting, or training on public 

lands. Lethal control of wolves, 

however, would be considered if wolves 

have killed confined pets and remain in 

the area where more pets are being held 

(MI DNR 2005a, p. 6). 

During the several years that lethal 

control of depredating wolves had been 

conducted in Michigan, there is no 

evidence of resulting adverse impacts to 

the maintenance of a viable wolf 

population in the UP. Four, six, two, 

and seven wolves, respectively, were 

euthanized in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 

2006 (Beyer et al. 2006, p. 88; Roell in 

litt. 2006c, p. 1). This represents 1.2 

percent, 1.7 percent, 0.5 percent, and 

1.6 percent, respectively, of the UP’s 

late winter population of wolves during 

the previous winter. Following this 

level of lethal depredation control, the 

UP wolf population increased 12 

percent from 2003 to 2004, 13 percent 

from 2004 to 2005, and 7 percent from 

2005 to 2006, demonstrating that the 

wolf population continues to increase at 

a healthy rate (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 

6; MI DNR 2006a). 

Post-delisting Depredation Control in 

Michigan 

Following Federal delisting, wolf 

depredation control in Michigan would 

be carried out according to the 1997 

Michigan Wolf Recovery and 

Management Plan (MI DNR 1997), the 

revised Michigan management plan 

when completed, and any Tribal wolf 

management plans that may be 

developed in the future for reservations 

in occupied wolf range. Until such time 

as MI DNR adopts changes to wolf 

depredation control measures, the 

following management practices will be 

used following the effective date of 

Federal delisting. 

To provide depredation control 

guidance when lethal control is an 

option, MI DNR has developed detailed 

instructions for incident investigation 

and response (MI DNR 2005a). 

Verification of wolf depredation 

incidents will be conducted by MI DNR 

or USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 

personnel (working under a cooperative 

agreement with MI DNR or at the 

request of a Tribe, depending on the 

location) who have been trained in 

depredation investigation techniques. 

The MI DNR specifies that the 

verification process will use the 

investigative techniques that have been 

developed and successfully used in 

Minnesota by Wildlife Services (MI 

DNR 2005a, Append. B, pp. 9–10). 

Following verification, one or more of 

several options will be implemented to 

address the depredation problem. 

Technical assistance, consisting of 

advice or recommendations to reduce 

wolf conflicts, will be provided. 

Technical assistance may also include 

providing to the landowner various 

forms of non-injurious behavior 

modification materials, such as flashing 

lights, noise makers, temporary fencing, 

and fladry. 

Trapping and translocating 

depredating wolves has been used in the 

past, resulting in the translocation of 23 

UP wolves during 1998–2003 (Beyer et 

al. 2006, p. 88), and it may be used in 

the future, but as with Wisconsin, 

suitable relocation sites are becoming 

rarer, and there is local opposition to 

the release of translocated depredators. 

Furthermore, none of the past 

translocated depredators have remained 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6095 

near their release sites, making this a 

questionable method to end the 

depredation behaviors of these wolves 

(MI DNR 2005a, pp. 3–4). 

Lethal control of depredating wolves 

is likely to be the most common future 

response in situations when improved 

livestock husbandry and wolf behavior 

modification techniques (e.g., flashing 

lights, noise-making devices) are judged 

to be inadequate. As wolf numbers 

continue to increase on the UP, the 

number of verified depredations will 

also increase, and will probably do so at 

a rate that exceeds the rate of wolf 

population increase. This will occur as 

wolves increasingly disperse into and 

occupy areas of the UP with more 

livestock and more human residences, 

leading to additional exposure to 

domestic animals. In a recent 

application for a lethal take permit 

under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, MI 

DNR requested authority to euthanize 

up to 10 percent of the late-winter wolf 

population annually (MI DNR 2005b, p. 

1). However, based on 2003–2005 

depredation data, it is likely that 

significantly less than 10 percent lethal 

control will be needed over the next 

several years. 

The Michigan Wolf Management 

Roundtable has provided 

recommendations to guide management 

of various conflicts caused by wolf 

recovery, including depredation on 

livestock and pets, human safety, and 

public concerns regarding wolf impacts 

on other wildlife. We view the 

Roundtable’s depredation and conflict 

control recommendations to be 

conservative, in that they recommend 

non-lethal depredation management 

whenever possible, oppose preventative 

wolf removal where problems have not 

yet occurred, encourage incentives for 

best management practices that decrease 

wolf-livestock practices without 

impacting wolves, and support closely 

monitored and enforced take by 

landowners of wolves ‘‘in the act of 

livestock depredation’’ or under limited 

permits if depredation is confirmed and 

non-lethal methods are determined to be 

ineffective. Based on these guiding 

principles for the revised MI Plan, the 

current MI Plan, and stated goals for 

maintaining wolf populations at or 

above recovery goals, the Service 

believes any wolf management changes 

will not be implemented in a manner 

that results in significant reductions in 

Michigan wolf populations. At this 

time, MI DNR remains committed to 

ensuring a viable wolf population above 

a level that would trigger Federal 

relisting as either threatened or 

endangered in the future (Koch in litt. 

2006a), and we do not see any 

indication from their Plan revision 

efforts that the DNR is departing from 

that commitment. 

Similar to Wisconsin, Michigan 

livestock owners are compensated when 

they lose livestock as a result of a 

confirmed wolf depredation. Currently 

there are two complementary 

compensation programs in Michigan, 

one funded by the MI DNR and 

implemented by Michigan Department 

of Agriculture (MI DA) and another set 

up through donations (from Defenders 

of Wildlife and private citizens) and 

administered by the International Wolf 

Center (IWC), a non-profit organization. 

From the inception of the program to 

2000, MI DA has paid 90 percent of full 

market value of depredated livestock 

value at the time of loss. The IWC 

account was used to pay the remaining 

10 percent from 2000 to 2002 when MI 

DA began paying 100 percent of the full 

market value of depredated livestock. 

The IWC account continues to be used 

to pay the difference between value at 

time of loss and the full fall market 

value for depredated young of the year 

livestock, and together the two funds 

have provided nearly $20,000 in 

livestock loss compensation through 

2005 (Beyer et al. 2006, p. 86). Neither 

of these programs provide compensation 

for pets or for veterinary costs to treat 

wolf-inflicted livestock injuries. The MI 

DNR plans to continue cooperating with 

MI DA and other organizations to 

maintain the wolf depredation 

compensation program (Pat Lederle 

pers. comm. 2004). 

The complete text of the Wisconsin, 

Michigan, and Minnesota wolf plans, as 

well as our summaries of those plans, 

can be found on our Web site (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

above). 

Regulatory Mechanisms in Other States 

and Tribal Areas Within the WGL DPS 

North Dakota and South Dakota 

North Dakota lacks a State endangered 

species law or regulations. Any gray 

wolves in the State currently are 

classified as furbearers, with a closed 

season. North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department is unlikely to change the 

species’ State classification immediately 

following Federal delisting. Wolves are 

included in the State’s July 2004 list of 

100 Species of Conservation Concern as 

a ‘‘Level 3’’ species. Level 3 species are 

those ‘‘having a moderate level of 

conservation priority, but are believed 

to be peripheral or do not breed in 

North Dakota.’’ Placement on this list 

gives species greater access to 

conservation funding, but does not 

afford any additional regulatory or 

legislative protection (Bicknell in litt. 

2005). 

Currently any wolves that may be in 

South Dakota are not State listed as 

threatened or endangered, nor is there a 

hunting or trapping season for them. 

Upon the effective date of Federal 

delisting gray wolves in eastern South 

Dakota will fall under general 

protections afforded all State wildlife. 

These protections require specific 

provisions—seasons and regulations—

be established prior to initiating any 

form of legal take. Thus, the State could 

choose to implement a hunting or 

trapping season for gray wolves east of 

the Missouri River; however, absent 

some definitive action to establish a 

season, wolves would remain protected. 

Following Federal delisting, any 

verified depredating wolves east of the 

Missouri will likely be trapped and 

killed by the USDA-APHIS-Wildlife 

Services program (Larson in litt. 2005). 

Non-depredating federally-delisted 

wolves in North and South Dakota will 

continue to receive protection by the 

States’ wildlife protection statutes 

unless specific action is taken to open 

a hunting or trapping season or 

otherwise remove existing protections. 

Post-delisting Depredation Control in 

North and South Dakota 

Since 1993, five incidents of verified 

wolf depredation have occurred in 

North Dakota, with one in September 

2003 and two more in December 2005. 

There have been no verified wolf 

depredations in South Dakota in recent 

decades. Following Federal delisting we 

assume that lethal control of a small 

number of depredating wolves will 

occur in one or both of these States. 

Lethal control of depredating wolves 

may have adverse impacts on the ability 

of wolves to occupy any small areas of 

suitable or marginally suitable habitat 

that may exist in the States. However, 

lethal control of depredating wolves in 

these two States will have no adverse 

affects on the long-term viability of wolf 

populations in the WGL DPS as a whole, 

because the existence of a wolf or a wolf 

population in the Dakotas will not make 

a meaningful contribution to the 

maintenance of the current viable, selfsustaining, and representative 

metapopulation of wolves in the WGL 

DPS. 

Other States in the Western Great Lakes 

DPS 

This delisted DPS includes the 

portion of Iowa that is north of Interstate 

Highway 80, which is approximately 60 

percent of the State. The Iowa Natural 

Resource Commission currently lists 

gray wolves as furbearers, with a closed 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6096 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

season (Howell in litt. 2005). If the State 

retains this listing following Federal 

delisting of this DPS, wolves dispersing 

into northern Iowa will be protected by 

State law. 

The portion of Illinois that is north of 

Interstate Highway 80, less than onefifth of the State, is included in this 

DPS, and is part of the geographic area 

where wolves are now delisted and 

removed from Federal protection. Gray 

wolves are currently protected in 

Illinois as a threatened species under 

the Illinois Endangered Species 

Protection Act (520 ILCS 10). Thus, 

following this Federal delisting, wolves 

dispersing into northern Illinois will 

continue to be protected from human 

take by State law. 

The extreme northern portions of 

Indiana and northwestern Ohio are 

included within this delisted DPS, and 

any wolves that are found in this area 

are no longer federally protected under 

the Act. The State of Ohio classifies the 

gray wolf as ‘‘extirpated,’’ and there are 

no plans to reintroduce or recover the 

species in the State. The species lacks 

State protection, but State action is 

likely to apply some form of protection 

if wolves begin to disperse into the State 

(Caldwell in litt. 2005). Indiana DNR 

lists the gray wolf as extirpated in the 

State, and the species would receive no 

State protection under this classification 

following this Federal delisting. The 

only means to provide State protection 

would be to list them as Stateendangered, but that is not likely to 

occur unless wolves become resident in 

Indiana (Johnson in litt. 2005, in litt. 

2006). Thus, federally delisted wolves 

that might disperse into Indiana and 

Ohio would lack State protection there, 

unless these two States take specific 

action to provide new protections. 

Because the portions of Iowa, Illinois, 

Indiana, and Ohio within the WGL DPS 

do not contain suitable habitat or 

currently established packs, depredation 

control in these States will not have any 

significant impact on the continued 

viability of the WGL DPS wolf 

populations. 

Tribal Management and Protection of 

Gray Wolves 

Native American tribes and multitribal organizations have indicated to 

the Service that they will continue to 

conserve wolves on most, and probably 

all, Native American reservations in the 

core recovery areas of the WGL DPS. 

The wolf retains great cultural 

significance and traditional value to 

many Tribes and their members 

(additional discussion is found in Factor 

E), and to retain and strengthen cultural 

connections, many tribes oppose 

unnecessary killing of wolves on 

reservations and on ceded lands, even 

following Federal delisting (Hunt in litt. 

1998; Schrage in litt. 1998a; Schlender 

in litt. 1998). Some Native Americans 

view wolves as competitors for deer and 

moose, whereas others are interested in 

harvesting wolves as furbearers (Schrage 

in litt. 1998a). Many tribes intend to 

sustainably manage their natural 

resources, wolves among them, to 

ensure that they are available to their 

descendants. Traditional natural 

resource harvest practices, however, 

often include only a minimum amount 

of regulation by the Tribal government 

(Hunt in litt. 1998). 

Although the Tribes with wolves that 

visit or reside on their reservations do 

not yet have management plans specific 

to the gray wolf, several Tribes have 

informed us that they have no plans or 

intentions to allow commercial or 

recreational hunting or trapping of the 

species on their lands after Federal 

delisting. The Service has recently 

provided the Little Traverse Bay Band of 

Odawa Indians (Michigan) with grant 

funding to develop a gray wolf 

monitoring and management plan. The 

Service has also awarded a grant to the 

Ho-Chunk Nation to identify wolf 

habitat on reservation lands. 

As a result of many past contacts 

with, and previous written comments 

from, the Midwestern Tribes and their 

off-reservation natural resource 

management agencies—the Great Lakes 

Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission 

(GLIFWC), the 1854 Authority, and the 

Chippewa Ottawa Treaty Authority—it 

is clear that their predominant 

sentiment is strong support for the 

continued protection of wolves at a 

level that ensures that viable wolf 

populations remain on reservations and 

throughout the treaty-ceded lands 

surrounding the reservations. While 

several Tribes stated that their members 

may be interested in killing small 

numbers of wolves for spiritual or other 

purposes, this would be carried out in 

a manner that would not impact 

reservation or ceded territory wolf 

populations. 

The Tribal Council of the Leech Lake 

Band of Minnesota Ojibwe (Council) 

approved a resolution that describes the 

sport and recreational harvest of gray 

wolves as an inappropriate use of the 

animal. That resolution supports limited 

harvest of wolves to be used for 

traditional or spiritual uses by enrolled 

Tribal members if the harvest is done in 

a respectful manner and would not 

negatively affect the wolf population. 

The Council is revising the Reservation 

Conservation Code to allow Tribal 

members to harvest some wolves after 

Federal delisting (Googgleye, Jr. in litt. 

2004). In 2005, the Leech Lake 

Reservation was home to an estimated 

75 gray wolves, the largest population of 

wolves on a Native American 

reservation in the 48 conterminous 

States (Mortensen pers. comm. 2006; 

White in litt. 2003). 

The Red Lake Band of Chippewa 

Indians (Minnesota) has indicated that it 

is likely to develop a wolf management 

plan that will be very similar in scope 

and content to the plan developed by 

the MN DNR. The Band’s position on 

wolf management is ‘‘wolf preservation 

through effective management,’’ and the 

Band is confident that wolves will 

continue to thrive on their lands 

(Bedeau in litt. 1998). The Reservation 

currently has nine packs with an 

estimated 15–30 wolves within its 

boundaries (Huseby pers. comm. 2006). 

The Fond du Lac Band (Minnesota) 

believes that the ‘‘well being of the wolf 

is intimately connected to the well 

being of the Chippewa People’’ (Schrage 

in litt. 2003). In 1998, the Band passed 

a resolution opposing Federal delisting 

and any other measure that would 

permit trapping, hunting, or poisoning 

of the gray wolf (Schrage in litt. 1998b, 

in litt. 2003). If this prohibition is 

rescinded, the Band’s Resource 

Management Division will coordinate 

with State and Federal agencies to 

ensure that any wolf hunting or trapping 

would be ‘‘conducted in a biologically 

sustainable manner’’ (Schrage in litt. 

2003). 

The Red Cliff Band (Wisconsin) has 

strongly opposed State and Federal 

delisting of the gray wolf. Current Tribal 

law protects gray wolves from harvest, 

although harvest for ceremonial 

purposes would likely be permitted 

after Federal delisting (Symbal in litt. 

2003). 

The Keweenaw Bay Indian 

Community (Michigan) will continue to 

list the gray wolf as a protected animal 

under the Tribal Code following Federal 

delisting, with hunting and trapping 

prohibited (Mike Donofrio pers. comm. 

1998). Furthermore, the Keweenaw Bay 

Community plans to develop a 

Protected Animal Ordinance that will 

address gray wolves (Donofrio in litt. 

2003). 

While we have not received any 

written comments from the Menominee 

Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, the Tribe has 

shown a great deal of interest in wolf 

recovery and protection in recent years. 

In 2002, the Tribe offered their 

Reservation lands as a site for 

translocating seven depredating wolves 

that had been trapped by WI DNR and 

Wildlife Services. Tribal natural 

resources staff participated in the soft 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6097 

release of the wolves on the Reservation 

and helped with the subsequent radiotracking of the wolves. Although by 

early 2005 the last of these wolves died 

on the reservation, the tribal 

conservation department continued to 

monitor another pair that had moved 

onto the Reservation, as well as other 

wolves near the reservation (Wydeven 

in litt. 2006a). When that pair produced 

pups in 2006, but the adult female was 

killed, Reservation biologists and staff 

worked diligently with the WI DNR and 

the Wildlife Science Center (Forest 

Lake, Minnesota) to raise the pups in 

captivity in the hope that they could 

later be released to the care of the adult 

male. However, the adult male died 

prior to pup release, and they have been 

moved back to the Wildlife Science 

Center where they will likely remain in 

captivity (Pioneer Press 2006). 

Several Midwestern tribes (e.g., the 

Bad River Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians and the Little 

Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians) 

have expressed concern that Federal 

delisting will result in increased 

mortality of gray wolves on reservation 

lands, in the areas immediately 

surrounding the reservations, and in 

lands ceded by treaty to the Federal 

Government by the Tribes (Kiogama and 

Chingwa in litt. 2000). At the request of 

the Bad River Tribe of Lake Superior 

Chippewa Indians, we are currently 

working with their Natural Resource 

Department and WI DNR to develop a 

wolf management agreement for lands 

adjacent to the Bad River Reservation. 

The Tribe’s goal is to reduce the threats 

to reservation wolf packs when they are 

temporarily off the reservation. Other 

Tribes have expressed interest in such 

an agreement. If this and similar 

agreements are implemented, they will 

provide additional protection to certain 

wolf packs in the midwestern US. 

The GLIFWC has stated its intent to 

work closely with the States to 

cooperatively manage wolves in the 

ceded territories in the core areas, and 

will not develop a separate wolf 

management plan (Schlender in litt. 

1998). Furthermore, the Voigt Intertribal 

Task Force of GLIFWC has expressed its 

support for strong protections for the 

wolf, stating ‘‘ [delisting] hinges on 

whether wolves are sufficiently restored 

and will be sufficiently protected to 

ensure a healthy and abundant future 

for our brother and ourselves’’

(Schlender in litt. 2004). 

According to the 1854 Authority, 

‘‘attitudes toward wolf management in 

the 1854 Ceded Territory run the gamut 

from a desire to see total protection to 

unlimited harvest opportunity.’’

However, the 1854 Authority would not 

‘‘implement a harvest system that would 

have any long-term negative impacts to 

wolf populations’’ (Edwards in litt. 

2003). In comments submitted for our 

2004 delisting proposal for a larger 

Eastern DPS of the gray wolf, the 1854 

Authority stated that the Authority does 

not have a wolf management plan for 

the 1854 Ceded Territory, but is 

‘‘confident that under the control of 

state and tribal management, wolves 

will continue to exist at a self-sustaining 

level in the 1854 Ceded Territory* * *. 

Sustainable populations of wolves, their 

prey and other resources within the 

1854 Ceded Territory are goals to which 

the 1854 Authority remains committed. 

As such, we intend to work with the 

State of Minnesota and other tribes to 

ensure successful state and tribal 

management of healthy wolf 

populations in the 1854 Ceded 

Territory’’ (Myers in litt. 2004). 

While there are few written Tribal 

protections currently in place for gray 

wolves, the highly protective and 

reverential attitudes that have been 

expressed by Tribal authorities and 

members have assured us that any postdelisting harvest of reservation wolves 

would be very limited and would not 

adversely impact the delisted wolf 

populations. Furthermore, any offreservation harvest of wolves by Tribal 

members in the ceded territories would 

be limited to a portion of the harvestable 

surplus at some future time. Such a 

harvestable surplus would be 

determined and monitored jointly by 

State and Tribal biologists, and would 

be conducted in coordination with the 

Service and the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, as is being successfully done for 

the ceded territory harvest of inland and 

Great Lakes fish, deer, bear, moose, and 

furbearers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

Michigan. Therefore, we conclude that 

any future Native American take of 

delisted wolves will not significantly 

impact the viability of the wolf 

population, either locally or across the 

WGL DPS. 

Federal Lands 

The five national forests with resident 

wolves (Superior, Chippewa, 

Chequamegon-Nicolet, Hiawatha, and 

Ottawa National Forests) in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan are all 

operating in conformance with 

standards and guidelines in their 

management plans that follow the 1992 

Recovery Plan’s recommendations for 

the Eastern Timber Wolf (USDA FS 

2004a, chapter 2, p. 31; USDA FS 2004b, 

chapter 2, p. 28; USDA FS 2004c, 

chapter 2, p. 19; USDA FS 2006a, 

chapter 2, p. 17; USDA FS 2006b, 

chapter 2, p. 28–29). Delisting is not 

expected to lead to an immediate 

change in these standards and 

guidelines; in fact, the Regional Forester 

for U.S. Forest Service Region 9 is 

expected to maintain the classification 

of the gray wolf as a Regional Forester 

Sensitive Species for at least 5 years 

after Federal delisting (Moore in litt. 

2003). Under these standards and 

guidelines, a relatively high prey base 

will be maintained, and road densities 

will be limited to current levels or 

decreased. For example, on the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest 

in Wisconsin, the standards and 

guidelines specifically include the 

protection of den sites and key 

rendezvous sites, and management of 

road densities in existing and potential 

wolf habitat (USDA 2004c, Chap. 2 p. 

19). The trapping of depredating wolves 

would likely be allowed on national 

forest lands under the guidelines and 

conditions specified in the respective 

State wolf management plans. However, 

there are relatively few livestock raised 

within the boundaries of national forests 

in the upper midwest, so wolf 

depredation and lethal control of wolves 

is neither likely to be a frequent 

occurrence, nor constitute a significant 

mortality factor, for the WGL DPS. 

Similarly, in keeping with the practice 

for other state-managed game species, 

any public hunting or trapping season 

for wolves that might be opened in the 

future by the States would likely 

include hunting and trapping within the 

national forests (Lindquist in litt. 2005; 

Williamson in litt. 2005; Piehler in litt. 

2005; Evans in litt. 2005). The 

continuation of current national forest 

management practices will be important 

in ensuring the long-term viability of 

gray wolf populations in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan. 

Gray wolves regularly use four units 

of the National Park System in the WGL 

DPS and may occasionally use three or 

four other units. Although the National 

Park Service (NPS) has participated in 

the development of some of the State 

wolf management plans in this area, 

NPS is not bound by States’ plans. 

Instead, the NPS Organic Act and the 

NPS Management Policy on Wildlife 

generally require the agency to conserve 

natural and cultural resources and the 

wildlife present within the parks. 

National Park Service management 

policies require that native species be 

protected against harvest, removal, 

destruction, harassment, or harm 

through human action, although certain 

parks may allow some harvest in 

accordance with state management 

plans. Management emphasis in 

National Parks after delisting will 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6098 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

continue to minimize the human 

impacts on wolf populations. Thus, 

because of their responsibility to 

preserve all native wildlife, units of the 

National Park System are often the most 

protective of wildlife. In the case of the 

gray wolf, the NPS Organic Act and NPS 

policies will continue to provide 

protection following Federal delisting. 

Management and protection of wolves 

in Voyageurs National Park, along 

Minnesota’s northern border, is not 

likely to change after delisting. The 

park’s management policies require that 

‘‘native animals will be protected 

against harvest, removal, destruction, 

harassment, or harm through human 

action.’’ No population targets for 

wolves will be established for the NP 

(Holbeck in litt. 2005). To reduce 

human disturbance, temporary closures 

around wolf denning and rendezvous 

sites will be enacted whenever they are 

discovered in the park. Sport hunting is 

already prohibited on park lands, 

regardless of what may be allowed 

beyond park boundaries (West in litt. 

2004). A radio telemetry study 

conducted between 1987–91 of wolves 

living in and adjacent to the park found 

that all mortality inside the park was 

due to natural causes (e.g., killing by 

other wolves or starvation), whereas the 

majority (60–80 percent) of mortality 

outside the park was human-induced 

(e.g., shooting and trapping) (Gogan et 

al. 2004, p. 22). If there is a need to 

control depredating wolves outside the 

park, which seems unlikely due to the 

current absence of agricultural activities 

adjacent to the park, the park would 

work with the State to conduct control 

activities where necessary (West in litt. 

2004). 

The wolf population in Isle Royale 

National Park is described above (see 

Michigan Recovery). The NPS has 

indicated that it will continue to closely 

monitor and study these wolves. This 

wolf population is very small and 

isolated from the other WGL DPS gray 

wolf populations; as described above, it 

is not considered to be significant to the 

recovery or long-term viability of the 

gray wolf (USFWS 1992, p. 28). 

Two other units of the National Park 

System, Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore and St. Croix National Scenic 

Riverway, are regularly used by wolves. 

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is a 

narrow strip of land along Michigan’s 

Lake Superior shoreline. Lone wolves 

periodically use, but do not appear to be 

year-round residents of, the Lakeshore. 

If denning occurs after delisting, the 

Lakeshore would protect denning and 

rendezvous sites at least as strictly as 

the Michigan Plan recommends (Gustin 

in litt. 2003). Harvesting wolves on the 

Lakeshore may be allowed (i.e., if the 

Michigan DNR allows for harvest in the 

State), but trapping is not allowed. The 

St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, in 

Wisconsin and Minnesota, is also a 

mostly linear ownership. At least 18 

wolves from 6 packs use the Riverway. 

The Riverway is likely to limit public 

access to denning and rendezvous sites 

and to follow other management and 

protective practices outlined in the 

respective State wolf management 

plans, although trapping is not allowed 

on NPS lands except possibly by Native 

Americans (Maercklein in litt. 2003). 

Gray wolves occurring on NWRs in 

the WGL DPS will be monitored, and 

refuge habitat management will 

maintain the current prey base for them 

for a minimum of 5 years after delisting. 

Trapping or hunting by government 

trappers for depredation control will not 

be authorized on NWRs. Because of the 

relatively small size of these NWRs, 

however, most or all of these packs and 

individual wolves also spend significant 

amounts of time off of these NWRs. 

Gray wolves also occupy the Fort 

McCoy military installation in 

Wisconsin. In 2003, one pack containing 

five adult wolves occupied a territory 

that included the majority of the 

installation; in 2004 and 2006, the 

installation had one pack with two 

adults; in 2005 there was a single pack 

with 4 wolves. Management and 

protection of wolves on the installation 

will not change significantly after 

Federal and/or State delisting. Den and 

rendezvous sites would continue to be 

protected, hunting seasons for other 

species (i.e. coyote) would be closed 

during the gun-deer season, and current 

surveys would continue, if resources are 

available. Fort McCoy has no plans to 

allow a public harvest of wolves on the 

installation (Nobles in litt. 2004; 

Wydeven et al. 2005a, p. 25; 2006a, p. 

25). 

At least one pair of wolves produced 

pups on Camp Ripley Army National 

Guard Training Facility in Minnesota 

since 1994. This military base currently 

hosts two packs that have the majority 

of their territories within the base 

boundaries. The population of the two 

packs generally ranges between 10 and 

20 animals. Currently three wolves in 

each pack are being radio-tracked. There 

have been no significant conflicts with 

military training or with the permit-only 

public deer hunting program there, and 

no new conflicts are expected following 

delisting (Brian Dirks pers. comm. 

2006). 

The protection afforded to resident 

and transient wolves, their den and 

rendezvous sites, and their prey by five 

national forests, four National Parks, 

two military facilities, and numerous 

National Wildlife Refuges in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan would further 

ensure the conservation of wolves in the 

three States after delisting. In addition, 

wolves that disperse to other units of 

the National Refuge System or the 

National Park System within the WGL 

DPS will also receive the protection 

afforded by these Federal agencies. 

In summary, following this Federal 

delisting of the WGL DPS of gray 

wolves, there will be varying State and 

Tribal classifications and protections 

provided to wolves. The wolf 

management plans currently in place for 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

will be more than sufficient to retain 

viable wolf populations in each State 

that are above the Federal recovery 

criteria for wolf metapopulation 

subunits, and even for three completely 

isolated wolf populations. These State 

plans provide a very high level of 

assurance that wolf populations in these 

three States will not decline to 

nonviable levels in the foreseeable 

future. Furthermore, the 2006 Update to 

the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan 

(WI DNR 2006a, p. 3–4) demonstrates 

the State’s commitment by retaining the 

previous management goal of 350 

wolves, and it did not weaken any 

significant component of the original 

1999 Plan. Similarly, current work on 

revising the Michigan wolf plan is being 

conducted in a manner that will 

maintain the State’s commitments to 

maintain viable wolf populations after 

this Federal delisting. While these State 

plans recognize there may be a need to 

control or even reduce wolf populations 

at some future time, none of the plans 

include a public harvest of wolves. 

Federally delisted wolves in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

will continue to receive protection from 

general human persecution by State 

laws and regulations. Michigan has met 

the criteria established in their 

management plan for State delisting 

and, subsequent to Federal delisting, 

intends to amend the Wildlife 

Conservation Order to grant ‘‘protected 

animal’’ status to the gray wolf. That 

status would ‘‘prohibit take, establish 

penalties and restitution for violations 

of the Order, and detail conditions 

under which lethal depredation control 

measures could be implemented’’

(Humphries in litt. 2004). Following 

Federal delisting, Wisconsin will fully 

implement a ‘‘protected wild animal’’

for the species, including protections 

that provide for fines of $1,000 to $2,000 

for unlawful hunting. Minnesota DNR 

will consider population management 

measures, including public hunting and 

trapping, but this will not occur sooner 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6099 

than 5 years after Federal delisting and 

will maintain a wolf population of at 

least 1600 animals (MN DNR 2001, p. 2). 

In the meantime, wolves in Zone A 

could only be legally taken in 

Minnesota for depredation management 

or public safety, and Minnesota plans to 

increase its capability to enforce laws 

against take of wolves (MN DNR 2001, 

pp. 3–4). 

Except for the very small portions of 

Indiana and Ohio, WGL DPS wolves are 

likely to remain protected by various 

state designations for the immediate 

future. States within the boundaries of 

the DPS either currently have 

mechanisms in place to kill depredating 

wolves (North Dakota and South 

Dakota) or can be expected to develop 

mechanisms following this Federal 

delisting of the DPS, in order to deal 

with wolf-livestock conflicts in areas 

where wolf protection is no longer 

required by the Act. Because these 

States constitute only about one-third of 

the land area within the DPS, and 

contain virtually no suitable habitat of 

sufficient size to host viable gray wolf 

populations, it is clear that even 

complete protection for gray wolves in 

these areas would neither provide 

significant benefits to wolf recovery in 

the DPS, nor to the long-term viability 

of the recovered populations that 

currently reside in the DPS. Therefore, 

although current and potential future 

regulatory mechanisms may allow the 

killing of gray wolves in these six States, 

these threats, and the area in which they 

will be manifest, will not impact the 

recovered wolf populations in the DPS 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

Finally, although to our knowledge no 

Tribes have completed wolf 

management plans at this time, based on 

communications with Tribes and Tribal 

organizations, federally-delisted wolves 

are very likely to be adequately 

protected on Tribal lands. Furthermore, 

the numerical recovery criteria in the 

Federal Recovery Plan would be 

achieved and maintained (based on the 

population and range of off-reservation 

wolves) even without Tribal protection 

of wolves on reservation lands. In 

addition, on the basis of information 

received from other Federal land 

management agencies in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan, we expect 

National Forests, units of the National 

Park System, military bases, and 

National Wildlife Refuges will provide 

protections to gray wolves after delisting 

that will match, and in some cases will 

exceed, the protections provided by 

State wolf management plans and State 

protective regulations. 

Therefore, we conclude that the 

regulatory mechanisms that will be in 

place subsequent to Federal delisting 

will preclude threats sufficient to cause 

the WGL DPS gray wolves to be in 

danger of extinction in the foreseeable 

future in all or a significant portion of 

the range within the WGL DPS. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Taking of Wolves by Native Americans 

for Religious, Spiritual, or Traditional 

Cultural Purposes 

As noted elsewhere in this final rule, 

the wolf has great significance to many 

Native Americans in the Western Great 

Lakes area, especially to Wolf Clan 

members, and has a central role in their 

creation stories. The wolf, Ma’ ’ingan, is 

viewed as a brother to the Anishinaabe 

people, and their fates are believed to be 

closely linked. Ma’ ’ingan is a key 

element in many of their beliefs, 

traditions, and ceremonies, and wolf 

pack systems are used as a model for 

Anishinaabe families and communities. 

We are not aware of any takings of 

wolves in the Midwest for use in these 

traditions or ceremonies while the wolf 

has been listed as a threatened or 

endangered species. While wolves have 

been listed as threatened in Minnesota, 

we have instructed Wildlife Services to 

provide, upon request, gray wolf pelts 

and other parts from wolves killed 

during depredation control actions to 

Tribes in order to partially serve these 

traditional needs. 

Some Tribal representatives, as well 

as the GLIFWC, have indicated that 

following delisting there is likely to be 

interest in the taking of small numbers 

of wolves for traditional ceremonies 

(King in litt. 2003; White in litt. 2003). 

This take could occur on reservation 

lands where it could be closely 

regulated by a Tribe to ensure that it 

does not affect the viability of the 

reservation wolf population. Such 

takings might also occur on offreservation treaty lands on which 

certain Tribes retained hunting, fishing, 

and gathering rights when the land was 

ceded to the Federal Government in the 

19th Century. Native American taking of 

wolves from ceded lands would be 

limited to a specified portion of a 

harvestable surplus of wolves that is 

established by the States in coordination 

with the Tribes, consistent with past 

Federal court rulings on treaty rights. 

Such taking will not occur until such 

time as a harvestable surplus has been 

documented based on biological data, 

and regulations and monitoring have 

been established by the States and 

Tribes to ensure a harvest can be carried 

out in a manner that ensures the 

continued viability of the wolf 

population in that State. Previous court 

rulings have ensured that Native 

American treaty harvest of fish or 

wildlife species have not risked 

endangering the resource. 

If requested by the Tribes, multitribal 

natural resource agencies, and/or the 

States, the Service or other appropriate 

Federal agencies will work with these 

parties to help determine if a 

harvestable surplus exists, and if so, to 

assist in devising reasonable and 

appropriate methods and levels of 

harvest for delisted wolves for 

traditional cultural purposes. 

We conclude that small number of 

wolves that may be taken by Native 

Americans will not be a threat sufficient 

to cause the WGL DPS gray wolves to be 

in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future in all or a significant 

portion of the range within the WGL 

DPS. 

Public Attitudes Toward the Gray Wolf 

An important determinant of the longterm status of gray wolf populations in 

the United States will be human 

attitudes toward this large predator. 

These attitudes are based on the 

conflicts between human activities and 

wolves, concern with the danger the 

species may pose to humans, its 

symbolic representation of wilderness, 

the economic effect of livestock losses, 

the emotions regarding the threat to 

pets, the perceived competition with 

hunters for deer and moose, the 

conviction that the species should never 

be a target of sport hunting or trapping, 

wolf traditions of Native American 

tribes, and other factors. 

We have seen indications of a change 

in public attitudes toward the wolf over 

the last few decades. Public attitude 

surveys in Minnesota and Michigan 

(Kellert 1985, pp. 157–163; 1990, pp. 

100–102; 1999, pp. 400–403), as well as 

the citizen input into the wolf 

management plans of Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan, have 

indicated strong public support for wolf 

recovery if the adverse impacts on 

recreational activities and livestock 

producers can be minimized (MI DNR 

1997, pp. 13–14, 50–56; MN DNR 1998, 

p. 2; WI DNR 1999, pp. 51–55; WI DNR 

2006c, pp. 9–11). However, more recent 

surveys of Michigan residents may show 

that attitudes are changing now that the 

wolf recovery has succeeded and longterm wolf management is required. 

Although the majority of Michigan 

residents still support wolf recovery 

efforts, UP residents’ support for wolf 

recovery has declined substantially 

since the 1990 Kellert survey (Mertig 

2004, p. 37). At the same time, 

respondents from across the State have 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6100 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

increased their support for killing 

individual problem wolves; support for 

lethal control of problem wolves ranges 

from 70 percent in the Southern Lower 

Peninsula to 85 percent in the UP 

(Mertig 2004, p. 40). In Wisconsin, a 

number of recent surveys, when taken 

together, provide strong evidence of 

support for a Wisconsin wolf population 

of 250–350 wolves or more (NaughtonTreves et al. 2003; Schanning and 

Vazquez 2005; Naughton et al. 2005 

unpublished report; WI DNR 2006a, p. 

9). 

Once this delisting is in effect, States 

and tribes will have increased flexibility 

to deal with wolf human conflicts, 

including the use of lethal control of 

problems wolves, as specified in their 

current wolf management plans. It is 

unclear whether such flexibility of wolf 

control will affect public attitudes 

towards wolves (i.e., diminish 

opposition to the local presence of 

wolves), due to the strong influence of 

other factors. 

The Minnesota DNR recognizes that to 

maintain public support for wolf 

conservation it must work to ensure that 

people are well informed about wolves 

and wolf management in the State. 

Therefore, MN DNR plans to provide 

‘‘timely and accurate information about 

wolves to the public, to support and 

facilitate wolf education programs, and 

to encourage wolf ecotourism,’’ among 

other activities (MN DNR 2001, pp. 29–

30). Similarly, the Wisconsin and 

Michigan wolf management plans 

emphasize the need for long-term 

cooperative efforts with private 

educational and environmental groups 

to develop and distribute educational 

and informational materials and 

programs for public use (MI DNR 1997, 

p. 20; WI DNR 1999, pp. 26–27). We 

fully expect organizations such as the 

International Wolf Center (Ely, MN), the 

Timber Wolf Alliance (Ashland, WI), 

Timber Wolf Information Network 

(Waupaca, WI), the Wildlife Science 

Center (Forest Lake, MN), and other 

organizations to continue to provide 

educational materials and experiences 

with wolves far into the future, 

regardless of the Federal status of 

wolves. 

In summary, we conclude that there is 

evidence showing strong public support 

for current wolf population levels in the 

WGL DPS, especially if problem wolves, 

and to a lesser extent wolf numbers, are 

controlled. This support is a key 

component in our assessment of threats 

to the WGL DPS. Notwithstanding a 

small but significant societal segment 

who is opposed to the current level of 

wolf recovery and which may resort to 

illegal actions if problem wolves and the 

overall wolf population is not 

adequately managed, we believe that 

delisting while public support for 

wolves is still strong, followed by more 

intensive management of wolf 

populations by the States, is the best 

way to reduce the level of threat caused 

by human-induced mortality. We 

conclude that public attitudes towards 

wolves now and in the foreseeable 

future will not be threats sufficient to 

cause the WGL DPS gray wolves to be 

in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future in all or a significant 

portion of the range within the WGL 

DPS. 

Summary of Our Five-Factor Analysis of 

Potential Threats 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five potential threat factors to assess 

whether wolves are threatened or 

endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range in the 

WGL DPS and, therefore, whether the 

WGL DPS should be listed as threatened 

or endangered. While wolves 

historically occurred over most of the 

DPS, large portions of this area are no 

longer significant, and the wolf 

population in the WGL DPS will remain 

centered in Minnesota, Michigan, and 

Wisconsin. 

While we recognize that gray wolves 

in the WGL DPS do not occupy all 

portions of their historical range, 

including some disjunct but potentially 

suitable areas with low road and human 

density and a healthy prey base within 

the WGL DPS, wolves in this DPS no 

longer meet the definition of a 

threatened or endangered species. 

Although there may be historical habitat 

within the DPS that remains 

unoccupied, many of these areas are no 

longer suitable. None of these historical 

areas are significant portions of the 

range of the WGL DPS. 

We have based our determinations on 

the current status of, and future threats 

likely to be faced by, existing wolf 

populations within the WGL DPS in the 

foreseeable future. 

The number of wolves in the WGL 

DPS greatly exceeds the recovery 

criteria (USFWS 1992, pp. 24–26) for (1) 

a secure wolf population in Minnesota, 

and (2) a second population of 100 

wolves for 5 successive years. Based on 

the criteria set by the Eastern Wolf 

Recovery Team in 1992 and reaffirmed 

in 1997 and 1998 (Peterson in litt. 1997, 

in litt. 1998), and endorsed by the peer 

reviewers, the DPS contains sufficient 

wolf numbers and distribution to ensure 

their long-term survival within the DPS. 

The maintenance and expansion of the 

Minnesota wolf population has 

maximized the preservation of the 

genetic diversity that remained in the 

WGL DPS when its wolves were first 

protected in 1974. Furthermore, the 

Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population 

has even exceeded the numerical 

recovery criterion for a completely 

isolated population. Therefore, even if 

this two-State population was to become 

totally isolated and wolf immigration 

from Minnesota and Ontario completely 

ceased, it would still remain a viable 

wolf population for the foreseeable 

future, as defined by the Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 1992, pp. 25–26). Finally, the 

wolf populations in Wisconsin and 

Michigan each have separately exceeded 

200 animals for 8 and 7 years 

respectively, so if they each somehow 

were to become isolated, they are 

already above viable population levels, 

and each State has committed to manage 

its wolf population at or above viable 

population levels. The wolf’s numeric 

and distributional recovery criteria in 

the WGL DPS clearly have been 

exceeded in both magnitude and 

duration. The wolf’s recovery in 

numbers and distribution in the WGL 

DPS, together with the status of the 

remaining threats, indicates that the 

WGL DPS of the gray wolf is not in 

danger of extinction, nor likely to 

become an endangered species, within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. 

Post-delisting wolf protection, 

management, and population and health 

monitoring by the States, Tribes, and 

Federal land management agencies—

especially in Minnesota Zone A, 

Wisconsin Zones 1 and 2, and across the 

UP of Michigan, which constitute the 

significant portion of the species’

range—will ensure the continuation of 

viable wolf populations above the 

Federal recovery criteria for the 

foreseeable future. Post-delisting threats 

to wolves in Zone B in Minnesota, 

Zones 3 and 4 in Wisconsin, and in the 

Lower Peninsula of Michigan—all areas 

that are not significant portions of the 

range of the WGL DPS—will be more 

substantial, and may preclude the 

establishment of wolf packs in most or 

all of these areas in Wisconsin and 

Michigan. Similarly, the lack of 

sufficient areas of suitable habitat in 

those parts of North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio 

that are within the WGL DPS are 

expected to preclude the establishment 

of viable populations in these areas, 

although dispersing wolves and packs 

may temporarily occur in some of these 

areas. However, these areas are not SPR 

and wolf numbers in these areas will 

have no impact on the continued 

viability of the recovered WGL DPS. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6101 

Reasonably foreseeable threats to wolves 

in all parts of the WGL DPS are not 

likely to threaten wolf population 

viability in the WGL DPS in the 

foreseeable future. 

In summary, we find that the threat of 

habitat destruction or degradation or a 

reduction in the range of the gray wolf; 

utilization by humans; disease, 

parasites, or predatory actions by other 

animals or humans; regulatory measures 

by State, Tribal, and Federal agencies; or 

other threats will not individually or in 

combination be likely to cause the WGL 

DPS of the gray wolf to be in danger of 

extinction in the foreseeable future in 

all or a significant portion of the 

species’ range. Ongoing effects of 

recovery efforts over the past decade, 

which resulted in a significant 

expansion of the occupied range of 

wolves in the WGL DPS, in conjunction 

with future State, Tribal, and Federal 

agency wolf management across that 

occupied range, will be adequate to 

ensure the conservation of the SPR of 

the WGL DPS. These activities will 

maintain an adequate prey base, 

preserve denning and rendezvous sites 

and dispersal corridors, monitor 

disease, restrict human take, and keep 

wolf populations well above the 

numerical recovery criteria established 

in the Federal Recovery Plan for the 

Eastern Timber Wolf (USFWS 1992, pp. 

25–28). 

After a thorough review of all 

available information and an evaluation 

of the previous five factors specified in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, as well as 

consideration of the definitions of 

‘‘threatened’’ and ‘‘endangered’’

contained in the Act and the reasons for 

delisting as specified in 50 CFR 

424.11(d), we conclude that removing 

the WGL DPS from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(50 CFR 17.11) is appropriate. Gray 

wolves have recovered in the WGL DPS 

as a result of the reduction of threats as 

described in the analysis of the five 

categories of threats. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing encourages 

and results in conservation actions by 

Federal, State, and private agencies, 

groups, and individuals. The Act 

provides for possible land acquisition 

and cooperation with the States and 

requires that recovery actions be carried 

out for all listed species. The final rule 

removes these Federal conservation 

measures for all gray wolves within the 

WGL DPS. 

Effects of the Rule 

This rule removes the protections of 

the Act for the WGL DPS. The 

protections of the Act will still continue 

to apply to the gray wolves outside the 

WGL DPS, where appropriate. 

This final rule removes the special 

regulations under section 4(d) of the Act 

for wolves in Minnesota. These 

regulations currently are found at 50 

CFR 17.40(d). 

Critical habitat was designated for the 

gray wolf in 1978 (43 FR 9607, March 

9, 1978). That rule (codified at 50 CFR 

17.95(a)) identifies Isle Royale National 

Park, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf 

management zones 1, 2, and 3, as 

delineated in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(1), as 

critical habitat. Wolf management zones 

1, 2, and 3 comprise approximately 

25,500 sq km (9,845 sq mi) in 

northeastern and north-central 

Minnesota. This final rule removes the 

designation of critical habitat for gray 

wolves in Minnesota and on Isle Royale, 

Michigan. 

This notice does not apply to the 

listing or protection of the red wolf (C. 

rufus) or change the regulations for the 

three non-essential experimental 

populations of gray wolves. 

Furthermore, the remaining protections 

of the gray wolf under the Act do not 

extend to gray wolf-dog hybrids. 

Post-Delisting Monitoring 

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in 

the 1988 reauthorization, requires us to 

implement a system, in cooperation 

with the States, to monitor for not less 

than 5 years the status of all species that 

have recovered and been removed from 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 

17.12). The purpose of this postdelisting monitoring (PDM) is to verify 

that a species delisted due to recovery 

remains secure from risk of extinction 

after it no longer has the protections of 

the Act. To do this, PDM generally 

focuses on evaluating (1) demographic 

characteristics of the species, (2) threats 

to the species, and (3) implementation 

of legal and/or management 

commitments that have been identified 

as important in reducing threats to the 

species or maintaining threats at 

sufficiently low levels. We are to make 

prompt use of the emergency listing 

authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the 

Act to prevent a significant risk to the 

well-being of any recovered species. 

Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly 

requires cooperation with the States in 

development and implementation of 

PDM programs, but we remain 

responsible for compliance with section 

4(g) and, therefore, must remain actively 

engaged in all phases of PDM. We also 

will seek active participation of other 

entities that are expected to assume 

responsibilities for the species’

conservation, after delisting. 

We are developing a PDM plan for the 

gray wolves in the WGL DPS with the 

assistance of the Eastern Gray Wolf 

Recovery Team. Once completed, we 

will make that document available on 

our web site (See FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). At this 

time, we anticipate the PDM program 

will be a continuation of State 

monitoring activities similar to those 

which have been conducted by 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

DNR’s in recent years. These States 

comprise the core recovery areas within 

the DPS, and therefore the numerical 

recovery criteria in the Recovery Plan 

apply only to them. These activities will 

include both population monitoring and 

health monitoring of individual wolves. 

During the PDM period, the Service and 

the Recovery Team will conduct a 

review of the monitoring data and 

program. We will consider various 

relevant factors (including but not 

limited to mortality rates, population 

changes and rates of change, disease 

occurrence, range expansion or 

contraction) to determine if the 

population of gray wolves within the 

DPS warrants expanded monitoring, 

additional research, consideration for 

relisting as threatened or endangered, or 

emergency listing. 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

DNRs have monitored wolves for several 

decades with significant assistance from 

numerous partners, including the U.S. 

Forest Service, National Park Service, 

USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, Tribal 

natural resource agencies, and the 

Service. To maximize comparability of 

future PDM data with data obtained 

before delisting, all three State DNRs 

have committed to continue their 

previous wolf population monitoring 

methodology, or will make changes to 

that methodology only if those changes 

will not reduce the comparability of preand post-delisting data. 

In addition to monitoring wolf 

population numbers and trends, the 

PDM will evaluate post-delisting 

threats, in particular human-caused 

mortality, disease, and implementation 

of legal and management commitments. 

If at any time during the monitoring 

period we detect a substantial 

downward change in the populations or 

an increase in threats to the degree that 

population viability may be threatened, 

we will evaluate and change (intensify, 

extend, and/or otherwise improve) the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
6102 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

monitoring methods, if appropriate, 

and/or consider relisting the WGL DPS, 

if warranted. 

This monitoring program will extend 

for 5 years beyond the effective delisting 

date of the DPS. At the end of the 5-year 

period we and the Recovery Team will 

conduct another review and post the 

results on our web site. In addition to 

the above considerations, the review 

will determine whether the PDM 

program should be terminated or 

extended. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that an 

Environmental Assessment or an 

Environmental Impact Statement, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, need not be prepared in 

connection with regulations adopted 

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) 

define a collection of information as the 

obtaining of information by or for an 

agency by means of identical questions 

posed to, or identical reporting, 

recordkeeping, or disclosure 

requirements imposed on, 10 or more 

persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 

1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ‘‘ten or more 

persons’’ refers to the persons to whom 

a collection of information is addressed 

by the agency within any 12-month 

period. For purposes of this definition, 

employees of the Federal Government 

are not included. The Service may not 

conduct or sponsor, and you are not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

This rule does not include any 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. As proposed under the 

Post-delisting Monitoring section above, 

gray wolf populations in the Western 

Great Lakes DPS will be monitored by 

the States of Michigan, Minnesota, and 

Wisconsin in accordance with their gray 

wolf State management plans. There 

may also be additional voluntary 

monitoring activities conducted by a 

small number of tribes in these three 

States. We do not anticipate a need to 

request data or other information from 

10 or more persons during any 12- 

month period to satisfy monitoring 

information needs. If it becomes 

necessary to collect standardized 

information from 10 or more nonFederal individuals, groups, or 

organizations per year, we will first 

obtain information collection approval 

from OMB. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. As this 

final rule is not expected to significantly 

affect energy supplies, distribution, or 

use, this action is not a significant 

energy action and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 

coordinated the proposed rule and this 

final rule with the affected Tribes. 

Throughout several years of 

development of earlier related rules and 

the proposed rule, we have endeavored 

to consult with Native American tribes 

and Native American organizations in 

order to both (1) provide them with a 

complete understanding of the proposed 

changes, and (2) to understand their 

concerns with those changes. We have 

fully considered their comments during 

the development of this final rule. If 

requested, we will conduct additional 

consultations with Native American 

tribes and multitribal organizations 

subsequent to this final rule in order to 

facilitate the transition to State and 

tribal management of gray wolves 

within the WGL DPS. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this document is available upon 

request from the Ft. Snelling, 

Minnesota, Regional Office and is 

posted on our Web site (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section above). 

Author 

The primary author of this final rule 

is Ronald L. Refsnider, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, 

Minnesota, Regional Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

above). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we hereby amend part 

17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, as set 

forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Wolf, gray’’ under 

‘‘MAMMALS’’ in the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 6103 

Species 

Historic range Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened Status When listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Wolf, gray ........... Canis lupus ....... Holarctic ............ U.S.A., conterminous (lower 48) 

States, except: (1) Where listed 

as an experimental population 

below; (2) Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, eastern North 

Dakota (that portion north and 

east of the Missouri River upstream to Lake Sakakawea and 

east of the centerline of Highway 83 from Lake Sakakawea 

to the Canadian border), eastern South Dakota (that portion 

north and east of the Missouri 

River), northern Iowa, northern 

Illinois, and northern Indiana 

(those portions of IA, IL, and IN 

north of the centerline of Interstate Highway 80), and northwestern Ohio (that portion north 

of the centerline of Interstate 

Highway 80 and west of the 

Maumee River at Toledo); and 

(3) Mexico.

E ......... 1, 6, 13, 

15, 35, 

561, 

562, 

631, 745.

NA ........... NA 

Do ....................... ......do ................ ......do ................ U.S.A. (WY and portions of ID 

and MT—see 17.84(i) and (n).

XN ....... 561, 562, 

745.

NA ........... 17.84(i) 

17.84(n) 

Do ....................... ......do ................ ......do ................ U.S.A. (portions of AZ, NM, and 

TX—see 17.84(k)).

XN ....... 631 .......... NA ........... 17.84(k) 

* * * * * * * 

§ 17.40 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 17.40 by removing and 

reserving paragraph (d) and removing 

paragraphs (n) and (o). 

§ 17.95 [Amended] 

■ 4. Amend § 17.95(a) by removing the 

critical habitat entry for ‘‘Gray Wolf 

(Canis lupus).’’

Dated: January 29, 2007. 

H. Dale Hall, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–471 Filed 2–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES2