55730 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 799 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Hazardous substances, Health, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 8, 2010. 

Stephen A. Owens, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22862 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2010–0062; 

92220–1113–0000–C6] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 

Petitions To Delist the Gray Wolf in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and 

the Western Great Lakes 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and 

initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day 

finding on petitions to remove (delist) 

the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes 

from the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife (List) established 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). Based on our 

review, we find that the petitions 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

removing the gray wolf in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan from the List 

may be warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this notice, we are 

initiating a review of the status of the 

species to determine if delisting in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan is 

warranted. To ensure that this status 

review is comprehensive, we are 

requesting scientific and commercial 

data and other information regarding the 

gray wolf in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

Michigan. Based on the status review, 

we will issue a 12-month finding on the 

petitions, which will address whether 

any of the petitioned actions are 

warranted, as provided in section 

4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before 

November 15, 2010. Please note that if 

you are using the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below), 

the deadline for submitting an 

electronic comment is 12:00 Midnight, 

Eastern Standard Time on this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the box that 

reads ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter the 

Docket number for this finding, which 

is [FWS–R3–ES–2010–0062]. Check the 

box that reads ‘‘Open for Comment/ 

Submission,’’ and then click the Search 

button. You should then see an icon that 

reads ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ Please 

ensure that you have found the correct 

rulemaking before submitting your 

comment. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R3– 

ES–2010–0062, Division of Policy and 

Directives Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. We will 

post all information we receive on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Request for Information section 

below for more details). 

After the date specified in DATES, you 

must submit information directly to the 

Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section below). 

Please note that we might not be able to 

address or incorporate information that 

we receive after the above requested 

date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Ragan, Endangered Species 

Listing Coordinator, Midwest Regional 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1 

Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, 

55111, by telephone (612–713–5350), or 

by facsimile (612–713–5292). If you use 

a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information 

When we make a finding that a 

petition to remove (delist) a species 

from the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife presents substantial 

information that the petitioned action 

may be warranted, we are required to 

promptly commence a review of the 

status of the species (status review). For 

the status review to be complete and 

based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we request 

information on the gray wolf in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

from governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties. We seek information 

on: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat or 

both. 

(2) The factors that are the basis for 

making a delisting determination for a 

species under section 4(a) of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

(3) Current or planned activities in the 

western Great Lakes region and their 

possible impacts on the wolf and its 

habitat; 

(4) Information concerning the 

adequacy of the recovery criteria 

described in the 1992 Recovery Plan for 

the Eastern Timber Wolf; 

(5) The extent and adequacy of 

Federal, State, and tribal protection and 

management that would be provided to 

the wolf in the western Great Lakes 

region as a delisted species; 

(6) Whether gray wolves in Minnesota 

alone; or in Minnesota and Wisconsin 

combined; or in Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

and Michigan combined constitute 

distinct population segments or entities 

that which may be removed from the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife under the Act; and 

(7) Information or data regarding the 

taxonomy of wolves in the western 

Great Lakes region. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Submissions merely stating support 

for or opposition to the action under 

consideration without providing 

supporting information, although noted, 

will not be considered in making a 

determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

Act directs that determinations as to 

whether any species is an endangered or 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55731 

threatened species must be made ‘‘solely 

on the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your information 

concerning this status review by one of 

the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. If you submit information via 

http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If you submit a 

hardcopy that includes personal 

identifying information, you may 

request at the top of your document that 

we withhold this personal identifying 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. We will post all 

hardcopy submissions on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Information and supporting 

documentation that we received and 

used in preparing this finding is 

available for you to review at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or you may make 

an appointment during normal business 

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Midwest Regional Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial information within the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with 

regard to a 90-day petition finding is 

‘‘that amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

If we find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly conduct a 

species status review, which we 

subsequently summarize in our 12- 

month finding. 

Petition History 

On March 15, 2010, we received a 

petition from the Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources (MNDNR) 

requesting that the gray wolf in 

Minnesota be removed from the lists of 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. In an April 16, 2010, letter to 

the MNDNR, we responded that we 

received the petition and provided an 

explanation of the petition process. On 

April 26, 2010, we received a petition 

from the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources (WIDNR) requesting 

that the gray wolf in Minnesota and 

Wisconsin be removed from the lists of 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. In a May 14, 2010 letter, to the 

WIDNR, we responded that we received 

the petition and provided an 

explanation of the petition process. On 

April 26, 2010, we received a petition 

from the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, 

representing five other organizations, 

requesting that gray wolves in the Great 

Lakes area be removed from the lists of 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. In a May 28, 2010, letter to the 

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, we 

responded that we received the petition 

and provided an explanation of the 

petition process. On June 17, 2010, we 

received a petition from Safari Club 

International, Safari Club International 

Foundation and the National Rifle 

Association of America requesting that 

wolves of the western Great Lakes be 

removed from the list of endangered and 

threatened species. In a June 30, 2010, 

letter to the Safari Club International we 

responded that we received the petition 

and provided an explanation of the 

petition process. 

All of the petitions clearly identified 

themselves as such and included the 

requisite identification information from 

the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 

424.14(a). This finding addresses the 

four petitions. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The eastern timber wolf (Canis lupus 

lycaon) was listed as endangered in 

Minnesota and Michigan, and the 

northern Rocky Mountain wolf (C. l. 

irremotus) was listed as endangered in 

Montana and Wyoming in the first list 

of species that were protected under the 

1973 Act, published in May 1974 (USDI 

1974). A third gray wolf subspecies, the 

Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi), was listed 

as endangered on April 28, 1976, (41 FR 

17736) with its known range given as 

‘‘Mexico, USA (Arizona, New Mexico, 

Texas).’’ On June 14, 1976, (41 FR 

240624) the subspecies C. l. 

monstrabilis was listed as endangered 

(under the misleading common name 

‘‘Gray wolf’’), and its range was 

described as ‘‘Texas, New Mexico, 

Mexico.’’ 

On March 9, 1978, we published a 

rule (43 FR 9607) relisting the gray wolf 

at the species level (Canis lupus) as 

endangered throughout the 

conterminous 48 States and Mexico, 

except for Minnesota, where the gray 

wolf was reclassified to threatened. In 

addition, critical habitat was designated 

in that rulemaking. In 50 CFR 17.95(a), 

we describe Isle Royale National Park, 

Michigan, and Minnesota wolf 

management zones 1, 2, and 3 

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

critical habitat. At that time we also 

developed special regulations under 

section 4(d) of the Act for managing 

wolves in Minnesota. The depredation 

control portion of the special regulation 

was later modified (50 FR 50792; 

December 12, 1985); these special 

regulations are found in 50 CFR 

17.40(d)(2). 

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 identified 

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. The 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 wolf– 

human 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. Secretary, U.S. 

Dep’t of the Interior, 354 F.Supp.2d 

1156 (D.Or. 2005); National Wildlife 

Fed’n v. Norton, 386 F.Supp.2d 553 

(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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
55732 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

reclassification). The courts also 

invalidated the associated special 

regulations. 

On March 27, 2006, we published a 

proposal (71 FR 15266–15305) to 

identify a Western Great Lakes (WGL) 

DPS of the gray wolf, 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. 

On February 8, 2007, we published a 

final rule identifying a WGL DPS of the 

gray wolf, removing the WGL DPS from 

the protections of the Act, removing 

designated critical habitat for the gray 

wolf in Minnesota and Michigan, and 

removing special regulations for the 

gray wolf in Minnesota (72 FR 6052). 

On April 16, 2007, four parties filed 

a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of 

the Interior (Department) and the 

Service, challenging the Service’s 

February 8, 2007 (72 FR 6052), 

identification and delisting of the WGL 

DPS. The plaintiffs argued that the 

Service may not identify a DPS within 

a broader pre-existing listed entity for 

the purpose of delisting the DPS. Based 

on this argument, on September 29, 

2008, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia remanded and 

vacated the February 8, 2007, WGL DPS 

final rule (72 FR 6052). The court found 

that the Service had made that decision 

based on its interpretation that the plain 

meaning of the Act authorizes the 

Service to identify and delist a DPS 

within an already-listed entity. The 

court disagreed, and concluded that the 

Act is ambiguous as to whether the 

Service has this authority. The court 

accordingly remanded the final rule so 

that the Service could provide a 

reasoned explanation of how its 

interpretation is consistent with the 

text, structure, legislative history, 

judicial interpretations, and policy 

objectives of the Act (Humane Society of 

the United States v. Kempthorne, 579 F. 

Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008). 

On December 11, 2008, we published 

a final rule reinstating protections for 

the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes 

and northern Rocky Mountains 

pursuant to court-orders (73 FR 75356). 

On April 2, 2009, we published a final 

rule identifying the western Great Lakes 

populations of gray wolves as a DPS, 

revising the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife by removing the 

DPS from that list, removing designated 

critical habitat for the gray wolf in 

Minnesota and Michigan, and removing 

special regulations for the gray wolf in 

Minnesota (74 FR 15070). That final rule 

addressed the narrow issue 

objectionable to the court and was 

otherwise substantially the same as the 

2007 vacated rule. We did not seek 

additional public comment on the 2009 

final rule. 

On June 15, 2009, five parties filed a 

complaint against the Department and 

the Service alleging that we violated the 

Endangered Species Act, the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 

and the Court’s Remand Order by 

publishing the 2009 final rule. The 

Humane Society, et al. v. Salazar, 09– 

cv–1092 (D.D.C. 2009). On that same 

day, the plaintiffs also filed a motion for 

preliminary injunction alleging that we 

violated the notice and comment 

requirement of the APA, the Endangered 

Species Act’s requirement that we 

consider the best available science, and 

the court’s remand order by publishing 

the 2009 final rule. We conceded that 

we erred by publishing the 2009 final 

rule without providing for notice and 

comment as required by APA (5 U.S.C. 

553). On July 2, 2009, a settlement 

agreement between the parties was 

signed by the court, remanding and 

vacating the 2009 final rule. 

On September 16, 2009, we published 

a final rule reinstating protections for 

the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes 

pursuant to the settlement agreement 

and court-order (74 FR 47483). 

Species Information 

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), 

also available on http://www.fws.gov/ 

midwest/wolf/. 

Defining a Species Under the Act 

Section 3(16) of the Act defines 

‘‘species’’ to include ‘‘any species or 

subspecies of fish and wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct vertebrate population 

segment of fish or wildlife that 

interbreeds when mature’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1532 (16)). Our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 provide 

further guidance for determining 

whether a particular taxon or 

population is a species or subspecies for 

the purposes of the Act: ‘‘The Secretary 

shall rely on standard taxonomic 

distinctions and the biological expertise 

of the Department and the scientific 

community concerning the relevant 

taxonomic group’’ (50 CFR 424.11). 

To interpret and implement the 

distinct vertebrate population segment 

(DPS) provisions of the Act and 

Congressional guidance, the Service and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(now the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration— 

Fisheries), published the Policy 

Regarding the Recognition of Distinct 

Vertebrate Population Segments (DPS 

Policy) in the Federal Register on 

February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). Under 

the DPS Policy, three elements are 

considered in the decision regarding the 

establishment and classification of a 

population of a vertebrate species as a 

possible DPS. Similarly, these three 

elements are applied for additions to 

and removals from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. These elements are: (1) The 

discreteness of a population in relation 

to the remainder of the species to which 

it belongs, (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the species to 

which it belongs, and, if these first two 

criteria are met, (3) the population 

segment’s conservation status in relation 

to the Act’s standards for listing, 

delisting, or reclassification. 

Discreteness 

Under our DPS policy, a population 

segment of a vertebrate species may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

one of the following two 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 (61 FR 4722). 

Significance 

If a population segment is considered 

discrete under one or more of the 

conditions described in the Service’s 

DPS policy, its biological and ecological 

significance will be considered in light 

of congressional guidance that the 

authority to list DPSs be used 

‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging the 

conservation of genetic diversity (see 

Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st 

Session). In making this determination, 

we consider available scientific 

evidence of the discrete population 

segment’s importance to the taxon to 

which it belongs. Since precise 

circumstances are likely to vary 

considerably from case to case, the DPS 

policy does not describe all the classes 

of information that might be used in 

determining the biological and 

ecological importance of a discrete 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55733 

population. However, the DPS policy 

describes four possible classes of 

information that provide evidence of a 

discrete population segment’s biological 

and ecological importance to the taxon 

to which it belongs. As specified in the 

DPS policy, this consideration of the 

population segment’s significance may 

include, but is not limited to, the 

following: 

(1) Persistence of the discrete 

population segment in an ecological 

setting unusual or unique to the taxon; 

(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete 

population segment would result in a 

significant gap in the range of a 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; or 

(4) Evidence that the discrete 

population segment differs markedly 

from other populations of the species in 

its genetic characteristics. 

A population segment needs to satisfy 

only one of these conditions to be 

considered significant. Furthermore, 

other information may be used as 

appropriate to provide evidence for 

significance. 

Information Provided in the Petitions 

Regarding the ‘‘Species’’ Requested for 

Delisting 

Wolves in Minnesota 

The petition from the Minnesota DNR 

requests removing the ‘‘Minnesota wolf 

species’’ from the protections of the Act. 

The petition presents the following 

information. 

In 1978, the Service issued a final rule 

reclassifying ‘‘the gray wolf in the 

United States and Mexico’’ and 

determining critical habitat for the 

species of gray wolf in Michigan and 

Minnesota (43 FR 9607). The rule stated, 

‘‘(t)he reclassification is considered to 

accurately express the current status of 

the gray wolf, based solely on an 

evaluation of the best available 

biological data.’’ 

As stated in Minnesota’s March 15, 

2010, petition, the Service in 1978 

issued a final rule that listed the gray 

wolf population in Minnesota as 

threatened and treated the gray wolf in 

Minnesota as another ‘‘species’’ separate 

from the gray wolf species that was 

listed as endangered in the other 

conterminous 48 States and Mexico (43 

FR 9607, March 9, 1978). The 1978 final 

rule states, ‘‘as defined in section 3 of 

the Act, the term ‘‘species’’ includes any 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants 

and any other group of fish or wildlife 

of the same species or smaller taxa in 

common spatial arrangement that 

interbreed when mature. For purposes 

of this rulemaking, the gray wolf (Canis 

lupus) group in Mexico and the 48 

coterminous States of the United States, 

other than Minnesota, is being 

considered as one ‘species’, and the gray 

wolf group in Minnesota is being 

considered as another ‘species.’ ’’ (43 FR 

9610). 

The 1978 rule stated that this 

determination was ‘‘based solely on an 

evaluation of the best available 

biological data.* * * The only major 

population of the gray wolf remaining 

anywhere in the 48 conterminous States 

is in northern Minnesota.’’ Id. at 9607 & 

9610–11. 

Wolves in Minnesota and Wisconsin 

The petition from the Wisconsin DNR 

requests removing the ‘‘Minnesota wolf 

species,’’ which occurs in Minnesota 

and Wisconsin, from the protections of 

the Act. The petition presents the 

following information. 

Gray wolves moved from Minnesota 

to Wisconsin and Michigan, and are 

now established in those states. 

Minnesota gray wolves settled into 

eastern Pine County along the border 

with Wisconsin in 1974–1975 (Mech 

and Nowak 1981, pp. 408–409) and 

soon spread eastward into Wisconsin. 

Movements of wolves from Minnesota 

into Wisconsin and Michigan continued 

to be documented into the 1990s (Mech 

et al. 1995; Wydeven 1994). More recent 

genetic analysis also demonstrates that 

the wolves currently in Wisconsin and 

Michigan are genetically similar to 

wolves in Minnesota (Wheeldon 2009; 

Fain et al. 2010). 

Wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

Michigan 

The petition from the U.S. 

Sportsmen’s Alliance requests removing 

gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

and Michigan from the protections of 

the Act. In the alternative, they request 

removing gray wolves within the 

somewhat broader boundaries of the 

Western Great Lakes Distinct Population 

Segment (DPS), as identified in the 2007 

and 2009 final rules (72 FR 6052, 

February 8, 2007; 74 FR 15070, April 2, 

2009) that were later vacated. The 

petition references information 

provided in the petitions from 

Minnesota and Wisconsin and in the 

2007 and 2009 final rules. 

We find that the four petitions 

provide substantial information that the 

wolf in Minnesota alone; in Minnesota 

and Wisconsin combined; in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan; and in the 

western Great Lakes area, may be 

considered as a ‘‘species’’ under the Act. 

In the 12-month finding, we will fully 

analyze whether gray wolves in those 

areas constitute ‘‘species’’ under the Act, 

and whether they are a threatened 

species or endangered species under the 

Act. 

Evaluation of Information for This 

Finding 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424 set forth the procedures for 

adding a species to, or removing a 

species from, the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered species 

or threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

We must consider these same five 

factors in delisting a species. We may 

remove a threatened species or 

endangered species from the Act’s 

protections according to 50 CFR 

424.11(d) if the best available scientific 

and commercial data indicate that the 

species is neither endangered nor 

threatened for the following reasons: 

(1) The species is extinct; 

(2) The species has recovered and is 

no longer endangered or threatened; or 

(3) The original scientific data used at 

the time the species was classified were 

in error. 

In making this 90-day finding, we 

evaluated whether information 

regarding the reduction of threats to the 

gray wolf in Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

Michigan, and the western Great Lakes 

area as a whole as presented in the 

petitions and other information 

available in our files, is substantial, 

thereby indicating that the petitioned 

action may be warranted. 

We reviewed the relevant five factors 

extensively in previous delisting 

decisions for the gray wolf in an area 

previously identified as the WGL DPS, 

which includes Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

and Michigan (71 FR 15266, March 27, 

2006; 74 FR 15070, April 2, 2009). Our 

files have no information to indicate 

there has been a significant change since 

those previous analyses in how these 

factors affect wolves in the western 

Great Lakes area. We find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
55734 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

well as other information in our files, 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

in light of one or more of the five factors 

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

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range: The 

wolf population in the western Great 

Lakes area currently occupies all 

suitable habitat identified for recovery 

in this area in the 1978 and 1992 

Recovery Plans and most of the 

potentially suitable habitat in the States 

of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. 

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. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes: 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 captive-reared 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 wolf 

populations in the western Great Lakes 

area 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, public harvest may also serve as 

a management tool, so it is discussed in 

Factor D. Taking wolves for scientific or 

educational purposes in the western 

Great Lakes area may not be regulated 

or closely monitored in the future, but 

the threat to wolves in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan will not be 

significant to the long-term viability of 

the wolf population in the western Great 

Lakes area. The potential limited 

commercial and recreational harvest 

that may occur will be regulated by 

State or Tribal conservation agencies 

and is discussed under Factor D. 

C. Disease or Predation: 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 Upper 

Peninsula and in Wisconsin over the 

last 12 years, and it is recognized as a 

continuing issue. Despite these and 

other diseases and parasites, the overall 

trend for wolf populations in the 

Western Great Lakes area 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. 

The high reproductive potential of 

wolves allows wolf populations to 

withstand relatively high mortality 

rates, including human-caused 

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 

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 

consistent with or above the objectives 

in the Federal Eastern Timberwolf 

Recovery Plan to ensure long-term, 

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. 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 Minnesota– 

Wisconsin–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. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms: 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, 

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. While 

these State plans recognize there may be 

a need to control or even reduce wolf 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55735 

populations at some future time, none of 

the plans include a public harvest of 

wolves. 

Wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

Michigan would continue to receive 

protection from general human 

persecution by State laws and 

regulations. Michigan met the criteria 

established in their management plan 

for State delisting and in April 2009 

removed gray wolves from the State’s 

threatened and endangered species list 

and amended the Wildlife Conservation 

Order to grant ‘‘protected animal’’ status 

to the gray wolf in the State (Roell 2009, 

pers. comm.). That status ‘‘prohibit[s] 

take, establish[es] penalties and 

restitution for violations of the Order, 

and detail[s] conditions under which 

lethal depredation control measures 

could be implemented’’ (Humphries in 

litt. 2004). Since 2004 wolves have been 

listed as a ‘‘protected wild animal’’ by 

the WI DNR, allowing no lethal take 

unless special authorization is requested 

from the WI DNR (Wydeven et al. 

2009c). Following Federal delisting, 

Wisconsin will fully implement that 

‘‘protected wild animal’’ status 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 

than 5 years after a 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 be legally taken in Minnesota 

only for depredation management or 

public safety (MN DNR 2001, pp. 3–4). 

Since the wolf management plan was 

completed in 2001, MN DNR has fully 

staffed its conservation officer corps in 

the State’s wolf range (Stark 2009a, pers. 

comm.). 

Additionally, although to our 

knowledge no Tribes have completed 

wolf management plans at this time, 

based on communications with Tribes 

and Tribal organizations, federallydelisted wolves are very likely to be 

adequately protected on Tribal 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. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence: The 

information contained within the 

petitions and our files conclude that 

other natural or manmade factors may 

not be threats sufficient to cause the 

wolves in the western Great Lakes area 

to warrant listing; this includes taking of 

wolves by Native Americans for 

religious, spiritual, or traditional 

cultural purposes, public attitudes 

toward the gray wolf, and coyote 

hybridization. If requested by the 

Tribes, multitribal natural resource 

agencies, 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 the small number of 

wolves that may be taken by Native 

Americans will not be a significant 

threat to the viability of the population. 

Finding 

On the basis of our determination 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

have determined that the petitions 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

delisting the gray wolf in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, Michigan, or the western 

Great Lakes area as a whole may be 

warranted. This finding is based on 

information provided under all five 

factors. 

Because we have found that the 

petitions present substantial 

information indicating that delisting the 

gray wolf in Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

Michigan, or the western Great Lakes 

area as a whole may be warranted, we 

are initiating a status review to 

determine whether delisting the gray 

wolf in those States and the surrounding 

region under the Act is warranted. 

The ‘‘substantial information’’ 

standard for a 90-day finding differs 

from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and 

commercial data’’ standard that applies 

to a status review to determine whether 

a petitioned action is warranted. A 90- 

day finding does not constitute a status 

review under the Act. In a 12-month 

finding, we will determine whether a 

petitioned action is warranted after we 

have completed a thorough status 

review of the species, which is 

conducted following a substantial 90- 

day finding. Because the Act’s standards 

for 90-day and 12-month findings are 

different, as described above, a 

substantial 90-day finding does not 

mean that the 12-month finding will 

result in a warranted finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Midwest Regional Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Midwest 

Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: August 19, 2010. 

Wendi Weber, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22752 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS