[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 135 (Thursday, July 13, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43450-43496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17621]
[[Page 43449]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal To Reclassify
and Remove the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife in Portions of the Conterminous United States; Proposal To
Establish Three Special Regulations for Threatened Gray Wolves;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 135 / Thursday, July 13, 2000 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 43450]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AF20
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal To
Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife in Portions of the Conterminous United States;
Proposal To Establish Three Special Regulations for Threatened Gray
Wolves
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) proposes to
change the classification of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Increases in gray
wolf numbers, expansion of the species' occupied range, and progress
toward achieving the reclassification and delisting criteria of several
approved gray wolf recovery plans show that the species' current
classification is no longer appropriate throughout most of its range.
This proposal, if finalized, will establish four distinct population
segments (DPSs) for the gray wolf in the United States and Mexico. Gray
wolves in the Western Great Lakes DPS, the Western DPS, and the
Northeastern DPS will be reclassified from endangered to threatened,
except where already classified as an experimental population or as
threatened. Gray wolves in the Southwestern (Mexican) DPS will retain
their endangered status. All three existing gray wolf experimental
population designations will be retained and are not affected by this
proposal. Gray wolves will be removed from the protections of the Act
in all other areas of the 48 conterminous states. We are proposing a
new special regulation under section 4(d) of the Act for the threatened
Western DPS to increase our ability to respond to wolf-human conflicts
outside the two experimental population areas in the northern United
States Rockies. We are proposing a second special regulation under
section 4(d) that would apply to the Northeastern DPS to reduce wolf-
human conflicts and land-use restrictions. A third section 4(d) special
regulation would expand the current Minnesota wolf depredation program
into Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The
classification, under the Act, of captive gray wolves would be
determined by the location from which they, or their ancestors, were
removed from the wild. We would revise our existing recovery plans, as
appropriate to accommodate changes necessitated by this proposal, if
finalized. This proposal does not affect the protection currently
afforded by the Act to the red wolf (C. rufus), a separate species that
is listed as endangered in the southeastern United States.
DATES: We must receive comments from interested parties by November 13,
2000 so they can be considered in our final decision. Requests for
formal public hearings must be received by August 28, 2000. We will
hold informal public informational meetings at numerous locations
across the country during the comment period. The locations and dates
of the informational meetings will be widely publicized in advance in
the press; the locations and dates can also be obtained by using the
phone, facsimile, electronic mail, and World Wide Web contact
information given below.
ADDRESSES: Send all comments and other materials concerning this notice
to Content Analysis Enterprise Team, Wolf Comments, 200 East Broadway,
PO Box 7669, Room 301, Missoula, Montana 59807. Comments only (no
questions or requests for information) may be submitted by electronic
mail to [email protected] or by facsimile to 406-329-3021; the
subject line must say wolf comments. Questions or requests for
additional information should follow the instructions in the following
section.
We will make the comments and materials we receive available for
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at
Regional Offices and the Washington Office of the U.S. Fish Wildlife
Service following the close of the comment period. Use the contact
information in the next paragraph to obtain the addresses of those
locations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct all questions or requests for
additional information to the Fish and Wildlife Service using the Gray
Wolf Phone Line--612-713-7337, facsimile--612-713-5292, the general
gray wolf electronic mail [email protected], or write to:
GRAY WOLF QUESTIONS, Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, 1
Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, MN 55111-4056. Additional information is
also available on our World Wide Web site at http://midwest.fws.gov/wolf.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Purpose and Definitions of the Act
The purpose of the Act is to identify species that meet the Act's
definitions of endangered and threatened species, to add those species
to the Federal lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
(50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12, respectively), and to implement conservation
measures to improve their status to the point at which they no longer
need the protections of the Act. When protection is no longer needed,
we take steps to remove (delist) the species from the Federal lists. If
a species is listed as endangered, we may reclassify it to threatened
status as an intermediate step before eventual delisting; however,
reclassification to threatened status is not required in order to
delist.
Section 3 of the Act provides the following definitions that are
relevant to this proposal:
Endangered species--any species which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range;
Threatened species--any species which is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range; and
Species--includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and
any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when mature. (See additional discussion in
Distinct Population Segments under Our Vertebrate Population Policy,
below.)
Organization and Contents of This Proposed Rule
This proposal begins with a discussion of the biology of the gray
wolf, followed by a description of related issues that we considered
during the development of this proposal. These issues include gray wolf
taxonomy, experimental population designations, our Vertebrate
Population Policy, and wolf-dog hybrids. We describe previous Federal
actions taken for the gray wolf, including the development of recovery
plans, and recovery progress in various parts of the country.
A detailed discussion is presented for the five listing factors as
required by the Act. These factors are (1) the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued
[[Page 43451]]
existence. We analyze these factors for the proposed reclassification
of certain populations in response to the current status of the
species, which encompasses present and future threats and conservation
efforts. We designate Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) and we also
discuss wolves in captivity and their role in wolf recovery.
We identify alternative actions that we considered but did not
propose and explain the reasons for selecting the proposed actions.
Separate sections will explain the three special regulations that are
proposed and how these special regulations will promote the
conservation of the gray wolf in different parts of the country. We
also explain the conservation measures that would be provided to the
species if this proposal is finalized.
We request comments and additional information on these proposed
changes. The text of the regulatory changes that we are proposing for
the gray wolf are found at the end of this rule.
Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves
Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the Canidae, or dog
family, with adults ranging from 18 to 80 kilograms (kg) (40 to 175
pounds (lb)) depending upon sex and subspecies (Mech 1974). The average
weight of male wolves in Wisconsin is 35 kilograms (77 lb) and ranges
from 26 to 46 kg (57 to 102 lb), while females average 28 kg (62 lb)
and range from 21 to 34 kg (46 to 75 lb) (Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WI DNR) 1999a). In the northern U.S. Rocky
Mountains, adult male gray wolves average just over 45 kg (100 lb),
while the females weigh slightly less. The fur color is frequently
grizzled gray, but it can vary from pure white to coal black. Wolves
tend to resemble coyotes (Canis latrans) or domestic German shepherd or
husky dogs (C. domesticus) but can be distinguished from them by their
longer legs, larger feet, wider head and snout, and straight tail.
Wolves are predators of large animals. Wild prey species in North
America include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule
deer (O. hemionus), moose (Alces alces), elk (Cervus canadensis),
woodland caribou (Rangifer caribou) and barren ground caribou (R.
arcticus), bison (Bison bison), muskox (Ovibos moschatus), bighorn
sheep (Ovis canadensis) and Dall sheep (O. dalli), mountain goat
(Oreamnos americanus), beaver (Castor canadensis), and snowshoe hare
(Lepus americanus), with small mammals, birds and large invertebrates
sometimes being taken (Mech 1974, Stebler 1944, WI DNR 1999a). Domestic
animals verified as being taken by wolves in Minnesota during the last
20 years include horses, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, geese, ducks,
turkeys, chickens, dogs, and cats (Paul 1999). Since 1987, wolves in
the northern Rocky Mountains of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have killed
a horse, cattle, sheep, and dogs.
Wolves are social animals, normally living in packs of 2 to 10
members. Packs are primarily family groups consisting of a breeding
pair, their pups from the current year, offspring from the previous
year, and occasionally an unrelated wolf. Packs occupy, and defend from
other packs and individual wolves, a territory of 50 to 550 square
kilometers (sq km) (20 to 214 square miles (sq mi)). In the northern
U.S. Rocky Mountains territories tend to be larger, typically from 520
to 1040 sq km (200 to 400 sq mi). Normally, only the top-ranking male
and female in each pack breed and produce pups. Litters are born from
early April into May; they can range from 1 to 11 pups, but generally
contain 4 to 6 pups (Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MI DNR)
1997, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992a). Yearling wolves frequently
disperse from their natal packs, although some remain with their pack.
Dispersers may become nomadic and cover large areas as lone animals, or
they may locate suitable unoccupied habitat and a member of the
opposite sex and begin their own territorial pack. Dispersal movements
of over 800 km (500 mi) have been documented (Fritts 1983).
The gray wolf historically occurred across most of North America,
Europe, and Asia. In North America, gray wolves formerly occurred from
the northern reaches of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland to the central
mountains and the high interior plateau of southern Mexico. The only
areas of the contiguous United States that apparently lacked gray
wolves since the last glacial events are much of California and the
Gulf and Atlantic coastal plain south of Virginia. In addition, wolves
were generally absent from the extremely arid deserts and the
mountaintops of the western United States (Goldman 1944, Hall 1959,
Mech 1974).
The influx of European settlers and their cultures into North
America brought superstitions and fears of wolves. Their attitudes,
coupled with perceived and real conflicts between wolves and human
activities along the frontier, led to widespread persecution of wolves.
Poisons, trapping, and shooting--spurred by Federal, State, and local
government bounties-- resulted in extirpation of this once widespread
species from more than 95 percent of its range in the 48 conterminous
States. At the time of the passage of the Act, likely only several
hundred wolves occurred in northeastern Minnesota and on Isle Royale,
Michigan, and possibly a few scattered wolves in the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan, Montana, and the American Southwest.
Researchers have learned a great deal about gray wolf biology,
especially regarding the species' adaptability and its use of non-
wilderness habitats. Public appreciation of the role of predators in
our ecosystems has increased, and the recovery of the species is now
generally supported by the public. Most importantly, within the last
decade the prospects for gray wolf recovery in several areas of their
former historical United States range have greatly increased. In the
western Great Lakes area, wolves have dramatically increased their
numbers and occupied range. In addition, gray wolf reintroduction
programs in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains have shown great success.
The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is one of two North American wolf
species currently protected by the Act. The other is the red wolf (C.
rufus), a separate species that is listed as endangered throughout its
range in the southeastern United States and extending west into central
Texas. The red wolf is the subject of a separate recovery program. This
proposal does not pertain to the current or future listing status or
protection of the red wolf.
Summary of Related Issues Considered
Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in the Eastern United States
Both the 1978 and 1992 versions of the Recovery Plan for the
Eastern Timber Wolf were developed to recover the gray wolf subspecies
Canis lupus lycaon, commonly known as the eastern timber wolf, that was
believed to be the gray wolf subspecies historically occurring
throughout the northeastern quarter of the United States east of the
Great Plains (Goldman 1944, Hall and Kelson 1959, Mech 1974). Since the
publication of those recovery plans, various studies have been
conducted on the subspecific taxonomy of the gray wolf with conflicting
results (Nowak 1995, Wayne et al. 1995).
We recognize that gray wolf taxonomy at the subspecies level is
subject to conflicting opinions and continuing modification. For this
reason, we will not base our gray wolf recovery efforts on any
particular portrayal of gray wolf
[[Page 43452]]
subspeciation. Instead, we have identified geographic areas where wolf
recovery is occurring or is feasible, and we will focus recovery
efforts on those geographic entities, regardless of the subspecific
affiliation of current or historical gray wolves in those areas. We
recognize the benefits to the species of focusing recovery efforts
across a large expanse of the species' range in order to recover and
retain as much of the remaining genetic variation as is feasible. This
approach will promote the recovery of the gray wolf throughout
representative areas of their historical range in the conterminous 48
States.
Distinct Population Segments Under Our Vertebrate Population Policy
The Act's definition of the term ``species'' includes ``any
distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' On February 7, 1996, we, in
conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service, adopted a
policy governing the recognition of distinct population segments (DPSs)
for purposes of listing, reclassifying, and delisting vertebrate
species under the Act (61 FR 4722). This policy, sometimes referred to
as the ``Vertebrate Population Policy'' guides the Services in
recognizing DPSs that satisfy the definition of species under the Act.
To be recognized as a DPS, a group of vertebrate animals must satisfy
tests of discreteness and significance, as well as qualify for the
status (that is, threatened or endangered) assigned to it.
To be considered discrete, a group of vertebrate animals must be
delimited by physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral
barriers or by an international governmental boundary that coincides
with differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms. A population does not
have to be completely isolated from other populations of the parent
taxon in order to be considered discrete.
The significance of a potential DPS is assessed in light of its
importance to the taxon to which it belongs. Evidence of significance
includes, but is not limited to, the use of an unusual or unique
ecological setting; a marked difference in genetic characteristics; or
the occupancy of an area that, if devoid of the species, would result
in a significant gap in the range of the taxon.
If a group of vertebrate animals is determined to be both discrete
and significant, its status can then be judged as would that of any
species; that is, if it satisfies the Act's definition of
``endangered'' or ``threatened'', it can be accorded the appropriate
protective legal status under the Act as a DPS. Although the policy
does not allow State or other intra-national governmental boundaries to
be used in determining the discreteness of a potential DPS, a State
boundary may be used as a boundary of convenience when it incidentally
separates two DPSs that are judged to be discrete on other grounds.
Refer to Designation of Distinct Population Segments, below, for
further discussion and analysis of how our Vertebrate Population Policy
applies in this proposed rule.
Currently Designated Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray
Wolves
Section 10(j) of the Act gives the Secretary of the Interior the
authority to designate populations of listed species that are
reintroduced outside their current range, but within their probable
historical range, as ``experimental populations'' for the purposes of
promoting the recovery of those species by establishing additional wild
populations. Such a designation increases our flexibility in managing
reintroduced populations, because experimental populations are treated
as threatened species under the Act. Threatened status, in comparison
to endangered status, allows somewhat more liberal issuance of take
permits for conservation and educational purposes, imposes fewer permit
requirements on recovery activities by cooperating States, and allows
the promulgation of special regulations to further promote the
conservation of the species.
Furthermore, the Secretary is authorized to designate experimental
populations as ``nonessential'' if they are determined to be not
essential to the continued existence of the species. For the purposes
of section 7(a)(2) of the Act (Interagency Cooperation), nonessential
experimental populations, except where they occur within areas of the
National Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park System, are
treated as species proposed to be listed as threatened or endangered
species, rather than as listed species. Proposed species lack the
protection of the Act, although we encourage the inclusion of
protective measures when Federal agencies conference with us pursuant
to section 7(a)(4) of the Act or consult with us pursuant to section
7(a)(2), or private individuals apply for a 10(a)(1)(B) permit.
The Secretary has designated three nonessential experimental
population areas for the gray wolf, and wolves have subsequently been
reintroduced into these areas, establishing three nonessential
experimental populations. These nonessential experimental population
areas are the Yellowstone Experimental Population Area, the Central
Idaho Experimental Population Area, and the Mexican Wolf Experimental
Population Area.
The Yellowstone Experimental Population Area consists of that
portion of Idaho east of Interstate Highway 15; that portion of Montana
that is east of Interstate Highway 15 and south of the Missouri River
from Great Falls, Montana, to the eastern Montana border; and all of
Wyoming (59 FR 60252; November 22, 1994).
The Central Idaho Experimental Population Area consists of that
portion of Idaho that is south of Interstate Highway 90 and west of
Interstate 15; and that portion of Montana south of Interstate 90, west
of Interstate 15, and south of Highway 12 west of Missoula (59 FR
60266; November 22, 1994).
The special regulations for these two experimental populations
allow flexible management of wolves, including authorization for
private citizens to take wolves in the act of attacking livestock on
private land. These rules also provide a permit process that similarly
allows the taking, under certain circumstances, of wolves in the act of
attacking livestock grazing on public land. In addition, they allow
opportunistic noninjurious harassment of wolves by livestock raisers on
private and public grazing lands, and designated government employees
may perform lethal and non-lethal control efforts to remove problem
wolves under specified circumstances.
A December 12, 1997, ruling by the United States District Court for
Wyoming declared these nonessential experimental population rules to be
in violation of the Act because they reduce the protection for any
naturally occurring (that is, non-reintroduced) wolves that may
disperse into those areas from northwestern Montana or Canada. The
District Court declared the nonessential experimental designation to be
unlawful and ordered that the reintroduced wolves be removed. However,
the Court stayed the order pending an appeal. The United States
appealed the District Court's ruling, and on January 13, 2000, the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the wolf reintroduction rule.
Consequently, wolves in central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone area
are protected and managed as nonessential experimental populations.
On January 12, 1998, we established a similar third nonessential
experimental population area to reintroduce the Mexican gray wolf into
[[Page 43453]]
its historical habitat in the southwestern States. The Mexican Gray
Wolf Nonessential Experimental Population Area consists of that portion
of Arizona lying south of Interstate Highway 40 and north of Interstate
Highway 10; that portion of New Mexico lying south of Interstate
Highway 40 and north of Interstate Highway 10 in the west and north of
the Texas-New Mexico border in the east; and that part of Texas lying
north of U.S. Highway 62/180 (63 FR 1752).
This proposed rule will not affect any of the existing three
nonessential experimental populations for gray wolves in Wyoming and
portions of Idaho, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, nor will it
affect the existing special regulations that apply to those three
nonessential experimental populations.
Distinct Population Segments and Experimental Populations
The Act does not provide a definition for the term ``population.''
However, the Act uses the term ``population'' in two different
concepts-- distinct population segments and experimental populations.
These two concepts were added to the original Act at different times
and are used in different contexts. The term ``distinct population
segment'' is part of the statutory definition of a ``species'' and is
significant for listing, delisting, and reclassification purposes,
under section 4 of the Act. Our Vertebrate Population Policy (61 FR
4722; February 7, 1996) defines a DPS as one or more groups of members
of a species or subspecies within a portion of that species' or
subspecies' geographic distribution that meets established criteria
regarding discreteness, significance, and conservation status. Congress
included the DPS concept in the Act, recognizing that a listing,
reclassification, or delisting action may, in some circumstances, be
more appropriately applied over something less than the entire area in
which a species or subspecies is found in order to protect and recover
organisms in a more timely and cost-effective manner.
In contrast, Congress added the experimental population concept to
give the Secretary another tool to aid in the conservation of species,
subspecies, or DPSs that have already been listed under the Act. The
Act authorizes the Secretary to establish an experimental population if
he determines that a release under such a designation will further the
conservation of a listed species. Under the Act's definition of
``species,'' an experimental population can be introduced to aid in the
recovery of whatever biological unit is the subject of the listing,
that is, a species, subspecies, or DPS. The term ``population'' as used
in the experimental population program is necessarily a flexible
concept, depending upon the organism involved and its biological
requirements for successfully breeding, reproducing, and establishing
itself in the reintroduction area.
For purposes of gray wolf reintroduction by means of experimental
populations in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park, we needed
to examine the biological characteristics of the species to determine
if the reintroduced wolves would be geographically separate from other
gray wolf populations. We defined a wolf population to be two breeding
pairs, each successfully raising two or more young for two consecutive
years in a recovery area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994a). This
wolf population definition was used to evaluate all wolves in the
northern U.S. Rocky Mountains to determine if, and where, gray wolf
populations might exist. Gray wolves in northwestern Montana qualified
as a wolf population under this definition; that existing wolf
population was further examined to determine if it was geographically
separated from the potential experimental population areas. We
determined that the northwestern Montana wolf population was
geographically separate, so we designated the two experimental
population areas and began gray wolf reintroductions to establish the
two experimental populations.
Refer to Designation of Distinct Population Segments, below, for
further discussion and analysis of how our Vertebrate Population Policy
has been applied in this proposed rule.
Gray Wolf-Dog Hybrids
The many gray wolf-dog hybrids in North America have no value to
gray wolf recovery programs, and are not provided the protections of
the Act. Wolf-dog hybrids, when they escape from captivity or are
intentionally released into the wild, can interfere with gray wolf
recovery programs in several ways. They are familiar with humans, so
they commonly are attracted to the vicinity of farms and residences,
leading to unwarranted fears that they are wild wolves hunting in
pastures and yards. They generally have poor hunting skills; thus, they
may resort to preying on domestic animals, while the blame for their
depredations is commonly and mistakenly placed on wild wolves. These
behaviors are reported in the media and can erode public support for
wolf recovery efforts. In addition, feral wolf-dog hybrids may mate
with dispersing wild wolves, resulting in the introduction of dog genes
into wild wolf populations. For these reasons, this proposed regulation
would not extend the protections of the Act to gray wolf-dog hybrids,
regardless of the geographic location of the capture of their pure wolf
ancestors.
In other threatened or endangered species recovery programs,
hybrids and hybridization could perhaps play an important role. Our
decision to not extend the protections of the Act to gray wolf-dog
hybrids should not be taken as an indication of our position on the
potential importance of hybrids and hybridization to recovery programs
for other species. Determining the importance and treatment under the
Act of hybrids requires a species-by-species evaluation.
Previous Federal Action
The eastern timber wolf (Canus 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 17740) with its known range given as ``Mexico, USA
(Arizona, New Mexico, Texas).'' On June 14, 1976, (41 FR 24064) 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.''
To eliminate problems with listing separate subspecies of the gray
wolf and identifying relatively narrow geographic areas in which those
subspecies are protected, on March 9, 1978, we published a rulemaking
(43 FR 9607) relisting the gray wolf at the species level (Canus lupus)
as endangered throughout the conterminous 48 States and Mexico, except
for Minnesota, where the gray wolf was reclassified to threatened
(refer to Map 1 located at the end of the Alternative Selected for
Proposal section). In addition, critical habitat was designated in that
rulemaking. In 50 CFR 17.95(a), we designated 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. We also
promulgated special regulations under section 4(d) of the Act for
operating a wolf management program in Minnesota at that time. The
depredation control
[[Page 43454]]
portion of the special regulation was later modified (50 FR 50793;
December 12, 1985).
On November 22, 1994, we designated areas in Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming as nonessential experimental populations in order to initiate
gray wolf reintroduction projects in central Idaho and the Greater
Yellowstone Area (59 FR 60252, 59 FR 60266). On January 12, 1998, a
nonessential experimental population was established for the Mexican
gray wolf in portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas (63 FR 1752).
These experimental population designations also contain special
regulations that govern take of wolves within these geographic areas
(codified at 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (k)). (Refer to Currently Designated
Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray Wolves, above, for more
details.) We have received several petitions during the past decade
requesting consideration to delist the gray wolf in all or part of the
48 conterminous States. We subsequently published findings that these
petitions did not present substantial information that delisting gray
wolves in all or part of the conterminous 48 States may be warranted
(54 FR 16380, April 24, 1989; 55 CFR 48656, November 30, 1990; 63 FR
55839, October 19, 1998).
Gray Wolf Recovery Plans
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for listed species. In some cases, we appoint recovery
teams of experts to assist in the writing of recovery plans and
oversight of subsequent recovery efforts.
We initiated recovery programs for the originally listed subspecies
of gray wolves by appointing recovery teams and developing and
implementing recovery plans. Recovery plans describe criteria that are
used to assess a species' progress toward recovery, contain specific
prioritized actions believed necessary to achieve the recovery criteria
and objectives, and identify the most appropriate parties to implement
the recovery actions.
Recovery plans may contain two separate sets of criteria that are
intended to trigger our consideration of the need to either reclassify
(from endangered to threatened) or to delist a species due to
improvements in its status. Criteria are based upon factors that can be
measured or otherwise evaluated to document improvements in a species'
biological status. Examples of the type of criteria typically used are
numbers of individuals, numbers and distribution of subgroups or
populations of the species, rates of productivity of individuals and/or
populations, protection of habitat, and reduction or elimination of
threats to the species and its habitat.
The first gray wolf recovery plan was written for the eastern
timber wolf, and it was approved on May 2, 1978 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1978). This recovery plan was later revised and was approved on
January 31, 1992 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992a). The 1978
Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (Eastern Plan) and its
revision were intended to recover the eastern timber wolf, Canus lupus
lycaon, believed at that time to be the only gray wolf subspecies that
historically inhabited the United States east of the Great Plains.
Thus, the Eastern Plan covers a geographic triangle extending from
Minnesota to Maine and into northeastern Florida. The recovery plan for
the eastern timber wolf is based on the best available information on
taxonomy at the time of publication. Since the publication of those
recovery plans, various studies have produced conflicting results (See
Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in the Eastern United States).
The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan (Rocky Mountain
Plan) was approved in 1980 and revised in 1987 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1980, 1987). The Rocky Mountain Plan states in its introduction
that it should be understood to refer to ``gray wolves in the northern
Rocky Mountains of the contiguous 48 States, rather than to a specific
subspecies.'' The Rocky Mountain Plan covers Idaho, most of Montana and
Wyoming, and approximately the eastern one-third of the States of
Washington and Oregon.
The Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan was approved in 1982 (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1982). Based on a review of Southwestern (Mexican)
subspecies of the gray wolf by Bogan and Mehlhop (1983), the plan
combines the historical ranges of Canus lupus baileyi, C. l.
monstrabilis, and the presumed extinct C. l. mogollonensis (which
historically occurred in parts of New Mexico and Arizona) to define the
portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico where recovery of
the Mexican wolf would be appropriate.
Recovery Progress of the Eastern Gray Wolf
The 1992 revised Eastern Plan has two delisting criteria. The first
criterion requires that the survival of the wolf in Minnesota must be
assured. We believe that this first delisting criterion identifies a
need for reasonable assurances that future State and Tribal wolf
management practices and protection will maintain a viable recovered
population of gray wolves within the borders of Minnesota for the
foreseeable future. While there is no specific numerical recovery
criterion for the Minnesota wolf population, the Eastern Plan
identified State subgoals for use by land managers and planners. The
Eastern Plan's subgoal for Minnesota is 1251 to 1400 wolves.
The second delisting criterion in the Eastern Plan requires that at
least one viable wolf population be reestablished within the historical
range of the eastern timber wolf outside of Minnesota and Isle Royale.
The Eastern Plan provides two options for reestablishing this second
viable wolf population. If it is located more than 100 miles from the
Minnesota wolf population, it would be considered ``isolated,'' and the
frequency of movement of individuals and genetic material from one
population to the other would likely be very low. Such an isolated
population, in order to be self-sustaining, would have to consist of at
least 200 wolves for at least 5 years (based upon late winter counts)
to be considered viable. Alternatively, if the second population is
located within 100 miles of a self-sustaining wolf population (for
example, the Minnesota wolf population), a reestablished population
having a minimum of 100 wolves for at least 5 years would be considered
viable. Such a smaller population would be considered to be viable,
because its proximity would allow frequent immigration of Minnesota
wolves to supplement it numerically and genetically.
The Eastern 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-Maine-Florida land area covered by the Eastern plan, except
on Isle Royale and within Minnesota.
The 1992 Eastern Plan recommends reclassifying in Wisconsin and
Michigan separately, recognizing that progress towards recovery may
occur at differing rates. The Plan specifies that wolves in Wisconsin
could be reclassified to threatened if the population within the State
remained at or above 80 (late winter counts) for 3 consecutive years.
The Plan does not contain a reclassification criterion for Michigan
wolves. Instead, it states that if Wisconsin wolves reached their
reclassification criterion, consideration should also be given to
reclassifying Michigan wolves. However, with the subsequent increase in
Michigan wolf numbers, it has frequently, but
[[Page 43455]]
unofficially, been assumed that the ``80 wolves for 3 years'' criterion
would be applied to Michigan. In other words, each State could be
considered for reclassification if either the Wisconsin or Michigan
wolf population reached 80 individuals or more for 3 successive years.
The Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team used these criteria in its recent
recommendation that the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes States be
reclassified to threatened as soon as possible (Rolf Peterson, Eastern
Timber Wolf Recovery Team, in litt. 1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b).
The Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team recently clarified the
delisting criterion, which treats wolves in Wisconsin-Michigan as a
single population. The Recovery Team clarified that the numerical
delisting criterion for the Wisconsin-Michigan population will be
achieved when 6 successive late winter wolf surveys document that the
population equaled or exceeded 100 wolves for 5 consecutive years (Rolf
Peterson, in litt. 1998). Because the Wisconsin-Michigan wolf
population was first known to have exceeded 100 wolves in the late
winter 1993-94 survey, the numerical delisting criterion was satisfied
in early 1999, based upon late winter 1998-99 data (Wydeven et al.
1999).
The Eastern Plan has no goals or criteria for the gray wolf
population on the 546-sq km (210-sq mi) Isle Royale, Michigan. This
small and isolated wolf population is not expected to make a
significant contribution to gray wolf recovery, although long-term
research on this wolf population has added a great deal to our
knowledge of the species.
Over the last 2 years, the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team has
consistently recommended that we designate a DPS in the western Great
Lakes area and proceed with reclassification of wolves in that DPS to
threatened as soon as possible. The Eastern Team recommended that the
DPS include a wide buffer around the existing populations of wolves in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Buffers generally are described as
lands that may not be regularly occupied by wolves but which may be
temporarily used by dispersing wolves. Thus, they suggested the DPS
also include the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois,
Indiana, and Ohio (Peterson in litt. 1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b).
Minnesota
During the pre-1965 period of wolf bounties and legal public
trapping, wolves persisted in the more remote northeastern areas of
Minnesota. Estimates of population levels of Minnesota wolves prior to
listing under the Act in 1974 include 450 to 700 in 1950-53 (Fuller et
al. 1992, Stenlund 1955), 350 to 700 in 1963 (Cahalane 1964), 750 in
1970 (Leirfallom 1970), 736 to 950 in 1971-72 (Fuller et al. 1992), and
500 to 1,000 in 1973 (Mech and Rausch 1975). While these estimates were
based upon varying methodologies and are not directly comparable, they
all agree in estimating the wolf population in Minnesota, the only
significant population in the Lower 48 States during those time-
periods, at 1,000 or fewer animals preceding their listing under the
Act.
Various population estimates in Minnesota have indicated a steady
increase in numbers after the eastern timber wolf was listed as
endangered under the Act. A population of 1,000 to 1,200 was estimated
by L. David Mech for 1976 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1978), and
1,235 wolves in 138 packs were estimated for the winter of 1978-79
(Berg and Kuehn 1982).
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 (Fuller et al. 1992).
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. That survey concluded that
approximately 2,445 wolves existed in about 385 packs in Minnesota
during that winter period. This figure indicates the continued growth
of the Minnesota wolf population at 4 to 5 percent annually. The
Minnesota wolf population has shown this annual rate of increase since
1970 (Berg and Benson, in press, Fuller et al. 1992).
Simultaneous with the increase in wolf numbers in Minnesota has
been a parallel expansion of the area in which wolves are routinely
found. During 1948-53 the major wolf range was estimated to be about
31,080 sq km (11,954 sq mi) (Stenlund 1955). A 1970 questionnaire
survey resulted in an estimated wolf range of 38,400 sq km (14,769 sq
mi) (calculated by Fuller et al. 1992 from Leirfallom 1970). Fuller et
al. (1992), using data from Berg and Kuehn (1982), estimated that
Minnesota primary wolf range included 36,500 sq km (14,038 sq mi)
during winter 1978-79. By 1982-83, pairs or breeding packs of wolves
were estimated to occupy an area of 57,050 sq km (22,000 sq mi) in
northern Minnesota (Mech et al. 1988). That study also identified an
additional 40,500 sq km (15,577 sq mi) of peripheral range, where
habitat appeared suitable but no wolves or only lone wolves existed.
The 1988-89 study produced an estimate of 60,200 sq km (23,165 sq mi)
as the contiguous wolf range at that time in Minnesota (Fuller et al.
1992), 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 88,325 sq km (33,971 sq mi), a 47 percent increase in 9
years (Berg and Benson, in press). The wolf population in Minnesota has
recovered to the point that its contiguous range covered approximately
40 percent of the State during 1997-98.
Wisconsin
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. However, no evidence
exists of any wolf reproduction occurring in Wisconsin, and the wolves
that were reported may have been dispersing animals from Minnesota.
Wolf population monitoring by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WI DNR) began in 1979 and estimated a statewide population
of 25 wolves at that time. 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 continues today. WI DNR intensively monitors its wolf population,
using a combination of aerial and ground radiotelemetry, snow tracking,
and wolf sign surveys (Wydeven et al. 1995, 1999). During the winter of
1998-99, 20 wolf packs had members carrying active radio transmitters
much of the season. Minimum wolf population estimates (late-winter
counts) for 1994 through 1999 are 57, 83, 99, 148, 178, and 197
animals, comprising 14, 18, 28, 32, 47, and 54 packs respectively (WI
DNR 1999a; Wydeven et al. 1999). Wolves in Wisconsin have surpassed the
reclassification criteria identified in the Eastern Plan.
In 1995 wolves were documented in Jackson County, Wisconsin, an
area well to the south of the northern Wisconsin area occupied by other
Wisconsin wolf packs. During the winter of 1998-99, there were believed
to be 24-27 wolves
[[Page 43456]]
in 8 packs in the Jackson County area (Wydeven et al. 1999).
Based on wolf monitoring activities during the winter of 1997-98, a
minimum of 10 wolves were believed on Tribal reservations in Wisconsin.
Nine to 11 wolves, not including pups that may have been born in 1998,
comprised 3 packs on the Bad River Reservation. By the fall of 1998,
one pack no longer occupied the reservation, and the wolf population
declined to five animals. One, and possibly as many as three, wolves
occur on the Lac du Flambeau Reservation. Wolves will likely reoccupy
areas of the Lac Courte Oreilles and Menominee Reservations in the next
few years (Adrian Wydeven, WI DNR, in litt. 1998).
Michigan
Michigan wolves were extirpated as a reproducing population 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. As wolves began to occupy
northern Wisconsin, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MI
DNR) began noting single wolves at various locations in the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan. In the late 1980s, a wolf pair was verified in
the central Upper Peninsula and produced pups in 1991. Since that time,
wolf packs have spread throughout the Upper Peninsula, with immigration
occurring from both Wisconsin on the west and Ontario on the east. They
now are found in every county of the Upper Peninsula. The MI DNR
annually monitors the wolf population and estimates that 57, 80, 116,
112, 140, and 174 wolves occurred in the Upper Peninsula based on late
winter counts from 1994 through 1999, respectively (MI DNR 1997,
1999a). The Upper Peninsula Michigan wolf population has exceeded the
unofficial criteria for reclassification from endangered to threatened
status.
During the winter of 1997-98 one wolf pack composed of four animals
lived on lands of the Keewenaw Bay Indian Community. No other wolves
are known to be primarily using Tribal lands in Michigan (James
Hammill, MI DNR, in litt. 1998).
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 wolves in the western Great Lakes States. This population
is small, varying from 12 to 25 animals over the last 15 years, and is
almost completely isolated from other wolf populations (Peterson et al.
1998, pers. comm. 1999). For these reasons, the Eastern Plan does not
include these wolves in its recovery criteria and recommends only the
continuation of research and complete protection for these wolves (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1992a).
Northeastern United States
Wolves were extirpated from the northeastern United States by 1900.
Few credible observations of wolves were reported in the Northeast
during most of this century. However, in 1993 a single female wolf was
killed in western Maine, and in 1996 a second wolf or wolf-like canid
was trapped and killed in central Maine. These records and a growing
number of observations (and signs) of large, unidentified canids in
Maine during recent years led to speculation that wolves may be
dispersing into the northeastern United States from nearby occupied
habitat in Canada. No actual specimens have been collected to document
their presence. Many of the characteristics of the unidentified canids
are consistent with an animal intermediate between the eastern coyote
and the gray wolf and they may be hybrids of these two species. Private
conservation organizations, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries
and Wildlife, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation,
and the Service are continuing to seek evidence of the presence of wild
wolves in northern New York and New England.
A recent Geographic Information System analysis evaluated the
potential for wolf dispersal from southern Quebec and Ontario into the
northeastern United States. The study also estimated the amount of
suitable wolf habitat present in northern New York and other New
England States, and evaluated the likelihood of natural wolf
colonization from existing occupied wolf range in Canada. That study
found that sufficient suitable wolf habitat is available in the
Adirondack Park region of New York and in Maine and northern New
Hampshire. However, the New York habitat is relatively isolated, and
the authors concluded that natural recolonization is unlikely to occur
there. Furthermore, while there are relatively narrow potential
dispersal corridors connecting wolf habitat in Maine and New Hampshire
with existing wolf populations north of Quebec City, there are
significant barriers to dispersal, including the St. Lawrence River,
adjacent highways, and dense human developments that may preclude the
movement of a sufficient number of wolves from Canada into Maine
(Harrison and Chapin 1997).
Recovery Progress of the Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf
In 1974, an interagency wolf recovery team was formed and completed
the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan in 1980 (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1980). The Rocky Mountain Plan focuses wolf recovery
efforts on the large contiguous blocks of public land from western
Wyoming through Montana to the Canadian border.
The Rocky Mountain Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1987) identifies a criterion of 10 breeding pairs of wolves for 3
consecutive years in each of the 3 recovery areas--(1) northwestern
Montana (Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and
Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public lands), (2)
central Idaho (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of No
Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and adjacent, mostly Federal,
lands), and (3) the Yellowstone National Park area (including the
Absaroka-Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness
Areas; and adjacent public lands). The Plan states that if one of these
recovery areas maintains a population of 10 breeding pairs for 3
successive years, wolves in that recovery area can be reclassified to
threatened status. If 2 recovery areas maintain 10 breeding pairs
(totaling about 200 adult wolves) for 3 successive years, gray wolves
across the coverage area of the Rocky Mountain Plan can be reclassified
to threatened status. It also states that if all 3 recovery areas
maintain 10 breeding pairs for 3 successive years, the Northern Rocky
Mountain wolf population can be considered as fully recovered and can
be delisted. The wolf population would be about 300 adult wolves upon
attainment of full recovery. The Plan also recommends that wolves be
reintroduced into the Yellowstone National Park area as an experimental
population. Additionally, if natural recovery has not resulted in at
least two packs becoming established in central Idaho within 5 years,
the Rocky Mountain Plan states that other measures, including
reintroduction, would be considered to recover wolves in that area. The
goals identified in the Rocky Mountain Plan are intended to ensure a
well distributed and viable population in the Rocky Mountains, goals
that could be met in a variety of ways while still adhering to the
``biological intent'' of the recovery plan.
Gray wolf populations were eliminated from Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming, as well as adjacent
[[Page 43457]]
southwestern Canada by the 1930s (Young 1944). After human-caused
mortality of wolves in southwestern Canada was regulated in the 1960s,
populations expanded southward (Carbyn 1983). Dispersing individuals
occasionally reached the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States
(Ream and Mattson 1982, Nowak 1983), but lacked legal protection until
1974 when they were listed as endangered.
In 1982 a wolf pack from Canada began to occupy Glacier National
Park along the Montana-Canadian border. In 1986 the first litter of
pups documented in over 50 years was born in the Park. In recognition
of the ongoing natural recovery of wolves arising from these Canadian
dispersers, the Rocky Mountain Plan was revised in 1987 (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1987). The revised Rocky Mountain Plan recommends that
recovery be focused in areas with large blocks of public land, abundant
native ungulates, and minimal livestock. Three recovery areas were
identified--northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the Greater
Yellowstone Area. Promotion of natural recovery was advocated for
Montana and Idaho (unless no breeding pairs formed in Idaho within 5
years), but recovery in the Yellowstone area was believed to require a
reintroduction program.
By 1989, we formed an interagency wolf working group, composed of
Federal, State, and Tribal agency personnel. The group conducted four
basic recovery tasks, in addition to the standard enforcement functions
associated with any take of listed species. These tasks were--(1)
monitor wolf distribution and numbers, (2) control wolves that attacked
livestock by either moving or killing them, (3) research wolves'
relationships to ungulate prey, livestock, and people, and (4) provide
accurate information to the public through reports and mass media so
that people could develop their opinions about wolves and wolf
management from an informed perspective.
In 1995 and 1996, we reintroduced wolves from southwestern Canada
to remote public lands in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park
(Bangs and Fritts 1996, Fritts et al. 1997). We designated these wolves
as nonessential experimental populations to increase management
flexibility and address local and State concerns (59 FR 60252 and
60266; November 22, 1994). Wolves in northwestern Montana remain listed
as endangered, the most protective category under the Act; they are not
included within the nonessential experimental population areas. (Refer
to Currently Designated Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray
Wolves, above, for additional details.)
The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park and
central Idaho in 1995 and 1996 greatly expanded the numbers and
distribution of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains of the United
States. Because of the reintroduction, wolves soon became established
throughout central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area. In 1995, an
estimated 8 packs of about 105 individual wolves produced pups in the
northern Rocky Mountains. By 1996, 161 wolves with 15 packs were
producing pups. In 1997, 233 wolves with 23 packs were producing pups.
In 1998, the wolf population exceeded 300 wolves, with 23 packs
producing pups. In 1999, the third successive year that over 20 wolf
packs successfully produced pups in the Northern U.S. Rocky Mountains,
approximately 400 wolves in about 30 packs occurred in Montana, Idaho,
and Wyoming. This achieves the reclassification goal within the Rocky
Mountain Plan, which was to have a minimum of 10 breeding packs in at
least 2 recovery areas (about 200 adult wolves) for 3 years. While the
rate of wolf population expansion may slow, we have every reason to
believe wolves will continue to form packs and expand both their
distribution and numbers rapidly.
Achieving the Rocky Mountain Plan's delisting goal of 10 breeding
packs in each of the 3 recovery areas (about 300 adult wolves) for a
minimum of 3 successive years is expected to be achieved by 2002 or
2003. At that point, gray wolves within the geographic area covered by
the Rocky Mountain Plan would be proposed to be delisted.
Northwestern Montana
Reproduction first occurred in northwestern Montana in 1986. The
natural ability of wolves to find and quickly recolonize empty habitat
and the interagency recovery program combined to effectively promote an
increase in wolf numbers. By 1993 the number of wolves had grown
approximately 22 percent annually to about 88 wolves in 7 packs (Fritts
et al. 1995). However, since 1993 the number of breeding groups and
number of wolves has stabilized, varying from 6 to 8 packs and from 65
to 90 wolves. The reasons for this are unknown, but are being
investigated. The decline in documented wolf numbers may be due to two
factors, the first of which produced only the appearance of a decline,
while the second represents a real decline (1) monitoring was less
intensive during the last several years, so some packs may have gone
undetected during those years; and (2) a dramatic reduction of white-
tailed deer numbers throughout northwestern Montana (Caroline Sime,
Montana Dep. Fish, Wildlife and Parks, pers. comm. 1998) due to the
severe winter of 1996-97, which we believe was responsible for the
record high level of livestock depredations and correspondingly high
level of wolf control in northwestern Montana during summer 1997. Our
1998 estimate was a minimum of 65 wolves in 6 reproducing packs. In
1999, 7 packs appear to have produced pups, and the northwestern
Montana population has increased to about 80 wolves.
Wolf conflicts with livestock have increased with the increasing
wolf population and with fluctuations in prey populations. For example,
in 1997, following a severe winter that reduced white-tailed deer
populations, wolf conflicts with livestock increased dramatically. That
year accounted for nearly 50 percent of all the livestock wolf
depredations that were confirmed and lethal wolf control actions that
were taken in northwestern Montana from 1987 to 1999 (Bangs et al.
1998). Wolf numbers should increase as prey numbers rebound; the need
for wolf control measures is expected to subside at the same time.
Central Idaho
In January 1995, 15 young adult wolves captured in Alberta, Canada,
were released in central Idaho (Bangs and Fritts 1996, Fritts et al.
1997). During January 1996, an additional 20 wolves from British
Columbia were released. In 1998 the population consisted of a minimum
of 122 wolves, including 10 packs that produced pups (Bangs et al.
1998), and in 1999 it has grown to about 170 wolves including 12
reproducing packs.
Yellowstone National Park
In January 1995, 14 wolves from Alberta, representing three family
groups, were placed in 3 pens in Yellowstone National Park (Bangs and
Fritts 1996, Fritts et al. 1997, Phillips and Smith 1996). The groups
were released in late March. Two of the three groups produced young in
late April. In January 1996, this procedure was repeated with 17 wolves
from British Columbia, representing 4 family groups, being released in
early April. Two of those groups produced pups in late April.
Furthermore, as the result of a September 1996 wolf control action in
northwestern Montana, 10 5-month-old pups were transported to a pen in
the Park. These pups and 3 adults from the
[[Page 43458]]
Greater Yellowstone Area, which were originally reintroduced from
Canada, were released in spring 1997. By autumn of 1998 the Greater
Yellowstone Area population consisted of 116 wolves, including 7 packs
that produced 10 litters of pups. The 1999 population consists of about
170 wolves comprising 11 reproducing packs.
Dispersal of Western Gray Wolves
By winter 1998-99, significant numbers of pups (9 in 1995, 25 in
1996, and 99 in 1997) born to reintroduced wolves were becoming
sexually mature and were beginning to disperse from their natal packs.
Because dispersing wolves may travel extensively and often settle in
areas without resident packs, we expect that these wolves will initiate
significant expansion in the number and distribution of wolf packs in
the northern Rocky Mountains. Dispersal will increase management costs
and controversy, because many of these wolves will not be radiocollared
and will attempt to colonize areas of private land used for livestock
production. Wolves that disperse southward in central Idaho and the
Greater Yellowstone Area will increasingly encounter the full range of
domestic livestock, including sheep, which are more susceptible to
predation and multiple-mortality incidents than are other domestic
livestock (Bangs et al. 1995, Fritts et al. 1992).
We predicted that these three populations eventually would expand
and begin to overlap, resulting in one meta-population of gray wolves
in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains. In 1994 we believed that the most
likely direction for wolf dispersal and population growth would be from
northwestern Montana southward into the experimental areas. Wolves most
commonly disperse toward other wolves even when separated by great
distances, and we speculated that the presence of reintroduced wolves
in the central Idaho and Yellowstone experimental areas would increase
the likelihood for wolf dispersal into those areas from northwestern
Montana. At that time, we believed that wolves in the northwestern
Montana recovery area would be the first to reach 10 breeding pairs. We
now believe that the severe winter of 1996-97 temporarily depressed the
number of wolves in northwestern Montana and limited the number of
dispersal-aged wolves in that area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1994a, Bangs et al. 1998).
In contrast, the wolves reintroduced into central Idaho and
Yellowstone have increased their numbers greatly, and nearly two-thirds
of those wolves are young, dispersal-aged animals that may move from
those areas over the next 2 years. We believe that wolves that are
offspring of the reintroduced animals will increasingly disperse into
northwestern Montana and elsewhere. In 1997 a reintroduced male wolf
from Idaho dispersed into northwestern Montana and joined a pack there.
To date, this is the only wolf known to leave and settle outside an
experimental area, but we anticipate many other similar occurrences in
the near future.
We also anticipate additional movement of wolves from the northern
U.S. Rockies and Canada into western Washington and Oregon and into the
Cascade Range. For example, one radiocollared wolf from northwestern
Montana was recently found dead from unknown causes in eastern
Washington, and a radiocollared young female wolf from central Idaho
dispersed into eastern Oregon in early 1999. She was recaptured and
returned to the Central Idaho Recovery Area where she would have a
better opportunity to find a mate. Furthermore, there are suitable
habitat and prey conditions in areas to which wolves may be able to
disperse from current populations. Interest in reintroducing gray
wolves into Olympic National Park, Washington, prompted the recent
completion of a congressionally mandated feasibility study of such a
project; additional studies are underway. A similar feasibility study
conducted by us concludes that Colorado contains abundant suitable wolf
habitat (primarily on public lands administered by the USDA Forest
Service) and that a viable wolf population is biologically feasible in
the State. While habitat that could support wolves certainly exists in
these areas, at this time we have no plans to initiate wolf recovery
efforts for any areas in the western United States outside of those
identified in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
Recovery Progress of the Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolf
The objectives of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1982) are to maintain a captive breeding program and
to reestablish a population of at least 100 Mexican wolves within its
historical range. The plan contains no numerical criteria for revising
the endangered status of the Mexican wolf. We consider the current
recovery plan objective for the wild population to be an essential
first step toward the eventual recovery of the Mexican wolf. A revised
recovery plan for the Mexican wolf will contain numerical criteria for
reclassifying to a threatened status and for delisting. Because
recovery of the Mexican wolf is in its very early stages, we are
proposing no changes to the legal status of the Mexican gray wolf at
this time.
Through managed breeding, the captive population of Southwestern
(Mexican) gray wolves had increased to 182 animals prior to the 1999
breeding season. Forty zoos and wildlife sanctuaries throughout the
United States and Mexico cooperate in the maintenance and breeding of
the captive wolves. An 18,000-sq km (7000-sq mi) area (the Blue Range
Wolf Recovery Area) has been designated for the re-establishment of a
wild population of at least 100 wolves. This area includes all of the
Apache and Gila National Forests in eastern Arizona and western New
Mexico.
Re-establishment of a wild population began with the release of 13
captive-reared Mexican gray wolves in eastern Arizona in 1998, and an
additional 21 wolves in 1999. Nineteen Mexican wolves were free-ranging
in the wild as of January, 2000. Additional releases are planned over
the next 2 to 3 years to reach the goal of a wild population of 100
wolves. This reintroduced population of wolves, like those in central
Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area, has been designated
nonessential experimental (63 FR 1752-1772, January 12, 1998) and can
be legally killed by ranchers if the wolves are attacking livestock on
private land. Other provisions of the special regulation designating
the population as nonessential experimental give agency managers
flexibility to address wolf-human conflicts. Defenders of Wildlife, a
private conservation organization, compensates ranchers whose livestock
are killed by these wolves.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Endangered Species 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. 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
threatens the continued existence of the species. 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 (1) of extinction, (2) of recovery,
or (3) the original data for classification of the species were in
error. This analysis must be based upon the same five categories of
threats specified in section 4(a)(1).
[[Page 43459]]
In a subsequent section of this proposal we identify four DPSs that
we believe deserve separate treatment under the Act (refer to
Designation of Distinct Population Segments). These DPSs are the
Western Gray Wolf DPS, the Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPS, the
Northeastern Gray Wolf DPS, and the Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolf
DPS. Therefore, for consistency and clarity in discussing each threat,
the following analysis of the five categories of threats contains
separate discussions for wolves within those geographic areas that we
believe should be designated as DPSs.
For species that are already listed as threatened or endangered,
this analysis of threats is primarily an evaluation of the threats that
could potentially affect the species in the future if the delisting or
downlisting proposal is finalized and the Act's protections are removed
or reduced. Our evaluation of the future threats to the gray wolf in
the Western Great Lakes DPS--especially those threats that would occur
after removal from the protections of the Act--is partially based upon
the wolf management plans and assurances of the States and Tribes in
that area. If the gray wolf were to be federally delisted, State and
tribal management plans will be the major determinants of wolf habitat
and prey availability, will set and enforce limits on human utilization
and other forms of taking, and will determine the overall regulatory
framework for conservation or exploitation of gray wolves.
If the gray wolf is reclassified to threatened status, many aspects
of State and Tribal management plans cannot yet be implemented because
of the over-riding prohibitions of the Act. However, State and Tribal
plans, to the extent that they have been developed, can serve as
significant indicators of public attitudes and agency goals which, in
turn, are evidence of the probability of continued progress toward full
recovery under the Act. Such indicators of attitudes and goals are
especially important in assessing the future of a species that was
officially persecuted by government agencies as recently as 35 years
ago and still is reviled by some members of the public to this day.
Therefore, below we provide some details on the components of the wolf
management plans that currently exist and analyze their impact on the
future of the gray wolf.
After a thorough review of all available information and an
evaluation of the following five factors specified in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act, we have determined that the Act's protections for the gray
wolf should be reduced or eliminated across the conterminous States
except for portions of several southwestern States and Mexico.
Significant gray wolf recovery has occurred, and continues, across a
significant portion of the species' historical range as a result of the
reduction of threats as described below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
General. Gray wolves have become symbols of wilderness in the minds
of many people. Wolves are popularly thought to 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 outside of areas such as the
heavily forested portions of northeastern Minnesota, Alaska, and Canada
reinforced this popular belief. However, wolves survived in those areas
not because those were the only places with the necessary habitat, 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.
Wolf research, as well as the expansion of the wolf range over the
last 2 decades, has shown that wolves can successfully occupy a wide
range of habitats, and 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
caribou. An inadequate prey density and a high level of human
persecution apparently are the only factors which limit wolf
distribution (Mech 1995).
Western Great Lakes Gray Wolves. In the western Great Lakes States,
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 most of the
Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Habitat currently being used by wolves
spans the range from the mixed hardwood-coniferous forest wilderness
area of northern Minnesota; through sparsely settled, but similar
habitats in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and northern Wisconsin; into
more intensively cultivated and livestock-producing portions of central
and northwestern Minnesota and central Wisconsin; and even approaching
the northern fringes of the St. Paul suburbs. (In April 1993 a
radiotracked wolf from Wisconsin spent several weeks near the
Washington County, Minnesota town of Hugo, without generating any
reported sightings. Hugo is less than 20 miles from the center of
downtown St. Paul.) Wolves are also dispersing from Minnesota into the
agricultural landscape of eastern North and South Dakota in increasing
numbers (Licht and Fritts 1994).
Based upon computer modeling, Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan contain large tracts of potential wolf habitat, estimated at
15,052 sq km (5812 sq mi) and 29,348 sq km (11,331 sq mi), respectively
(Mladenoff et al. 1995; WI DNR 1999). In Wisconsin most of this
suitable habitat is on public lands, with most of these public lands
being National, State, and county forest lands.
Wisconsin DNR biologists conducted a population viability analysis
(PVA) for their wolf population using the computer simulation model
VORTEX. The purpose of a PVA is to estimate extinction probabilities by
modeling long-term species' population changes that result from
multiple interacting factors. The resulting extinction probabilities
provide insight into the effects that management alternatives,
environmental fluctuation, and biological factors will likely have on
rare species' populations over many years.
Under most of the scenarios that were modeled by WI DNR the results
of the PVA indicated that a wolf population of 300 to 500 animals would
have a low probability of extinction over a 100-year timeframe.
However, the modeling indicated that the population might decline to a
level that State-relisting might be necessary (fewer than 80 wolves for
3 years). ``State-relisting probabilities'' ranged from 10 to 40
percent for those scenarios which looked at a combination of moderate
environmental variability and a 5 percent probability of catastrophic
events. Extinction probabilities were only one percent for those same
scenarios (WI DNR 1999a).
The Wisconsin wolf population has increased at an average annual
rate of over 30 percent over the last 6 years and was at least 197
wolves in early 1999 (Wydeven et al. 1999). The Michigan wolf
population (excluding Isle Royale) has increased at an average annual
rate of about 34 percent over the last 6 years and was at least 174
wolves in early 1999 (MI DNR 1999a). Wolf survey methods in both States
focus on wolf packs and may miss some lone individuals.
Final and State wolf management plans for Michigan and Wisconsin,
respectively, have identified habitat protection as one of their top
priorities
[[Page 43460]]
for maintaining a viable wolf population. Both of these State wolf
management plans emphasize the need to manage human access to wolf
areas by avoiding increasing road densities, protecting habitat
corridors between larger tracts of wolf habitat, avoiding disturbance
and habitat degradation in the immediate vicinity of den and rendezvous
sites, and maintaining adequate prey species for wolves by suitable
habitat and prey harvest regulations.
Both the final Michigan Plan and the Wisconsin Plan establish wolf
population goals that exceed the viable population threshold identified
in the Federal Recovery plan for isolated wolf populations, that is, a
population of 200 or more wolves for 5 consecutive years (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1992a). Each State adopted this approach to ensure the
continued existence of a viable wolf population within its borders
regardless of the condition or existence of wolf populations in
adjacent States or Canada. The Michigan Plan contains a long-term
minimum goal of 200 wolves (excluding Isle Royale wolves) and
identifies 800 wolves as the estimated carrying capacity of suitable
areas on the Upper Peninsula (MI DNR 1997).
The final Wisconsin wolf plan identifies a management goal of 350
wolves, well above the 200 wolves specified in the Federal Recovery
Plan for a viable isolated wolf population. After the Wisconsin wolf
population is at 250 for 3 consecutive years (excluding wolves on
Indian Reservations) the species will be removed from the State's
threatened and endangered species list (WI DNR 1999a).
Three comparable surveys of wolf numbers and range in Minnesota
have been carried out in recent decades. The first survey estimated a
State wolf population of 1235 in 1979 (Berg and Kuehn 1982). In 1989,
1500 to 1750 wolves were estimated in the State (Fuller et al. 1992).
This represents an average annual increase of about three percent. The
1998 survey (Berg and Benson, in press) estimated that the State's wolf
population was 2445 animals, indicating an average annual growth rate
of 4 to 5 percent during the intervening 9 years. While estimates of
the wolf population that are made at about 10-year intervals do not
provide any insight into annual fluctuations in wolf numbers that might
be due to winter conditions, prey availability and vulnerability, legal
depredation control, and illegal killing, these three population
estimates clearly indicate that the Minnesota wolf population has
continued to increase. (Refer to Recovery Progress of Gray Wolves in
the Eastern United States, above, for additional details on the
increase in numbers and range of Minnesota wolves.)
The Minnesota DNR prepared its Wolf Management Plan (MN Plan)(MN
DNR 1999) and an accompanying legislative bill in early 1999 and
submitted them to the Minnesota Legislature. The Legislature must
approve the plan and bill to provide implementation of the regulatory
authority. However, the Legislature failed to approve the MN Plan in
the 1999 session. In early 2000 the MN DNR released a second bill that
would result in somewhat different wolf management and protection than
would the 1999 bill. As of mid-February the Minnesota Legislature had
not yet considered the 2000 Minnesota wolf management bill.
The complete text of the Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf
management plans and bills can be found on our Web site. Our summaries
of those plans are also available there. See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,
above, for the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of our World Wide Web
site.
We expect wolf populations to continue to be conserved on most, and
probably all, Indian Reservations in the western Great Lakes area, and
those practices will augment wolf population goals listed above for the
State DNRs. While we are unable to perform a comprehensive analysis of
the likely future management and protection afforded to wolves on
Native American reservations, we believe their traditional respect for
the wolf, and its importance in Native American culture, will secure
the species' future existence on most land under Native American
control.
The wolf retains great cultural significance and traditional value
to many Tribes and their members (Eli Hunt, Leech Lake Tribal Council,
in litt. 1998, Mike Schrage, Fond du Lac Resource Management Division,
in litt. 1998a). Some Native Americans view wolves as competitors for
deer and moose, while others are interested in the harvest of the wolf
as a furbearer (Schrage, in litt. 1998a). Many Tribes intend to manage
their natural resources, wolves among them, in a sustainable manner in
order that they be available to their descendants. However, traditional
natural resource harvest practices often include only a minimum amount
of regulation by the Tribal government (Hunt in litt. 1998).
In the creation story of the Ojibwa, Ma''ingan, the wolf, is a
brother to the Original Man. The two traveled together throughout the
world naming everything they encountered. Afterward, the Creator had
them take separate paths, but told them that they would share the same
fates, and that both would be feared, respected, and misunderstood by
others who arrived later. Thus, the Ojibwa people link their survival
to that of Ma''ingan, and will fully support the protection of the wolf
to ensure its health and abundance in the future (Schlender, Great
Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commision, in litt. 1998).
In order to retain and strengthen these cultural connections some
Tribes are choosing to reject the unnecessary killing of wolves on
reservations and on ceded lands, even if wolves were to be delisted.
For example, the Tribal Council of the Leech Lake Band of Minnesota
Chippewa recently has adopted a resolution that describes the sport and
recreational harvest of gray wolves as an inappropriate use of the
animal. The resolution supports the limited harvest of wolves to be
used for traditional or spiritual purposes by enrolled Tribal members.
This limited harvest would only be allowed by the Tribe if it does not
negatively affect the wolf population. We will assist the Council with
obtaining wolf pelts and parts that become available from other
sources, such as depredation control activities, based on their
request. The Leech Lake Reservation is home to an estimated 75 to 100
gray wolves, the largest population of wolves on an Indian reservation
in the 48 conterminous States (Hunt in litt. 1998).
The Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians (Minnesota) has indicated
that it is likely to develop a wolf management plan that will probably
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 (Lawrence Bedeau, Red Lake Band
of Chippewa Indians, in litt. 1998).
The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (Michigan) has at least one wolf
pack of four animals on its lands. They will continue to list the gray
wolf as a protected animal under the Tribal Code even if federally
delisted, with hunting and trapping prohibited (Mike Donofrio,
Biological Services, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, pers. comm. 1998).
Other Tribes, such as the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa,
have requested a slower pace to any wolf delisting process to allow
more time for the preparation of Tribal wolf management plans. The Fond
du Lac Band has passed a resolution opposing Federal
[[Page 43461]]
delisting and to any other measure that would permit trapping, hunting,
or poisoning of the gray wolf (Schrage in litt. 1998b).
The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission has stated its
intent to work closely with the States to cooperatively manage wolves
in the ceded territories in the Upper Midwest, and will not develop a
separate wolf management plan. The Commission intends to work with us
to ensure that State plans will adequately protect the wolf (Schlender,
in litt. 1998).
The lands of national forests, and the prey species found in their
various habitats, are important to wolf conservation and recovery in
the western Great Lakes States. There are six national forests in that
area that have resident wolves. Their wolf populations range from 3 on
the Nicolet National Forest in northeastern Wisconsin to an estimated
300-400 on the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota. The
land base of the Chequamegon National Forest currently is used by
nearly half of the wolves in Wisconsin. All of these national forests
are operated in conformance with standards and guidelines in their
management plans that follow the recommendations of the 1992 Recovery
Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1992a). Reclassification to threatened status is not expected to change
these standards and guidelines; in fact, the gray wolf is expected to
remain classified as a sensitive species by the Regional Forester for
U.S. Forest Service Region 9 at least for 5 years even if federally
delisted (Steve Mighton, U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1998). This
continuation of current national forest management practices will be a
major factor 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 western Great Lakes States and may occasionally use three or four
other units. Although the National Park Service (NPS) has participated
in the development of some of the wolf management plans in this area,
NPS is not bound by those plans. Instead, the NPS Organic Act and the
NPS Management Policy on Wildlife give the agency a separate
responsibility 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, so
management emphasis will continue to minimize the human impacts on wolf
populations. Thus, because of their responsibility to preserve all
wildlife, units of the National Park System can be more protective of
wildlife than are State plans and regulations. In the case of the gray
wolf, the NPS Organic Act and NPS policies will continue to provide
protection to the wolf even after Federal delisting has occurred.
Voyageurs National Park, along Minnesota's northern border, has a
land base of nearly 350,000 sq km (134,000 sq mi). Preliminary data
from the first 6 months of a 3-year wolf study indicate that 40 to 55
wolves in 7 to 11 packs currently have at least a portion of their
territory within the Park. Management and protection of wolves within
the Park is not expected to change significantly if they are
reclassified to threatened or even if delisted. Voyageurs National Park
has identified winter Wildlife Protection Areas; some of these areas
are lake embayments which are closed to winter visitation to minimize
human disturbance to wildlife, including wolves and bald eagles.
Temporary closures around wolf denning and rendezvous sites will be
enacted to reduce human disturbance. Sport harvest of wolves within the
Park will be prohibited, regardless of what may be allowed beyond Park
boundaries in future years. If there is a need to control depredating
wolves (unlikely due to the current absence of agricultural activities
adjacent to the Park) the Park will work with the State to conduct
control activities outside the Park to resolve the problem (Barbara
West, Voyageurs National Park, in litt. 1999).
The wolf population in Isle Royale National Park is described above
(see Recovery Progress of Gray Wolves in the Eastern United States).
The NPS has indicated that it will continue to closely monitor and
study these wolves, but at this time it does not plan to take any
special measures to ensure their continued existence, regardless of
their status under the Act. This wolf population is very small and
isolated from the remainder of the western Great Lakes population; it
is not considered to be significant to the recovery or long-term
viability of the gray wolf (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992a).
Two other units of the National Park System--Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore and St. Croix National Scenic Riverway--are
regularly used by wolf packs. Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is a
narrow strip of land along Michigan's Lake Superior Shoreline; it
contains wolves during the non-winter months when deer populations are
high. The Lakeshore intends to protect denning and rendezvous sites at
least as strictly as the MI DNR Plan recommends (Brian Kenner, Pictured
Rocks National Lakeshore, in litt. 1998). The St. Croix National Scenic
Riverway, in Wisconsin and Minnesota, is also a linear ownership, and
it makes up portions of the territories of 3 to 5 packs of 10 to 40
wolves. 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 when
they are finalized (Robin Maercklein, St. Croix National Scenic
Riverway, in litt. 1998).
In the western Great Lakes area we currently manage six units
within the National Wildlife Refuge System with wolf populations.
Primary among these are Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and
Tamarac NWR in Minnesota, as well as Seney NWR in the Upper Peninsula
of Michigan. Agassiz NWR has had as many as 20 wolves in 2 or 3 packs
in recent years, but mange and illegal shootings have reduced them to 5
wolves in a single pack and a separate single wolf in 1999. Tamarac NWR
has 2 resident packs in 1999, and both of them produced pups. Possibly
10 to 15 adult wolves use that refuge. Seney NWR currently has 3 packs,
with a total of 10 wolves. Rice Lake NWR, in Minnesota, had 1 or 2
packs using the refuge in 1999. Late in the winter of 1998-99 a pair of
gray wolves were located on Necedah NWR. Sherburne NWR, also in
Minnesota, has 2 to 4 individual wolves, but lacks established wolf
packs.
Gray wolves occurring on national wildlife refuges in the western
Great Lakes States will be monitored, and refuge habitat management
actions will maintain the current prey base for them while they are
listed as threatened, and for a minimum of 5 years following any future
delisting. Trapping or hunting by government trappers in response to
depredation complaints will not be authorized on these refuges.
The extra protection afforded to resident and transient wolves,
their den and rendezvous sites, and their prey by 6 national forests, 2
national parks, and numerous national wildlife refuges in the western
Great Lakes area will further ensure the continuing recovery of wolves
in the three States.
In summary, we believe that, if reclassified to threatened, the
gray wolf will not become endangered in the western Great Lakes area in
the foreseeable future due to habitat or range destruction or
degradation, or related factors that may affect gray wolf numbers.
Recovery efforts over the past
[[Page 43462]]
decade, the final or draft State and Tribal wolf management plans and
practices, as well as those of Federal land management agencies in the
western Great Lakes area, will provide adequate protection for wolf
populations, maintain their prey base, preserve denning sites and
dispersal corridors, and are likely to keep wolf populations well above
the numerical recovery criteria established in the Federal recovery
plan.
Northeastern Gray Wolves. Researchers have recently evaluated the
potential for wolf restoration in the Northeastern U.S., and found that
both habitat quality and prey densities are favorable for gray wolf
recovery (Harrison and Chapman 1997). The moose population in Maine is
particularly robust, and within the past few decades moose have
expanded their range throughout New Hampshire and into Vermont.
Additionally, a small number of moose now occur in northern New York.
White-tailed deer and beaver populations are generally considered
healthy throughout the region. Therefore, we believe that habitat and
prey base conditions are favorable for wolf restoration in the
Northeastern U.S.
Western Gray Wolves. The Recovery Plan recommended that wolf
recovery efforts in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains be focused on
areas that contained large blocks of public land, abundant wild
ungulates, and minimal livestock to reduce potential conflicts between
people and wolves. Three primary recovery areas were identified:
northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the Greater Yellowstone Area
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). Northwestern Montana (more than
50,000 sq km (19,200 sq mi); the area North of Interstate 90 and West
of Interstate 15) is a mixture of public land, primarily administrated
by the USDA Forest Service, and private land. The economy and local
culture is diverse and not as agriculturally based as other parts of
Montana (Bangs et al. 1995). The Greater Yellowstone Area and central
Idaho areas, 64,000 sq km (24,600 sq mi) and 53,900 sq km (20,700 sq
mi) respectively, are primarily composed of public lands (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1994a). These areas of potential wolf habitat are
secure and there are no foreseeable habitat-related threats that would
prevent them from supporting a wolf population that exceeds recovery
levels.
Wild ungulate populations in these three areas are composed mainly
of elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, and (only in the Greater
Yellowstone Area) bison. The States of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have
managed resident ungulate populations for decades and maintain them at
densities that would support a recovered wolf population. There is no
foreseeable condition that would cause a decline in ungulate
populations significant enough to affect a recovered wolf population.
While 100,000 to 250,000 wild ungulates are estimated in each State,
domestic ungulates, primarily cattle and sheep, are typically at least
twice as numerous even on public lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1994a). The only areas large enough to support wolf packs, but lacking
livestock grazing, are Yellowstone National Park and some adjacent USDA
Forest Service Wilderness and parts of wilderness areas in central
Idaho and northwestern Montana. Consequently, many wolf pack
territories have included areas used by livestock, primarily cattle.
While there is no livestock grazing in Glacier National Park, every
wolf pack in northwestern Montana has interacted with some livestock,
primarily cattle. To date, conflict between wolves and livestock has
resulted in the annual removal of less than six percent of the wolf
population (Bangs et al. 1995). This level of removal by itself is not
generally believed to cause declines in wolf populations.
In summary, we do not believe that habitat loss or deterioration,
or a decline in the abundance of wild prey, will occur at levels that
will affect wolf recovery and long-term population viability in the
Western DPS.
Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolves. Sufficient suitable habitat
exists in the Southwestern United States to support current recovery
plan objectives for the Southwestern (Mexican) gray wolf. These
habitats occur primarily on national forests and Native American
reservations. Current and reasonably foreseeable management practices
on these areas are expected to support ungulate populations at levels
that will sustain wolf populations which meet or exceed recovery plan
objectives. Habitat destruction or modification is not currently
considered a threat or deterrent for restoration of Southwestern
(Mexican) gray wolves.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes.
General. Since their listing under the Act, there have been no gray
wolves legally killed or removed from the wild for either commercial or
recreational purposes. We acknowledge that there may have been wolves
illegally killed for commercial use of the pelts and other parts, but
illegal commercial trafficking in wolf pelts or wolf parts is believed
to be rare. Illegal capture of wolves for commercial breeding purposes
is also possible, but is also believed to be rare. The large fines and
prison sentences provided for by the Act for criminal violations are
believed to substantially discourage and minimize the illegal killing
of wolves for commercial or recreational purposes.
The intentional or incidental killing, or capture and permanent
confinement of endangered or threatened gray wolves for scientific
purposes can only legally occur under permits issued by us (under
section 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act; under an incidental
take statement issued by us as part of a biological opinion evaluating
the effects of an action by a Federal agency; under an incidental take
statement issued by us pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B), or by a State
agency operating under a cooperative agreement with us pursuant to
section 6 of the Act (50 CFR 17.21(c)(5) and 17.31(b)). Although exact
figures are not available, such removals of wolves from the wild have
been very limited and probably comprised an average of fewer than two
animals per year since the species was first listed as endangered.
These animals were either taken from the Minnesota wolf population
during long-term research activities (about 15 gray wolves), were
accidental takings as a result of research activities in Wisconsin (4
mortalities and 1 long-term confinement), were removed from the
endangered population in Mexico (5 wolves) to be used as breeding stock
for reintroduction programs in the United States, or they were
previously released Canis lupus baileyi that were recaptured for
probable permanent confinement after being judged unsuitable for the
reintroduction program (2 or 3 wolves) (William Berg, MN DNR, in litt.
1998; Mech, in litt. 1998; David Parsons, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in litt. 1998; Wydeven 1998).
We believe that there have been no wolves legally removed from the
wild for educational purposes in recent years. Wolves that are used for
such purposes are the captive-reared offspring of wolves that were
already in captivity for other reasons.
Refer to Depredation Control Programs in the Western Great Lakes
States and Depredation Control Programs in the Western DPS under E.
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence,
below, for discussions of additional wolf mortalities associated with
wolf depredation control programs.
Western Great Lakes Gray Wolves. If reclassified to threatened
status, the taking of gray wolves for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational
[[Page 43463]]
purposes would still be generally prohibited under the Act, but could
be authorized by Federal permit. In addition, the taking of wolves for
conservation purposes could be done without an authorizing permit, if
that taking is done by an employee or agent of a State conservation
agency having an approved conservation agreement under the provisions
of section 6(c) of the Act. The wildlife management agencies of the
States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, and South
Dakota each have such an approved conservation agreement, and
therefore, would be able to take gray wolves for conservation purposes
if they are reclassified to threatened status. The amount of such take
must be reported to us annually.
A reclassification to threatened status for the Western Great Lakes
DPS would not result in any decrease in protection for gray wolves in
Minnesota, because they already are classified as threatened there.
Therefore, we do not expect any increase in the taking of Minnesota
wolves for these purposes. The extremely small current level of such
take has not affected the recovery of Minnesota wolves, and is not
expected to do so in the future.
Gray wolves in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, and South Dakota
will be subject to a possible increase in take by employees or agents
of these States. However, this take must be for conservation purposes,
and is thus likely to be for research purposes. Therefore, we believe
such take will be minimal and will not significantly slow wolf recovery
in Wisconsin and Michigan. (Refer to Depredation Control Programs in
the Western Great Lakes States under E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting its Continued Existence, below, for a discussion of
the increased take expected in these four States for depredation
control under the proposed section 4(d) special regulation.)
The taking of wolves by Tribes, Federal agencies, organizations, or
private citizens for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes may increase slightly, because the Act allows us
to issue take permits for zoological exhibition, educational purposes,
and ``special purposes consistent with the Act'' for threatened but not
for endangered wildlife. Again, the requirement that such take must
promote the conservation of the threatened species means that the
magnitude of the take will be small and cannot inhibit continued gray
wolf recovery.
Western Gray Wolves. Since being listed as endangered and
experimental, there has been no legal commercial, recreational, or
educational utilization or take of western gray wolves. In the States
where wolves are proposed for reclassification to threatened status and
will be covered by the proposed 4(d) special regulation, there still
would not be any legal take for these purposes under the threatened
classification or under the proposed special regulation.
We believe some wolf mortalities associated with the ongoing
scientific studies of wolves will occur. Some of these studies involve
capturing and radiocollaring of wolves. Wolf capture by trapping,
helicopter netgunning, and darting has the potential to seriously
injure or kill wolves. These unintentional mortalities are rare and
generally average less than 2 percent of the wolves handled (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1994a). During the reintroduction of wolves from
Canada nearly 100 wolves were handled and 2 died. Since then there has
been only 1 wolf mortality out of about 130 wolves captured as part of
routine trapping and radiocollaring for monitoring purposes in Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming.
Northeastern and Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolves. In these DPSs,
gray wolves would continue to be protected by section 9 of the Act
under their threatened, endangered, or nonessential experimental
population classifications. These classifications would prohibit any
commercial or recreational take of gray wolves. Neither the current
special regulations for the nonessential experimental population in the
Southwestern (Mexican) DPS, nor the proposed special regulation for the
Northeastern DPS, would allow these forms of take. Enforcement by us
will continue to keep such take to minimal levels.
Take for scientific or recovery purposes, including educational
purposes, will be available for both DPSs. For the Southwestern
(Mexican) DPS such take can be authorized only by a permit from us.
Under the proposed special regulation for the Northeastern DPS take of
wolves for scientific, educational, and conservation purposes can be
carried out by States under existing cooperative agreements with us
under section 6 of the Act. This take authority would be extended to
Tribes after they have developed a wolf conservation plan and it has
been approved by us.
Thus, in all cases, gray wolf take for scientific, educational, and
conservation purposes must benefit the gray wolf DPS and must promote
its recovery. Therefore, any take of this nature will not negatively
impact these DPSs.
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 conterminous States. These diseases and parasites,
and perhaps others, must be considered to be significant potential
threats to gray wolf populations in the future. Thus, in order to avoid
a disease/parasite-related decline in the gray wolf population, their
presence and impacts require diligent monitoring and appropriate
follow-up for the foreseeable future.
Western Great Lakes Gray Wolves. 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). However, Minnesota wolves may have been exposed to the
virus as early as 1973 (Mech and Goyal 1995). Serologic evidence of
gray wolf exposure to CPV peaked at 95 percent of a group of Minnesota
wolves live-trapped in 1989 (Mech and Goyal 1993). 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), 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).
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. However, Mech and Goyal (1995) 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 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). Additional
[[Page 43464]]
unpublished data gathered since 1995 indicate that CPV reduced wolf
population growth in that area from 1979 to 1989, but not since that
period (Mech in litt. 1999). These data provide strong justification
for continuing population and disease monitoring.
The disease probably stalled wolf population growth in Wisconsin
during the early and mid-1980s. During those years the Wisconsin wolf
population declined or was static, and 75 percent of 32 wolves tested
by the same method were positive for CPV. During the following years
(1988-96) of population increase only 35 percent of the 63 wolves
tested positive for CPV (WI DNR 1999). CPV exposure rates were at 50
percent in live-captured Wisconsin wolves in 1995-96 (WI DNR 1999), but
there is no necropsy evidence of CPV mortalities from Wisconsin wolves
(Nancy Thomas, National Wildlife Health Laboratory, in litt. 1998).
However, the difficulty of discovering CPV-killed pups must be
considered.
Canine parvovirus is considered to have been a major cause of the
decline of the isolated Isle Royale, Michigan, population in the mid
and late 1980s. The Isle Royale gray wolf population decreased from 23
and 24 wolves in 1983 and 1984, respectively, to 12 and 11 wolves in
1988 and 1989, respectively. The wolf population remained in the low to
mid-teens through 1995. However, factors other than disease may be
causing a low level of reproductive success, including a low level of
genetic diversity and a prey population composed of young healthy moose
that may make it difficult to secure sufficient prey for pups. There
are no data showing any CPV-caused population impacts to the larger
gray wolf population on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (Peterson et
al. 1998).
Sarcoptic mange is caused by a mite 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. From 1991-96 27
percent of live-trapped 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). Seven Wisconsin wolves died of
mange during the years 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 (Nancy
Thomas in litt. 1998).
In a long-term Alberta 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). At
least seven wild Michigan wolves died from mange during 1993-97, making
it the most common disease of Michigan wolves. The Michigan Wolf
Management Plan acknowledges that mange may be slowing wolf population
growth and specifies that captured wolves be treated with Ivermectin to
combat the mites (MI DNR 1997). MI DNR currently treats all captured
wolves with Ivermectin, vaccinates them against CPV and canine
distemper virus (CDV), and administers antibiotics to combat potential
leptospirosis infections.
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 (Adrian Wydeven in litt.
1998).
Mange has not been documented to be a significant disease problem
in Minnesota. Several packs in the Ely and Park Rapids areas are known
to suffer from mange, and a pack at Agassiz NWR in northwestern
Minnesota was reduced from at least five wolves (the pack may have
numbered six to eight in the early 1990s) to a single animal over the
last few years, primarily due to mange.
Lyme disease, caused by a spirochete, is another relatively
recently recognized disease, first documented in New England in 1975;
it may have occurred in Wisconsin as early as 1969. It is spread by
ticks, who pass along the infection to their various host species
during tick feeding episodes. Host species include humans, horses,
dogs, white-tailed deer, white-footed mice, eastern chipmunks, coyotes,
and wolves. The prevalence of Lyme disease in Wisconsin wolves averaged
70 percent of live-trapped animals in 1988-91, but dropped to 37
percent during 1992-97. While there are no data showing wolf
mortalities from Lyme disease, it may be suppressing population growth
through decreased wolf pup survival. Lyme disease has not been reported
from wolves beyond the Great Lakes regions (WI DNR 1999a).
Other diseases and parasites, including rabies, canine distemper,
canine heartworm, blastomycosis, 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,
Johnson 1995, Mech and Kurtz 1999, Thomas in litt. 1998, WI DNR 1999a).
In aggregate, diseases and parasites were the cause of 25 percent
of the diagnosed wolf deaths from 1960-97 in Michigan (MI DNR 1997) and
19 percent of the diagnosed mortalities of radiocollared wolves in
Wisconsin from 1979-98 (Wydeven 1998).
Since several of the diseases and parasites are known to be spread
by wolf to wolf contact, their incidence may increase as wolf densities
increase in newly colonized areas. However, 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 (L. David Mech in litt.
1998).
Disease and parasite impacts may increase because several wolf
diseases are carried and spread by dogs. This transfer of diseases and
parasites 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).
Disease and parasite impacts are a recognized concern of the State
departments of natural resources. 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 and
blood, skin, and fecal samples will be taken to provide disease
information. All wolves that are handled will be vaccinated for CDV and
CPV and treated for parasites before release (MI DNR 1997). These steps
will continue even if the gray wolf is federally reclassified to
threatened.
Similarly, the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan has a section on wolf
health monitoring. It 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 a sample of live-captured wolves will be
tested for diseases and parasites. The goal will be to capture and
screen 10 percent of the State wolf population for diseases annually.
Following State delisting (after the State wolf population grows to 250
animals) disease monitoring will be scaled back because
[[Page 43465]]
the percentage of the wolf population that is live-trapped each year
will decline, but periodic necropsy and scat analyses will continue to
test for disease and parasite loads. The plan also recommends that all
wolves live-trapped for other studies should have their health
monitored and reported to the WI DNR wildlife health specialists (WI
DNR 1999a).
In summary, several diseases have had significant 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 it has been implicated as
a contributing factor in declines in the isolated Isle Royale
population. Sarcoptic mange has impacted wolf recovery in both
Michigan's Upper Peninsula and in Wisconsin in this decade, and is
recognized as a continuing problem. However, despite these and other
diseases and parasites, the overall trend for wolf populations in the
western Great Lakes States is upward. The wolf management plans of
Michigan and Wisconsin include monitoring components that are expected
to identify future disease and parasite problems in time to allow
corrective action to be taken to avoid a significant decline in overall
population viability. We do not believe disease impacts will have
significant adverse effects on wolf recovery in the western Great Lakes
States.
Western Gray Wolves. Wolves in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains
are exposed to a wide variety of canid diseases, which are common
throughout North America. Some of these diseases and parasites have
been documented to significantly affect wolf populations, usually
temporarily, in other areas of North America. However, in the studies
of wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming to date, disease and parasites
have not appeared to be a significant factor affecting wolf population
dynamics. Just like wolves in all other parts of North America, wolves
in the Northern Rocky Mountains will occasionally die from a wide
variety of canid diseases. However, it is doubtful that wolf
populations in the northern Rocky Mountains could be significantly
impacted, because wolf exposure to these diseases has been occurring
for decades. The environmental impact statement (EIS) on gray wolf
reintroduction identified disease impact as an issue but did not
evaluate it further, because it appeared not to be significant (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1994a). Likewise, in the ``Wolves for
Yellowstone?'' reports to Congress in 1992, Johnson (1995b and 1995c)
reviewed the relationship between wolves and rabies, brucellosis, and
tuberculosis and found canids were not likely to be a reservoir for
those diseases.
Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolves. There is no evidence suggesting
that disease was a significant factor in the decline of the Mexican
wolf. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that disease will be a
significant impediment to recovery of the Mexican wolf in the wild.
Because the potential for disease and parasite transmission is much
greater in captivity, especially in zoos, all captive Mexican wolves
are vaccinated or treated for potential canine diseases and parasites
that may exist in the captive environment.
As a result of captive disease and parasite prevention and
treatment protocols, released wolves are in good health and physical
condition when they enter the wild. Re-established Southwestern
(Mexican) wolves will be monitored for disease or parasite-related
problems.
Predation
There are no wild animals that habitually prey on gray wolves.
Occasionally wolves will be killed by large prey such as deer or moose
(Mech and Nelson 1989) or possibly by a competing predator such as a
mountain lion, but this has only been documented on rare occasions and
is not believed to be a significant mortality factor. However, humans
are highly effective predators of gray wolves.
Western Great Lakes Gray Wolves. Wolves are killed by other wolves,
most commonly when a dispersing wolf encounters another pack and is
attacked as an intruder, or when two packs encounter each other along
their common territorial boundary. This form of mortality is likely to
increase as more of the available wolf habitat becomes saturated with
wolf pack territories, as is already the case in northeastern
Minnesota. Over the period from October 1979 through June 1998 7 (13
percent) wolves of the diagnosed mortalities of radiocollared Wisconsin
wolves were a result of wolves being killed by other wolves (Wydeven
1998). However, this behavior is a normal part of the species'
behavioral repertoire and should not be a cause for concern in healthy
wolf populations as it normally indicates that the wolf population is
at, or approaching, the carrying capacity of the area.
Humans have functioned as highly effective predators of the gray
wolf as we attempted to eliminate them from the landscape in earlier
times. The United States 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; a
bounty remained in place until 1960. A Wisconsin bounty was instituted
in 1865 and then repealed about the time wolves were extirpated from
the State in 1957. Minnesota maintained a wolf bounty until 1965.
Subsequent to its listing as a federally endangered species,
protection of the gray wolf under the Act and under State endangered
species statutes prohibited the killing of wolves except under
extenuating circumstances, such as in defense of human life, for
scientific or conservation purposes, or under several special
regulations intended to reduce wolf depredations on livestock. This
reduction in human-caused mortality is the main cause of the wolf's
comeback in parts of its historical range. However, it is clear that
illegal killing of wolves still continues.
Illegal killing of wolves occurs for a number of reasons. Some of
these killings are accidental (e.g., vehicle collisions, mistaken for
coyotes and shot, caught in traps set for other animals), and some of
these incidents are reported to State, Tribal, and Federal authorities.
However, it is likely that most illegal wolf killings are intentional
and are never reported to authorities. Such killings may be done out of
frustration over wolf depredations on livestock or pets, fear for the
safety of pets or children, hatred of the species, opposition to wolf
recovery, as a form of protest against the government, or for other
reasons. The number of illegal killings is difficult to determine,
because they generally occur in isolated areas and the evidence is
quickly concealed.
There are two Minnesota studies that provide insight into the
extent of human-caused wolf mortality before and after the species'
listing. Based upon bounty data from a period that predated wolf
protection under the Act by 20 years, Stenlund (1955) found an annual
human-caused mortality rate of 0.41 wolves (that is, 41 out of 100 wolf
mortalities were human-caused). Fuller (1989) provided 1980-86 data
from a north-central Minnesota study area and found an annual human-
caused mortality rate of 0.27. (Fuller's mortality rate excludes wolves
killed as part of the wolf depredation control program.) However,
drawing conclusions from
[[Page 43466]]
these two data sets is difficult due to the confounding effects of
habitat quality, exposure to humans, prey density, differing time
periods, and vast differences in study design. While these figures
provide support for the contention that human-caused mortality
decreased subsequent to 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
during the 25-year period that the gray wolf has been listed as
threatened or endangered.
Interestingly, when compared to his 1985 survey, Kellert's 1999
public attitudes survey showed an increase in the number of northern
Minnesota residents who reported having killed, or knowing someone who
had killed, a wolf. However, members of groups that are likely to
encounter wolves-- farmers, hunters, and trappers-- reported a decrease
in the number of such incidents (Kellert 1999). Due to these apparently
conflicting results, and differences in the methodology of the two
surveys, it is difficult to draw any clear conclusions on this issue.
It is important to note that despite the difficulty in measuring
the extent of illegal killing of wolves, their population and range in
the western Great Lakes States has continued to increase. During recent
decades all sources of wolf mortality, including legal (takings for
research and depredation control activities) and illegal human-caused
mortality, have not stopped the continuing growth of the wolf
population, estimated at a 4 to 5 percent average annual increase in
Minnesota, and about a 30 to 35 percent average annual increase in
Wisconsin and Michigan. This indicates that total gray wolf mortality
continues to be exceeded by recruitment (that is, reproduction and
immigration) into these areas.
As the wolf population in Wisconsin and Michigan achieves habitat
saturation or as the cultural carrying capacity is approached, the
rapid growth rates are expected to slow and likely will eventually
stop. We should then expect to see negative growth rates (that is, wolf
population declines) in some years, due to short-term fluctuations in
birth and mortality rates. However, adequate wolf monitoring programs,
as identified in the Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota (submitted by
MN DNR in 1999 but not approved by the Legislature) wolf management
plans, should be able to identify excessively high mortality rates and
low birth and/or survival rates and to trigger timely corrective action
when necessary. Michigan and Wisconsin DNRs are currently monitoring
their wolf populations in this manner, and we fully expect this level
of monitoring will continue if those wolves are reclassified to
threatened status. The goals of all three State wolf management plans
are to maintain a within-state wolf population that is well above the
size identified in the Federal Eastern Recovery Plan for viable
isolated wolf populations.
In Wisconsin, human-caused mortalities accounted for 58 percent of
the diagnosed mortalities on radiocollared wolves from October 1979
through June 1998. One-third of all the diagnosed mortalities, and 55
percent of the human-caused mortalities, were from shooting. Another 12
percent of all the diagnosed mortalities resulted from vehicle
collisions. Vehicle collisions have increased as a percentage of
radiocollared wolf mortalities. During the October 1979 through June
1995 period only one of 27 known mortalities was from that cause, but
from July 1995 through June 1998 5 of the 26 known mortalities resulted
from vehicle collisions (WI DNR 1999a, Wydeven 1998).
In the Upper Peninsula of Michigan human-caused mortalities
accounted for 75 percent of the diagnosed mortalities, based upon 34
wolves recovered from 1960 to 1997. Twenty-eight percent of all the
diagnosed mortalities and 38 percent of the human-caused mortalities
were from shooting. In the Michigan Upper Peninsula during that period
about one-third of all the known mortalities were from vehicle
collisions (MI DNR 1997). During the 1998 Michigan deer hunting season
three radiocollared wolves were shot and killed, resulting in one
arrest and conviction; the other two cases remain under investigation
(Hammill in litt. 1999, Michigan DNR 1999b).
A continuing increase in wolf mortalities from vehicle collisions
is expected as wolves continue their colonization of areas with more
human developments and a denser network of roads.
A significant portion of the intentional illegal mortalities may
arise as a protest against the Federal government or from frustration
due to a perception of inadequate Federal depredation control programs
or inadequate State compensation for depredated livestock and dogs. The
proposed action in the Western Great Lakes DPS--reclassifying Wisconsin
and Michigan wolves to threatened and implementing a special regulation
for lethal depredation control, with no change in the protection
provided to threatened Minnesota wolves--is expected to have both
positive and negative impacts on illegal wolf mortality.
In Wisconsin and Michigan, the rapidly expanding wolf population is
beginning to cause more depredation problems. For example, from 1991
through 1996 only one Wisconsin wolf was captured for depredation
control. In 1997 two wolves were trapped and moved to eliminate
depredation problems. In 1998 four wolves had to be captured as a
result of depredation problems. For Wisconsin and Michigan, special
management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act would provide
increased flexibility and efficiency in dealing with these problem
wolves (See Special Regulations Under Section 4(d) for Threatened
Species). This may result in greater public satisfaction with the
States' abilities to promptly and effectively deal with depredation
incidents, and may reduce the perception that wolves are out of control
and vigilante action is needed to reduce their numbers.
Wolves were extirpated in the Dakotas in the 1920s and 1930s and
were rarely reported from the mid-1940s through the late 1970s. From
1981 to 1992 10 wolves were killed in the Dakotas, with 5 of them
killed from 1991 to 1992. Two more were killed in North Dakota after
1992. There have been other recent reported sightings of gray wolves,
including a confirmed sighting by U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (APHIS-
Wildlife Services) personnel in 1996 near Gary, South Dakota, and a
1994 confirmation of a den with pups in extreme north central North
Dakota. Several other unconfirmed sightings have been reported from
extreme northeastern and southeastern South Dakota. Wolves killed in
North and South Dakota are most often shot by hunters who have mistaken
them for coyotes or are killed by vehicles.
Additional discussion of past and future wolf mortalities in the
Western Great Lakes DPS arising from depredation control actions is
found under factor D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
Despite human-caused mortalities of wolves in the western Great
Lakes States, it is clear that these populations have continued to
increase in both numbers and range. As long as other mortality factors
do not increase significantly, and the wolf populations receive
adequate and timely monitoring to document (and counteract, if
necessary) the effects of excessive human-caused mortality, we believe
the
[[Page 43467]]
Minnesota and Wisconsin-Michigan wolf populations will not decline to
non-viable levels, nor will recovery slow, in the foreseeable future
due to human-caused killing or other forms of predation.
Western Gray Wolves. Since wolves have been monitored in Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming only one wolf has been confirmed to have been killed
by another predator. That lone reintroduced wolf was killed by a
mountain lion in 1995. Wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains inhabit
the same areas as mountain lions, grizzly bears, and black bears, but
conflicts rarely result in the death of either species. Wolves are
occasionally killed by prey that they are attacking but those instances
are rare. Since 1987, wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains have
apparently died from wounds they received while attacking prey on about
four occasions. This level of mortality will not significantly affect
wolf recovery. Other wolves are the largest cause of natural predation
among wolves. Wherever wolves occur, including Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming, some low level of mortality due to territorial conflict
between wolves is common. Those incidents occur but are so infrequent
that they do not cause a level of mortality that would significantly
affect a wolf population that is at or above recovery levels.
Humans are the largest cause of wolf mortality and the only cause
that can significantly affect wolf populations at recovery levels. The
annual survival rate of immature wolves in northwestern Montana and
adjacent Canada from 1984 to 1995 was 80 percent (Pletscher et al.
1997); 84 percent for resident wolves and 66 percent for dispersers.
That study found 84 percent of immature wolf mortality to be human-
caused. Fifty-eight wolves from northwestern Montana with functioning
radiocollars have died since 1987, and humans caused the death of 49
(84 percent). Wolves are more likely to be radiocollared if they come
into conflict with people, so the proportion of mortality caused by
agency depredation control actions could be over-estimated by this
study. People who illegally kill wolves may destroy the radiocollar so
the proportion of illegal mortality could be under-estimated.
As was typically the case elsewhere in North America, humans were
the largest cause of wolf mortality in northwestern Montana. Wolf
control was the leading cause of death for wolves in northwestern
Montana. Of 28 wolves from northwestern Montana that were relocated and
released because of conflicts with livestock, humans caused the death
of 96 percent. Only two females lived long enough after relocation to
reproduce, and both of them were killed by people within months of
whelping. Injuries during capture or confinement ultimately caused the
death of 7 of those 28 relocated wolves.
In central Idaho, 25 of 35 original reintroduced wolves have
functioning radiocollars and continue to be monitored. In addition, new
radiocollars have been placed on an additional 24 wolves. One
radiocollared wolf from northwestern Montana has dispersed into central
Idaho. Eleven radiocollared wolves have died. Sixty-four percent of the
wolf mortalities were human-caused. Fewer wolves have died in Idaho
than in either the Greater Yellowstone Area or northwestern Montana.
Causes of natural mortality in Idaho were starvation and mountain lion
predation.
Over three times as many radiocollared wolves have died in the
Greater Yellowstone Area than in central Idaho. Humans caused 68
percent of mortalities in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Sources of
natural mortalities included other wolves (4), prey (2), avalanches
(1), old age (1), and unknown causes (2).
The EIS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994a) predicted that 10
percent of the reintroduced wolves would be removed annually for
depredation control with an additional 10 percent dying annually from
other causes. Out of 66 original reintroduced and 69 other wolves
radiocollared for monitoring purposes over the past 4 years in central
Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area, 45 (33 percent) have died. Most
(68 percent) wolf mortality was human-caused. Annual mortality has been
below the 20 percent annual level that was predicted in the EIS.
Reintroduced wolves had a lower proportion of human-caused mortality
compared to naturally colonizing wolves because they were released in
remote areas where contact and conflicts with people were less likely.
Relocated depredating wolves in northwestern Montana had a higher
proportion of human-caused mortality (96 percent) than either
reintroduced (61 percent) or naturally colonizing wolves in
northwestern Montana (71 percent excluding legal harvest in Canada). In
northwestern Montana relocated depredating wolves traveled widely and
often resettled in places similar to the areas that they had been
removed from, typically private ranch land. Consequently they continued
to come into conflict with people and livestock.
The levels of documented human-caused mortality among wolves in the
northern Rocky Mountains have not, at this time, been significant
enough to cause declines in wolf populations. The protection of wolves
under the Act appears sufficient to promote wolf population growth.
Under the provisions of the experimental population rules for the
central Idaho and Yellowstone areas, wolf population growth has been
high. Although special management regulations under section 4(d) of the
Act would allow some expanded take of problem wolves outside the
experimental population areas, such regulations would still
sufficiently protect wolves from human persecution. Continued rapid
growth towards recovery levels is therefore expected (See Special
Regulations Under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species).
Enforcement of the Act's prohibitions on taking wolves listed as
``experimental'' and ``endangered'' has been successful to date. Twelve
wolves have been illegally killed in the experimental areas, and six
cases have been resolved. In northwestern Montana nine wolves were
known to have been illegally killed, and four cases have been resolved.
Fines have ranged from $500 to $10,000, with jail sentences being
imposed for some violators. The legal or illegal killing documented to
date has not been at a level that could affect wolf population growth
to recovery levels.
Two yearling experimental wolves were legally killed (one each in
Montana and Idaho) under the provisions of the experimental population
special regulation by livestock producers who saw the wolves attacking
livestock. They reported shooting the wolves to authorities within 24
hours as required. Both investigations confirmed compliance with the
experimental rules, and no further action was taken. So far, wolves
have been unintentionally killed by vehicles, coyote cyanide (M-44)
devices, and traps, and during control and management actions, but
investigations of these incidents concluded that prosecution was not
warranted. These types of mortalities are relatively rare and will not
affect wolf population growth to recovery levels.
Special management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act would
allow for the legal take of wolves under more circumstances than the
existing special regulation. The existing special management
regulations under section 10(j) of the Act will continue to apply to
the two nonessential experimental populations in the Northern U.S.
Rocky
[[Page 43468]]
Mountains (See Special Regulations Under Section 4(d) for Threatened
Species). Therefore, we do not expect wolf mortality rates to change
significantly as a result.
Northeastern Gray Wolves. The proposed special management
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act would give State and Tribal
conservation agencies that actively undertake wolf recovery actions,
such as a reintroduction effort, new regulatory flexibility to address
problems caused by these wolves or their progeny (See Special
Regulations Under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species). We are not
proposing to authorize the incidental or intentional take of gray
wolves that naturally occur in the Northeast. Special management
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act will have no immediate effect
on the protection afforded any naturally occurring or recolonizing gray
wolves in the States of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.
However, if future wolf reintroductions occur in the Northeast, and
conditions allowing incidental or intentional take pursuant to special
management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act are met, it will
not be possible in every instance to distinguish naturally occurring
wolves from the unmarked progeny of reintroduced wolves. Therefore, in
the event that one or more States or Tribes actively reintroduce wolves
into the Northeast, some incidental or intentional take of naturally
occurring wolves may occur in the future.
Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolves. As of mid-February, 2000,
illegal killing has been confirmed as the cause of death of 4 of the 34
Mexican wolves that have been released to the wild. However, we do not
believe that predation or illegal killing will preclude recovery of the
Mexican wolf. Killing or capture and permanent confinement of gray
wolves for scientific and educational purposes is discussed under
Factor B, above.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms.
Upon being listed under the Act the gray wolf immediately
benefitted from a Federal regulatory framework that includes--
prohibition of take, which is defined broadly under the Act to include
killing, injuring, or attempting to kill or injure; prohibition of
habitat destruction or degradation if such activities harm individuals
of the species; the requirement that Federal agencies ensure their
actions will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the
species, coupled with the requirement that Federal agencies implement
measures to reduce the incidental adverse effects of their actions; and
the requirement that we develop and implement a recovery program for
the species. In addition, the 1978 designation of critical habitat in
Minnesota and Michigan (43 FR 9607) further requires Federal agencies
to ensure that their actions do not result in the destruction or
adverse modification of those designated areas. These protective
regulations and conservation measures have substantially improved the
status of the gray wolf.
Western Great Lakes Gray Wolves. A June 29, 1998, announcement by
Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt and Service Director Jamie
Rappaport Clark described, in part, our intention to propose a
delisting of gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes. That intention was
based, in large part, upon our belief that State wolf management plans
for Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan would either be completed, or
would be sufficiently close to completion, so that our delisting and
reclassification proposal could be based, in part, upon an analysis of
the protective mechanisms and management strategies and actions to be
described in those plans.
In late 1997 the Michigan wolf management plan was completed and
received the necessary State approvals. By mid-1998 the Wisconsin wolf
management plan was available as a public draft; it has since been
revised, released as a second draft for public review and comment, and
has undergone further revision. The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board
approved the plan in October of 1999. Our biologists have participated
on the teams that developed these two State plans, so we are familiar
with their evolution and likely future direction. We believe that these
plans provide sufficient information for us to analyze the future
threats to the gray wolf population in Wisconsin and Michigan after
Federal delisting.
The Minnesota Legislature failed to approve a State Wolf Management
Plan and regulatory bill during the 1999 legislative session that would
allow us to conclude that the future of the Minnesota wolf population
would be assured, as is recommended by the recovery criteria for the
Eastern Timber Wolf (See Other Alternatives Considered). Furthermore,
as of mid-February, 2000, the Minnesota Legislature had not considered
the wolf management bill produced by the Minnesota DNR in early 2000.
Therefore, we are not proposing to delist wolves in the Western Great
Lakes. Rather we are proposing to reclassify wolves in Wisconsin,
Michigan, North Dakota, and South Dakota to threatened. Upon adoption
of an adequate State wolf management plan and regulatory bill for
Minnesota, we will consider delisting wolves in the Western Great
Lakes.
If this proposed regulation is finalized, wolves will continue to
be protected by the provisions of the Act throughout this DPS. The
regulatory changes that will take place are twofold--wolves in
Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, and South Dakota will be protected
as a threatened species, rather than as an endangered species; and for
the first time wolves in those four States will be subject to limited,
but routine, lethal depredation control measures under the terms of the
special regulation that we are proposing under section 4(d) of the Act.
The only direct change in protection that would result from a
reclassification from endangered to threatened was discussed above,
under B. Overutilization for Commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. The change stems from the broader authority of
Service or State employees, or their designated agents, to take a
threatened species without a Federal permit. Furthermore, we can issue
permits to take threatened species for a somewhat wider variety of
purposes than for endangered species. The impact of this increased take
authority on wolf recovery is believed to be insignificant; additional
discussion is found in that earlier section.
The second impact of this reclassification is indirect, and it
stems from our ability to implement special regulations under section
4(d) of the Act for threatened, but not endangered, species. We are
using that authority to propose a special regulation for the lethal
control of depredating wolves in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, and
South Dakota, in a form that is very similar to that authorized by the
special regulation that has been in effect for Minnesota wolves since
December 12, 1985 (50 FR 50792). The proposed special regulation will
allow the killing of depredating wolves by certain government employees
or agents, subject to several restrictions.
Depredation Control Programs in the Western Great Lakes States.
Wolves that are injuring and/or killing domestic animals in the western
Great Lakes States are currently controlled in different ways,
depending upon their listing under the Act and their importance to our
gray wolf recovery programs. In Minnesota depredating wolves have been
lethally controlled under a special regulation, because they are listed
as threatened. Section 4(d) of
[[Page 43469]]
the Act allows lethal take of threatened animals under a special
regulation. (Details on the Minnesota depredation control program are
provided later in this subsection.)
Depredating wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan, listed as endangered
and therefore not eligible for a section 4(d) special regulation,
currently are being trapped and released in suitable and unoccupied
habitat at some distance from the depredation location. The goal of
this approach is to eliminate future depredations by the individual
wolf by moving it to suitable, but vacant, habitat at a location with
abundant wild prey, and with minimal or no exposure to domestic
animals. However, the results of this approach vary widely. In some
cases the wolf will become resident at the new site and will not resume
its previous habit of preying on domestic animals. In other cases the
wolf attempts to return to its previous territory, continues its
depredations on domestic animals at the new site, or is killed by
nearby resident wolves. This approach has a greater chance of
succeeding if there are several areas of suitable unoccupied habitat
from which to choose for release of the wolf, so that a release
location can be selected that is very remote from the wolf's previous
territory.
However, the rapidly growing wolf populations in both Wisconsin and
Michigan make it increasingly difficult to find suitable, but
unoccupied, habitat into which a depredating wolf can be successfully
released. In the most recent incident of the capture and translocation
of a depredating wolf in Wisconsin, the animal left the release site
and had traveled half of the distance back to its capture site before
being mistaken for a coyote and shot (Wydeven in litt. 1999).
Due to the decreasing effectiveness of translocating depredating
wolves, and the high cost of making such attempts, the States of
Wisconsin and Michigan have requested the authority to carry out lethal
depredation control measures, similar to what has been done by APHIS-
Wildlife Services in Minnesota. As the wolf population grows in number
and expands in range in those two States, those wolves will
increasingly use more agricultural areas and will be exposed to
additional domestic animals as potential prey. We believe that special
management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act would provide
increased flexibility and efficiency in managing wolves (See Special
Regulations under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species.)
Based upon depredation control statistics from Minnesota, we expect
the lethal take of Wisconsin and Michigan wolves to be very small
during the next few years. Data from Minnesota clearly show that an
expanding wolf population's increasing exposure to domestic animals
will likely lead to increased depredation incidents, and the need for
additional lethal control of those wolves. From 1980 to 1984, with a
late winter wolf population of about 1350 animals, an annual average of
2.2 percent of the Minnesota wolf population was killed by APHIS-
Wildlife Services to reduce depredation problems. From 1985 to 1989,
with a late winter wolf population of about 1600 wolves, the annual
average of wolves killed for depredation control increased to 3.0
percent. Additional increases have occurred in the 1990s.
With the current Wisconsin and Michigan (Upper Peninsula) late
winter wolf populations at 200 or less in each State, we estimate that
about 2 percent of those wolves will be taken through lethal
depredation control annually, or about 4 or 5 wolves in each State.
Given the average annual population increases of 30 to 34 percent over
the last 6 years in each of these States, the effect of such levels of
lethal depredation control will not prevent the continued growth of the
wolf population in either State, and will probably be so small that it
does not noticeably slow that growth over the next few years. Wolf
recovery will not be affected in either State. Reporting and monitoring
requirements will ensure that the level of lethal depredation control
is evaluated annually and can be curtailed if necessary. Therefore, we
do not believe that lethal depredation control will be a significant
threat to the future of wolves in either Michigan or Wisconsin, or that
it will result in a need to reclassify those wolves as endangered in
the foreseeable future.
Only one wolf has been killed for depredation control purposes in
Wisconsin and Michigan. An adult wolf was killed by the WI DNR in 1999,
under the provisions of a permit that we issued. This was done to end a
chronic depredation problem at a private deer farm after the failure of
extensive efforts to live-trap and remove the wolf (WI DNR 1999b).
For both North Dakota and South Dakota we have anticipated
potential wolf depredation problems associated with mostly single,
dispersing wolves from the Minnesota and Manitoba populations. To cope
with these anticipated depredations we have had a ``Contingency Plan
for Responding to Gray Wolf Depredations of Livestock'' in place for
each State for several years (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992b,
1994b). In partnership with APHIS-Wildlife Services and State animal
damage control agencies, the contingency plans provide for the capture
and permanent transfer to American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA)-
approved holding facilities, such as zoos, captive breeding centers, or
research facilities, of all depredating or injured/sick wolves in North
Dakota and South Dakota. The lethal control of depredating and injured/
sick wolves is authorized by the plans only if no AZA-approved holding
facilities could be identified. Verified wolf depredations occur
approximately once every other year in North Dakota, with the most
recent occurring in June of 1999; there have been no verified wolf
depredations in South Dakota in recent decades. To date, neither state
has found it necessary to implement either the non-lethal or lethal
control measures authorized under the contingency plans, although
confirmed wolf sightings and some incidents of wolf depredation
continue to occur.
North Dakota and South Dakota are recognized as lacking significant
recovery potential for the gray wolf. Therefore, lethal control of
depredating wolves in these two States will not adversely affect the
Western Great Lakes DPS recovery program. We believe that special
management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act to allow lethal
control of depredating wolves would help to promote greater public
acceptance of the gray wolf recovery programs being carried out in
areas where wolf recovery is feasible (See Special Regulations under
Section 4(d) for Threatened Species). Furthermore, such regulations
would allow Federal, State, and Tribal agencies in the Dakotas to be
even more responsive to depredation incidents, thus, minimizing
conflicts between wolves and livestock production. In addition, such
regulations would eliminate the costs, time, and facilities needed to
capture, transport, and house live gray wolves.
We expect a much higher proportion of North Dakota and South Dakota
wolves to become involved in depredation than the approximately 2 or 3
percent we expected in Wisconsin and Michigan. Thus, if the Minnesota
wolf population continues to expand and provide additional dispersing
wolves, lethal depredation control activities in North Dakota and South
Dakota may also kill on the order of four or five wolves annually in
each of these two States. These mortalities will neither slow the
recovery of the Minnesota and Michigan-Wisconsin wolf populations nor
delay the eventual delisting of the Western Great Lakes DPS, because
the
[[Page 43470]]
Eastern Plan does not rely on wolves in North Dakota or South Dakota to
achieve any of its recovery criteria.
This proposal will not affect the current section 4(d) special
regulation for wolf depredation control in Minnesota, and we expect
that program will continue unchanged. During the period from 1980
through 1998 the Federal Minnesota wolf depredation control program has
annually euthanized from 20 (in 1982) to 216 (1997) gray wolves. The
annual average was 30 wolves killed from 1980 to 1984, 49 from 1985 to
1989, 115 from 1990 to 1994, and 152 from 1995 to 1998. Based upon
estimates of the Minnesota wolf population during these periods, these
numbers represent an average annual removal of approximately 2.2
percent, 3.0 percent, 6.0 percent, and 6.7 percent of the total
population during those four multi-year periods, respectively. The
lowest annual percentage of Minnesota wolves destroyed by APHIS-
Wildlife Services was 1.5 percent in 1982; the highest percentage was
9.4 in 1997.
There is no evidence that this level of wolf removal for
depredation control purposes has halted the increase in wolf numbers or
range in Minnesota, although it is quite possible that the depredation
control program may have slowed wolf population growth, especially
since the late-1980s. Because the Minnesota wolf population has
continued to grow at an average annual rate of 4 to 5 percent since
1989, we believe that it is highly likely that a viable wolf population
will continue to exist in Minnesota if a lethal depredation control
program of this magnitude is continued. However, monitoring of the wolf
population will become increasingly important if the percentage of
wolves killed for depredation control continues to increase, or if
other mortality factors increase in magnitude. Annual monitoring may
become necessary to enable timely corrective action, including
reduction of lethal depredation control activities, if the Minnesota
wolf population begins to decrease or to contract in geographic range.
At this time, however, it appears that continuing the current magnitude
of lethal depredation control under the existing special regulation
will not significantly suppress the Minnesota wolf population.
State and Tribal Management and Protection of Wolves. The Wisconsin
Wolf Management Plan recommends immediate reclassification from State-
endangered to State-threatened status because the State's wolf
population has already exceeded the State reclassification criterion of
80 wolves for 3 years. The Plan further recommends the State manage for
a gray wolf population of 350 wolves outside of Native American
reservations, and states the species should be delisted by the State
once the population reaches 250 animals outside of reservations. Upon
State delisting, the species would be classified as a ``protected
nongame species,'' a designation that would continue State prohibitions
on sport hunting and trapping of the species. The Wisconsin Plan
includes criteria that would trigger State relisting as threatened (a
decline to fewer than 250 wolves for 3 years) or endangered (a decline
to fewer than 80 wolves for 1 year). State reclassification to
threatened, and possibly State delisting, will occur while the wolf is
still federally listed as threatened or endangered. If the wolf is both
federally and State-delisted proactive wolf control by government
trappers in problem areas could occur. In addition, the taking of
wolves by the public in Wisconsin would be considered to keep the wolf
population within the range of social tolerance if other control
measures have failed to do so; however, the social tolerance level has
not yet been determined. Public taking of wolves will not occur while
the wolf remains federally listed as threatened or endangered. The
Wisconsin plan will be reviewed annually by the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory
Committee and will be reviewed by the public every 5 years.
Both the Wisconsin and Michigan Wolf Management Plans recommend
managing wolf populations within each State as isolated populations
that are not dependent upon frequent immigration of wolves from an
adjacent State or Canada. Thus, each State will be managing for a wolf
population at, or in excess of, the 200 wolves identified in the
Federal Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf as necessary for an
isolated wolf population to be viable. We support this approach and
believe it provides further assurance that the gray wolf will remain a
viable component of the western Great Lakes ecosystem in the
foreseeable future.
The Wisconsin and Michigan wolf management plans recommend similar
high levels of protection for wolf den and rendezvous sites, whether on
public or private land. Both State plans recommend that most land uses
be prohibited at all times within 100 meters (330 feet) of active
sites. Seasonal restrictions (March through July) should be enforced
within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) 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.
While the Tribes 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 even if gray wolves were to be federally
delisted. As previously discussed in the section Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes, Tribes
are expected to continue to provide sufficient protection to gray
wolves on reservation lands to preserve the species' long-term
viability in the western Great Lakes area.
Based upon information received from other Federal land management
agencies in the western Great Lakes area, we expect National Forests,
units of the National Park System, and National Wildlife Refuges will
provide additional protections to threatened gray wolves beyond the
protections that will be provided by the Act and its regulations, State
wolf management plans, and State protective regulations. Refer to the
discussion under Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range for Details.
Northeastern Gray Wolves. Except as provided by special management
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act (See Special Regulations
under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species.), the current Federal
regulatory framework will remain in effect largely unchanged for those
wolves in the Northeast proposed to be reclassified to threatened
status. The Act and implementing regulations under 50 CFR 17.31 provide
nearly the same level of protection to both endangered and threatened
species. The exceptions to this equal protection are twofold.
First, we can issue permits to take threatened species from the
wild for a wider variety of purposes than for endangered species. The
additional purposes are for educational use, zoological exhibition, and
for other special purposes consistent with the Act, that is, for
purposes consistent with the conservation of the species.
Second, an employee of the Service or of a State conservation
agency which is operating under a conservation program pursuant to the
terms of a cooperative agreement with us in accordance with section
6(c) of the Act, who is designated by his agency for such purposes, may
take threatened species in the course of official duties, to carry out
conservation programs for that species.
[[Page 43471]]
Because both of these provisions allow take of threatened species
for purposes that are intended to promote the conservation of the
species, the additional take that results from these provisions must be
small and must be beneficial to the Northeastern DPS.
In addition, special management regulations under section 4(d) of
the Act (See Special Regulations under Section 4(d) for Threatened
Species) will also authorize additional take, both intentional and
incidental, of gray wolves if the take is done under conditions
specified in a Service-approved wolf conservation plan. (Refer to
Northeastern Gray Wolf DPS special regulations, below, for additional
discussion.) These conservation plans, and all actions carried out
under their authority, must have the conservation of the gray wolf as
their purpose.
We do not believe this additional management flexibility provided
by a reclassification to threatened status and the proposed special
regulation will adversely impact the recovery of gray wolves. On the
contrary, we believe the additional flexibility will promote wolf
recovery in those areas by making it easier for State, Tribal, and
local agencies, as well as private organizations, to become more
involved in the activities essential to wolf recovery--educational
programs, wolf reintroductions, and capture and relocation of nuisance
wolves.
Western Gray Wolves. Currently, wolves in these States have two
different listings under the Act--(1) Those wolves within the two
nonessential experimental populations (all of Wyoming and most of Idaho
and Montana) are treated as threatened wolves. However, for purposes of
interagency cooperation (section 7 of the Act) those wolves are treated
as species proposed for listing and receive limited consideration in
the planning and implementation of Federal agency actions, unless those
actions occur on units of the National Park System or the National
Wildlife Refuge System, in which case the wolves are treated as a
threatened species and are subject to the full protections of section
7. These wolves also are subject to two special regulations that modify
the normal protections of the Act for threatened species (under the
nonessential experimental population designation 59 FR 60252 and 60266;
November 22, 1994). (2) Those wolves outside of the nonessential
experimental populations are listed as endangered and are subject to
the strictest protections afforded by the Act.
The proposed special management regulations under section 4(d) of
the Act (See Special Regulations under Section 4(d) for Threatened
Species) would increase management flexibility for wolves in the
Western DPS (but only in areas outside of the experimental population
areas) because they would allow take under additional circumstances.
Wolves near livestock could be harassed in a noninjurious manner at any
time on private land or on public land by the livestock permittee.
Intentional or potentially injurious harassment could occur by permit
on private land and public land. Wolves attacking not only livestock,
but also any domestic animals, on private land could be taken in the
act of attacking domestic animals without a permit; on public land a
permit would be required for such take. Permits would be required for
taking wolves on private land if they are a risk to domestic animals
and there are at least 10 breeding pairs of wolves in the State where
the permit would apply.
The increased management flexibility for take is expected to reduce
and more quickly resolve conflicts between livestock producers and
wolves by providing additional methods by which individual problem
wolves can be removed from the wild population. We do not expect the
take under special management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act
(See Special Regulations under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species) to
result in a significant increase in the removal of problem wolves nor
to appreciably slow wolf recovery, because much of that recovery is
occurring, and will continue to occur, within the experimental
population areas.
During the EIS process for the reintroduction of nonessential
experimental wolves into the West (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1994a) the States of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as many State
residents, asked that the States be delegated the authority and funding
to assume the lead role in wolf restoration. The special regulations
under the experimental population designation allowed this opportunity
(59 FR 60252-60266 and 60266-60281; November 22, 1994), and all three
States produced draft wolf management plans that were funded by us.
However, none of the States' plans obtained sufficient public or
political support, and they were abandoned. After nearly 3 years of
internal debate, on August 19, 1997, the Governors of Montana, Idaho,
and Wyoming signed a memorandum of understanding announcing that their
States would not be directly involved in wolf management until gray
wolves were removed from protections of the Act. The memorandum also
directed the States to be involved in recovery planning, assist in
control of problem wolves, facilitate communication, and develop a tri-
state plan by the year 2000 that would assist us in the timely
delisting of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. This process will
improve coordination of management of wolves that are listed as
threatened.
In 1995, funding levels reduced our northern Rocky Mountains wolf
recovery program staff from five people to two, and our direct
involvement in wolf management declined. Fortunately, however, the Nez
Perce Tribe began managing wolves in Idaho under a cooperative
agreement with us in 1996, and personnel from Yellowstone National
Park, APHIS-Wildlife Services, and our law enforcement agents assumed
nearly all wolf management activities in the Greater Yellowstone Area.
After the States formally declined direct involvement in wolf recovery,
we redirected our wolf recovery funding to support development of the
State wolf management plans to encourage State involvement in wolf
recovery. In addition, due to the anticipation of the increased effort
that more wolves will require under the special management regulations,
we also used the redirected funding to station two Service biologists
in Lander, Wyoming, and another two in Helena, Montana, beginning in
January 1999. This additional effort by us will greatly assist in the
management of gray wolves in the West and allow for full implementation
of special management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act (See
Special Regulations under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species).
Depredation Control Programs in the Western DPS. In the Northern
U.S. Rocky Mountain wolf recovery area, reports of suspected wolf-
caused damage to livestock are investigated by APHIS-Wildlife Services
specialists using standard techniques (Roy and Dorrance 1976, Fritts et
al. 1992, Paul and Gipson 1994). If the investigation confirms wolf
involvement, APHIS-Wildlife Services specialists conduct wolf control
in close coordination with us and Nez Perce Tribal personnel.
In northwestern Montana, wolf control under a section 10(a)(1)(a)
permit is conducted only when livestock are attacked. In the
experimental areas, wolf control can also occur when other domestic
animals, such as dogs, are attacked on private land more than once in a
calendar year. Control in both of these situations consists of the
minimum actions believed necessary to reduce further depredations. The
spectrum of
[[Page 43472]]
control measures used includes intensive monitoring of the wolves and
livestock (including providing a telemetry receiver to the affected
rancher), aversive conditioning (i.e., capturing, radiocollaring, and
releasing wolves on site or harassing wolves with noise-makers such as
cracker shells), relocating or killing some wolves, or some combination
of these approaches. Control measures are continued until livestock
depredations cease, even if all wolves eventually have to be removed.
When five or fewer breeding pairs are in a recovery area, wolves are
relocated on their first offense. When at least six breeding pairs are
present, wolves can be killed after their first offense. Wolves that
repeatedly depredated on livestock were killed.
In experimental areas, special regulations allowed landowners on
private land and livestock producers on public land to harass wolves at
any time. In the experimental areas, wolves attacking livestock on
private land can be shot by landowners with a permit, and, after six
breeding pairs are established, our permit can allow permittees to
shoot wolves attacking livestock on public land. A private program has
compensated ranchers full market value for confirmed and one-half
market value for probable wolf-kills of livestock and livestock guard
animals (Fischer 1989).
The control of problem wolves depredating livestock resulted in the
removal of less than six percent of the wolves in northwestern Montana
between 1987 and 1995. This level of mortality is not expected to
prevent wolf populations from reaching recovery levels. Wolves in the
Greater Yellowstone and central Idaho areas have attacked livestock
less frequently than predicted. Wolf control removed a total of 45
wolves between 1995 and 1999. This represented less than six percent of
the wolf population over a 5-year period. While it is expected that
wolf control will continue to remove wolves that attack livestock from
the population in the Western DPS, we still expect that wolf population
recovery will be achieved by 2002. Management of wolves under the
special management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act (See
Special Regulations under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species) is not
expected to significantly increase wolf mortality rates, because
relatively few wolves attack livestock.
The only significant difference in the management of problem wolves
between the current management and the proposed management of wolves
following their reclassification from endangered to threatened would be
the taking of wolves in the act of attacking livestock or domestic
animals on private land by private landowners. In the past 4 years in
Idaho and Wyoming only two nonessential experimental wolves have been
legally taken by landowners. That level of take could not significantly
increase wolf mortality rates or decrease the rate of wolf population
recovery.
During depredation control actions for problem wolves in Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming, individual wolves have incurred injuries from
capture that ultimately resulted in their death or removal from the
wild (one in Idaho and two in Montana). Mortality from capture is rare
and not a significant portion of total mortality in the wolf
population.
We have determined that effective control of problem wolves
benefits the conservation of the species in the northern Rocky
Mountains (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).
Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolves. The listing status of Mexican
Gray wolves will not change with this proposed regulation. They will
continue to be endangered, except for the reintroduced population which
will retain its current status of a nonessential experimental
population.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence.
Public Attitudes Toward the Gray Wolf. The primary determinant of
the long-term status of gray wolf populations in the United States will
be human attitudes toward this large predator. These attitudes are
based upon the conflict between human activities and wolves, concern
with the perceived danger the species may pose to humans, its symbolic
representation of wilderness, the economic effect of livestock losses,
the conviction that the species should never be a target of sport
hunting or trapping, and the wolf traditions of Native American Tribes.
We have seen a change in public attitudes toward the wolf over the
last few decades. Public attitude surveys in Minnesota and Michigan
(Kellert 1985, 1990, 1999), as well as the citizen input into the wolf
management plans of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan indicate strong
public support for wolf recovery if the adverse impacts on recreational
activities and livestock producers can be minimized (MI DNR 1997, MN
DNR 1998, WI DNR 1999a). This increased public acceptance of wolves
during the last 25 years also has reduced illegal persecution and
killing.
Similar national support is evident for wolf recovery and
reintroduction in the Northern U.S. Rocky Mountains and appears to be
developing for wolf recovery in the northeastern States. With the
continued help of private conservation organizations, States, and
Tribes, we can continue to foster public support to maintain viable
wolf populations in the western Great Lakes area and for recovery of
wolves in the Northeast, West, and Southwest. We believe that special
management regulations under section 4(d) of the Act (See Special
Regulations under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species) will further
foster public support for wolf recovery by providing more effective
means for dealing with wolf-human conflicts.
Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolves. The primary factor currently
affecting the continued existence of the Mexican wolf in the wild is
the small number of individuals in the wild population. No wolves are
known to exist in the wild in Mexico, and only 7 Mexican wolves exist
in the wild in the United States (as of February 2000), most of which
are captive-raised animals released by us since March 1998. The
continued existence of the Mexican wolf depends upon the success of our
reintroduction projects in the Southwest. The reintroduction plan
requires an assessment of the success of the project at 3 and 5 years
following the first releases. It is too soon to know which factors, if
any, may affect the continued existence of Mexican wolves in the wild.
Designation of Distinct Population Segments
Currently, the gray wolf is listed as threatened in Minnesota and
as endangered in the other 47 conterminous States, effectively
establishing a Minnesota DPS that is delimited by State boundaries in
the absence of any other indications of discreteness. This separate
designation of Minnesota gray wolves as threatened was established in
1978, before our adoption of the 1996 Vertebrate Population Policy (61
FR 4722; February 7, 1996); this proposed rule brings the current
listing of the gray wolf into compliance with the policy.
Due to the extensive geographic separation in current wolf
distribution in the conterminous States, and based on the Vertebrate
Population Policy, this notice proposes the reclassification of the
gray wolf by establishing the following 4 DPSs within the conterminous
48 States and Mexico (refer to Map 2 located at the end of the
Alternative Selected for Proposal section).
Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment.
Consisting of gray wolves within the States of North Dakota, South
Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and those gray wolves in
captivity that originated
[[Page 43473]]
from, or whose ancestors originated from, this geographic area.
Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment.
Consisting of gray wolves in Arizona south of the Colorado River and
the Little Colorado River between Hoover Dam and Winslow and south of
Interstate Highway 40 between Winslow and the eastern State boundary;
New Mexico south of Interstate Highway 40; Texas south of Interstate
Highway 40 and west of Interstate Highway 35; and Mexico; and those
gray wolves in captivity that originated from, or whose ancestors
originated from, this geographic area.
Western Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment. Consisting of gray
wolves in the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming,
Utah, Colorado, and the parts of Arizona and New Mexico north of the
Colorado River and the Little Colorado River between Hoover Dam and
Winslow (Arizona) and north of Interstate Highway 40 between Winslow
and the eastern boundary of New Mexico; and those gray wolves in
captivity that originated from, or whose ancestors originated from,
this geographic area.
Northeastern Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment. Consisting of
gray wolves within the States of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and
Maine, and those gray wolves in captivity that originated from, or
whose ancestors originated from, this geographic area.
The gray wolf populations within each of these proposed DPSs are
separated from gray wolf populations in the other DPSs by large areas
that are not occupied by, and may not be suitable for, breeding
populations of resident wild gray wolves. Although dispersing
individual gray wolves have been located in some of these unoccupied
areas (Licht and Fritts 1994), and it is possible that individual
dispersing wolves can completely cross some of these gaps between
occupied areas, we believe that the existing geographic isolation of
wolf populations between these four areas fully satisfies the
Vertebrate Population Policy's criterion for discreteness of each DPS.
The Vertebrate Population Policy allows us to use international borders
to delineate the boundaries of a DPS even if the current distribution
of the species extends across that border. Therefore, we will use the
United States-Canadian border to mark portions of the boundaries of
three of the DPSs due to the difference in control of exploitation,
conservation status and regulatory mechanisms between the two
countries. In general, wolf populations are more numerous and wide-
ranging in Canada, therefore, wolves are not protected by Federal laws
in Canada and are publicly trapped in most Canadian provinces.
We further believe that each of these four wolf populations
satisfies the significance criterion of the Vertebrate Population
Policy. Without viable wolf populations in these four geographic areas
the recognized historical range of the species within the 48
conterminous States would have extensive and significant gaps, possibly
broader than the dispersal distance of the species (Fritts 1983).
Additionally, the Western Great Lakes, Western, and Southwestern
(Mexican) Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segments are each being
repopulated by wolves of distinct morphological characteristics which
may represent different gray wolf subspecies.
The existence of large areas of potentially suitable wolf habitat
and prey resources in parts of New England, the possibility that wild
wolves may exist in remote areas of Maine, and the presence of wolf
populations in neighboring areas of eastern Canada form the basis for
our consideration of a DPS for the gray wolf in the Northeast. We have
determined that, based on the Vertebrate Population Policy, gray wolves
that may exist in Maine are discrete from gray wolves elsewhere in the
lower 48 States. We have also determined that a population of gray
wolves in this portion of the lower 48 States is significant and will
contribute to the overall restoration of the species. In addition,
although taxonomic studies have provided conflicting conclusions
regarding wolf taxonomy at the subspecies level, we believe it is
likely that a separate form of the gray wolf historically occupied the
northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. Establishing a
Northeastern DPS maximizes the ability of the Service, States, and
Tribes to reestablish this form, or its current-day equivalent. The
wolves in Canada, which would serve as a source of animals for natural
reestablishment or reintroduction, are thought to be taxonomically and
genetically similar to the wolves that once populated the northeastern
United States.
Establishing a Northeastern DPS with a classification of threatened
under the Act would recognize that suitable habitat exists, that a
genetically appropriate source of wolves may exist in Canada for
natural colonization or reintroduction, that wolf recovery once
initiated proceeds quickly based on our experience in the Rockies, and
that management flexibility is critical to successful wolf
reestablishment. Threatened status would maintain Federal protection
for any wolves that might disperse into historical wolf range in the
northeastern United States from Canada. However, a threatened
classification, rather than an endangered classification, allows us to
develop a special regulation under section 4(d) of the Act. The
proposed special regulation under section 4(d) of the Act is intended
to promote the restoration and recovery of wolves to one or more States
within the Northeastern DPS by providing interested States and Tribes
with the authority to assume a leading role in carrying out protection,
management, and recovery actions for the species. This flexibility will
make it easier for States and Tribes to control and remove problem
wolves, and will reduce opposition to wolf restoration in areas where
they have been absent for many decades. Any wolf restoration program
would be implemented only with the full cooperation of respective State
and Tribal natural resource management agencies and general support of
landowners and after full compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act.
As discussed earlier (refer to Distinct Population Segments and
Experimental Populations), our current consideration of designating a
multi-state Western Gray Wolf DPS does not mean that we now believe the
existing experimental wolf populations and the natural wolf population
in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana constitute a single wolf population. For
purposes of gray wolf reintroduction by means of experimental
populations in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park, we examined
the biological characteristics of the species to determine if the
reintroduced wolves would be geographically separate from other gray
wolf populations. We defined a wolf population to be two breeding
pairs, each successfully raising two or more young for two consecutive
years in a recovery area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994a). This
wolf population definition was used to evaluate all wolves in the
northern U.S. Rocky Mountains to determine if, and where, gray wolf
populations might exist. Gray wolves in northwestern Montana qualified
as a wolf population under this definition; that existing wolf
population was further examined to determine if it was geographically
separated from the potential experimental population areas. We
determined that the northwestern Montana wolf population was
geographically separate, so we designated the two experimental
population areas and began gray wolf reintroductions to establish the
two
[[Page 43474]]
experimental populations. The DPS designation under consideration here
would be made for a different purpose and would have to satisfy
different criteria than the experimental population designations.
Wolves in Areas Beyond the Scope of Current Recovery Programs
Although the gray wolf currently is listed as either threatened or
endangered throughout the 48 conterminous United States and Mexico, all
or portions of half of those States are not included within the
geographic coverage of the 3 existing recovery plans. Due to the lack
of suitable habitat in many of the areas beyond the current scope of
recovery programs, these States cannot offer significant potential for
gray wolf recovery. In fact, some of the States, for example,
California, where the gray wolf currently is listed as endangered, were
on the very edges of the former historical range, and wolves were
likely never very numerous there.
Thus, we believe the purposes of the Act will be fulfilled if each
part of the conterminous States and Mexico, is either (1) included
within one of the four DPSs to provide protection for current
populations including dispersing and recolonizing wolves, (2) included
within one of the four DPSs in order to facilitate potential future
restoration efforts in areas where restoration has been determined to
be feasible or potentially feasible, or (3) delisted and all
protections of the Act are ended for that area. This proposal adopts
this approach mentioned above by designating four DPSs and delisting
any wolves that may occur outside of the DPS boundaries. We believe
this approach will result in the recovery of the gray wolf throughout
significant portions of its historical range and ultimately allow us to
delist it across the entire geographic area in which it is listed,
consistent with the purpose and definitions of the Act.
Increasing numbers of wolves in Minnesota and an expansion of their
range westward and southwestward in the State has led to an increase in
dispersing, mostly young, wolves that have been documented in North and
South Dakota in recent years. An examination of skull morphology of
North and South Dakota wolves indicates that of eight examined, seven
likely had dispersed from Minnesota; the eighth probably came from
Manitoba, Canada (Licht and Fritts 1994). The low potential for the
establishment of a viable and self-sustaining wolf population in North
and South Dakota, and the belief that all or most wolves in the Dakotas
are biologically part of the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf
population, leads us to believe that any wolves in these States should
be included in the Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPS.
Extensive monitoring since 1990 indicates that wolves may be re-
colonizing Washington State, probably as dispersing wolves from Canada.
Wolves appear to have been eliminated in the State by the 1930s,
although occasional unconfirmed individual wolves are reported in the
North Cascades and northeastern Washington. Observation data indicate
that the wolves mostly occur as individuals, although several wolf
family units have been reported in the North Cascades (Almack and
Fitkin 1998). However, because efforts to locate family units have been
unsuccessful, it is unclear whether wolves are reproducing in the North
Cascades. Under their current listing, these animals are protected by
the Act as endangered wolves, and we provide protection recommendations
for den and rendezvous sites to Federal agencies on a site-specific
basis. Furthermore, the State of Washington's forest practices rules
provide seasonal protection to wolf den sites. However, the North
Cascades are outside of the geographic scope of the Northern Rockies
Plan. In order to retain the Act's protections for such wolves, and
provide the potential for their inclusion within the Northern Rockies
Recovery Program, we are now proposing that all of Washington and
Oregon be included in the Western DPS.
A study to determine the feasibility of re-introducing wolves to
the Olympic Peninsula was initiated in 1998 and was completed in early
1999. In addition, studies are underway to determine if sufficient
habitat and prey base exist within and around Olympic National Park to
support a viable wolf population. The initial feasibility study
indicates that the existing habitat and land uses could support
approximately 56 wolves in 6 to 7 packs within the Park (Ratti et al.
1999). However, until more detailed studies of the prey base are
completed, we cannot determine the number of wolves that could be
supported by the entire Olympic Peninsula, or assess the long-term
viability of such a reintroduced population of gray wolves. Results of
one prey base study completed in April, 1999 on lands within Olympic
National Park determined appropriate survey methods for prey
populations that will be crucial if reintroduction efforts move
forward. Results of a study on lands outside of Olympic National Park
are expected to be available by the middle of 2000. Here again, the
Olympic Peninsula is beyond the geographic scope of the Northern
Rockies Plan, so we are proposing that all of Washington be included in
the Western DPS.
Over the past 20 years there have been reports of wolves in several
other western States, including Oregon, Colorado, and Utah. One
radiocollared wolf from northwestern Montana was recently found dead
from unknown causes in eastern Washington, and a radiocollared young
female wolf from central Idaho dispersed into eastern Oregon in early
1999. Any wolves that are found in these areas at the current time are
listed as endangered and are protected under the Act. While there is
certainly habitat that could support wolves in these areas, at this
time we have no plans to initiate wolf recovery for any areas in the
western United States outside of the gray wolf recovery areas already
identified in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
However, our proposal to include these additional States within a
Western DPS will maintain the protections of the Act for any wild gray
wolves that disperse or are reintroduced into such areas while Western
DPS gray wolves remain listed as threatened.
While we have no plans to actively pursue wolf restoration in other
areas of the western United States, we will not actively prevent
natural wolf recolonization in other areas. Wolves that naturally
disperse into other States will be managed on a case-by-case basis. If
there are no conflicts with human activities such wolves will likely
not be returned to the area of their origin.
Gray Wolves in Captivity
We recognize that there are many gray wolves being held in
captivity for a variety of reasons. Some of these are being held for
research, propagation, or educational projects that are part of gray
wolf recovery programs; many others are considered pets or are held for
other reasons. We see no over-riding reason to retain the protections
of the Act for such individuals if they or their ancestors were
obtained from an area where wild gray wolves are now proposed for
delisting and those wild wolves would no longer be protected by the
Act. However, if the captive gray wolves or their ancestors originated
from within the boundaries of a DPS that would retain the protections
of the Act under this proposal, those captive wolves potentially can be
a valuable part of the recovery program for that DPS. For example, they
could serve as a potential source of wolves that could be released in
the DPS.
[[Page 43475]]
Therefore, we have defined the four DPSs to include wolves living
within the boundaries of the DPSs, as well as those captive wolves
which were removed from the wild, or whose ancestors were removed from
the wild, from within the geographic boundaries of a DPS, regardless of
where the captive wolves may be held.
Other Alternatives Considered
We considered numerous alternatives to the actions proposed in this
notice. These alternatives consisted of combinations of different
geographic areas of coverage, changes in classification, and details
and geographic areas of coverage of new special regulations.
We initially considered delisting gray wolves within the Western
Great Lakes DPS, and on June 29, 1998, we announced (through a press
release and media event) our intention to develop such a proposal. In
addition, we also announced our intention to create four DPSs,
reclassify the Western and Northeastern DPSs, and delist in other
States not covered by a DPS. That announcement was based upon our
expectation that State wolf management plans for Minnesota, Wisconsin,
and Michigan would provide assurances of adequate wolf protection and
management following Federal delisting. These assurances are one of the
recovery criteria for delisting in the 1992 Eastern Recovery Plan. At
that point we began drafting a proposal that included delisting the
Western Great Lakes DPS.
At the time of our June 1998 announcement the Minnesota DNR had
already held a series of 12 public meetings to receive input on the
direction a State wolf management plan should take. The MN DNR
subsequently established a Citizens Roundtable and asked that group to
address the wolf management issues raised at the public meetings. The
MN DNR submitted a wolf management plan, based on the Citizen
Roundtable, to the MN Legislature in early 1999 in order to obtain the
regulatory authority needed by the DNR to implement the plan.
We completed our analysis of post-delisting threats after the
release of the February 1999 MN DNR wolf management plan; that plan
closely followed the Roundtable's recommendations. We were prepared to
publish a proposal to delist the gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes
DPS, based in part on the MN DNR's plan. However, the MN Legislature
did not approve the plan during the 1999 legislative session.
Legislative approval is necessary to provide the MN DNR with both the
authorities and the funding to implement many of the recommended wolf
management practices.
Therefore, at this time we are unable to carry out an adequate
evaluation of the future threats, as required by the Act, to wolves in
Minnesota following a potential Federal delisting. We are unable to
determine what protective regulations will be developed, the extent of
State law enforcement that will be provided, what wolf population
targets will be used, what depredation control measures will be used,
and how the wolf population and wolf health will be monitored. For a
large predator like the wolf, which was subject to past extensive
government eradication efforts, including bounties at Federal, State,
county, and local levels, we believe it is important to have an
approved Minnesota wolf management plan that clearly describes the
beneficial management practices that will be implemented following
Federal delisting. Given this high degree of uncertainty regarding the
extent and direction of future management and protection of wolves in
Minnesota, we decided it is premature to propose a delisting of this
DPS.
We also considered reclassifying a larger or smaller DPS in the
eastern United States--reclassifying the entire geographic area
included in the Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf;
reclassifying that area plus North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and
Kansas; reclassifying only Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; or
reclassifying those three States plus adjacent States into which wolves
might disperse. Because under the Vertebrate Population Policy State
boundaries cannot be used to bisect the continuous range of a species,
we have included North and South Dakota within the Western Great Lakes
DPS. Wolf recovery in New York and several northern New England States
appears biologically feasible and has some public support. We have
chosen to list that area as a separate DPS and retain the protections
of the Act for wolves that may recolonize or be reintroduced there, but
to change their classification to threatened and promulgate a section
4(d) special regulation in order to maximize wolf management
flexibility and, therefore, to promote a separate gray wolf recovery
program in that area.
We considered retaining all gray wolves in the western States under
an endangered status, because they have not yet achieved their
reclassification criteria in the strictest sense. Those criteria were
based upon our expectations of where wolf packs would become
established; the wolves have subsequently demonstrated their
``preference'' to establish pack territories that do not all fit within
the boundaries of the recovery areas that we established in the Rockies
Plan. However, these wolves are showing dramatic population growth in
the areas that they have chosen, and we believe they no longer fit the
definition of an endangered species. Instead, they fit the definition
of a threatened species.
We believe that the listing status of all gray wolves in the
conterminous States should be adjusted to accurately reflect their
recovery progress and their risk of extinction. Furthermore, wolves in
the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains have achieved the biological intent
of the reclassification criteria--a total of over 200 adult wolves in
more than 20 breeding pairs for 3 successive years.
In addition, the nature of wolves as a predator, which sometimes
conflicts with human activities, causes the consideration of additional
regulatory flexibility in order to control problem wolves and address
other conflicts that might otherwise constrain recovery as wolf
populations increase. The flexibility provided by the section 4(d)
special regulation has been critically important to the success of wolf
recovery in Minnesota. Similarly, wolf recovery to date in the
nonessential experimental population areas of Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming has been greatly aided by the depredation control measures
provided by the special regulations that were established by the
nonessential experimental designation under section 10(j) of the Act.
Extending this type of flexibility for wolf management beyond the
experimental population areas in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming should
similarly expand the success of wolf recovery there. Reclassifying to
threatened in the Western Gray Wolf DPS and the development of a 4(d)
special regulation can provide that flexibility throughout the DPS.
We also considered removing the two existing nonessential
experimental population designations in the northern U.S. Rocky
Mountains. The anticipated merging of the three existing western
subpopulations into a single expanding and dispersing gray wolf
population (refer to Dispersal of Western Gray Wolves, above) indicates
that their current treatment as two separate experimental populations
and a third natural, non-experimental endangered population without a
special regulation (in northwestern Montana) may no longer be
appropriate or understandable to the general public. One approach to
simplifying this increasingly complex
[[Page 43476]]
regulatory situation would be to bring all gray wolves throughout the
northern U.S. Rockies under a single set of regulations that accurately
reflects current and expected future progress toward recovery in the
West and applies only the amount of protection that is appropriate to
achieve full recovery. This could be accomplished by removing the two
existing experimental population designations and substituting a
Western DPS-wide threatened classification with a section 4(d) special
regulation.
Under this alternative all wolves throughout Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and the northern portions of
Arizona and New Mexico would become threatened wolves and would then be
subject to the more flexible management provisions of the proposed
section 4(d) special regulation for the Western DPS. Currently many,
but not all, of these wolves are subject to the existing more
restrictive protections of the special regulation for the Central Idaho
and Greater Yellowstone Area nonessential experimental populations (See
``Comparison of the Standard Protections of the Endangered Species Act
* * *'' below). This alternative would result in a uniform protection
and management situation in western States that not only would further
reduce conflicts with human activities, but also would be more easily
understood by livestock producers and residents. The increased
management flexibility contained in the proposed section 4(d) special
regulation would allow wolves to be intentionally harassed by private
landowners without having to wait for an attack to occur, in addition
to being able to take wolves that are in the act of attacking any
domestic animals. Current regulations for the nonessential experimental
populations allow landowners to take gray wolves only during attacks on
their livestock. Other new provisions of the proposed 4(d) would allow
us to issue permits for private citizens to take wolves posing a
significant risk to domestic animals if there are 10 or more pairs
present in that State, and would allow government trapping of problem
wolves at all wolf population levels. We would not expect this to
result in a significant increase in the removal of problem wolves nor
to appreciably slow wolf recovery in the Western DPS. However, we
rejected this alternative because we previously stated in our two
November 22, 1994, Federal Register final rules establishing the
Central Idaho and Greater Yellowstone DPSs that ``The Service does not
foresee any likely situation which would result in changing the
nonessential experimental status until the gray wolf is recovered and
delisted * * *'' (59 FR pages 60266 and 60281). Due to that previous
assurance to the public, we are not proposing the removal of the
nonessential experimental population designations at this time despite
the likely benefits we believe it would provide to livestock producers
and private landowners.
We considered including all of the 48 conterminous States within
one of the 4 DPSs. This would result in gray wolves retaining a
threatened or endangered classification in many more States (for
example, California, Nevada, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Kansas, and
Arkansas) . However, we do not believe that it is necessary to restore
wolves to all 48 conterminous States in order to achieve the purposes
of the Act with regard to the gray wolf. The Act contains no reference
to the need to restore a species to all or most of its historical range
in order to consider it recovered. We believe that recovery is achieved
if viable populations are restored across a significant portion of the
species' range to a point that it no longer fits the Act's definitions
of endangered and threatened. In the case of the gray wolf, we believe
the provisions of the Act are not needed where these 4 conditions
jointly exists--(1) wolves currently do not occur, (2) wolves are
unlikely to arrive on their own, (3) wolf restoration is not
potentially feasible, and (4) wolf restoration is not needed to achieve
recovery. Thus, we chose to propose the retention of the protections of
the Act only in States where wolf recovery is needed to achieve the
purposes of the Act and where wolf recovery is potentially feasible.
Finally, we also considered not making any changes in the legal
status of the gray wolf. However, this would mean that the species
retains its status as an endangered species despite the best available
scientific and commercial information shows, in several key recovery
areas, it now fits the definitions of a threatened species. It would
unnecessarily prevent States and Tribes from managing a species of
resident wildlife in a manner consistent with the needs of their
citizens, residents, and members in the absence of an overriding
national need for different or more protective management. We are
obligated under the Act to continue protecting gray wolves only if they
fit the Act's definitions of endangered or threatened species.
Alternative Selected for Proposal
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by the gray wolf in determining to propose this rule. Based upon
this evaluation, the preferred action is to reclassify gray wolves from
endangered to threatened in the Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPS, the
Northeastern Gray Wolf DPS, and Western Gray Wolf DPS, and to retain an
endangered classification for gray wolves in the Southwestern (Mexican)
Gray Wolf DPS (refer to Map 3 located at the end of this section). Gray
wolves outside of these four DPSs would be removed from the protections
of the Act. All three existing experimental population designations
will be retained. To further promote gray wolf recovery and management
within the Western and Northeastern Gray Wolf DPSs, special regulations
under section 4(d) of the Act are proposed. The new special regulation
for the Western DPS would only apply to areas outside of the existing
experimental population areas. A new special regulation for Michigan,
Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota wolves would also authorize
lethal depredation control that is similar to that which has been used
to further wolf recovery in Minnesota since 1985. The existing special
regulation for Minnesota gray wolves and the critical habitat
designations in Minnesota and Michigan would remain in effect.
With wolf populations of 197 and 174 in Wisconsin and Michigan
(excluding Isle Royale), respectively, it is clear that those States
have each surpassed the numerical reclassification criterion contained
in the 1992 Eastern Plan of 80 wolves for 3 years. They have also
surpassed the numerical delisting criterion, but the lack of a clear
indication of future State wolf management and protection in Minnesota
precludes proposing a delisting of these wolves at this time. Instead,
proposing reclassification to threatened status for all endangered
wolves within the Western Great Lakes DPS recognizes their greatly
improved biological situation, provides us with the ability to
implement a section 4(d) rule to allow lethal depredation control
throughout the DPS, and yet retains Federal protection until such time
as delisting is appropriate.
The gray wolves that occasionally appear in North and South Dakota
are believed to be part of the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan gray wolf
population. These wolves are well isolated from the Montana, Idaho, and
[[Page 43477]]
Wyoming gray wolf populations. Therefore, they would be included in the
Western Great Lakes DPS and will be reclassified to threatened status.
In the future, if we are able to fully analyze the future threats to
gray wolves in Minnesota, and appropriate measures are in place to
assure their future survival, we will consider a proposal to delist
gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes DPS.
There have been small numbers of gray wolves documented in North
Dakota and South Dakota in recent years (Licht and Fritts 1994), but
there is little likelihood that a viable wolf population can develop in
these States in the foreseeable future, largely due to the absence of
sufficiently large expanses of unbroken public land with a suitable
prey base. Furthermore, a viable wolf population is not needed in
either or both of these States for us to determine that western Great
Lakes wolves have recovered. Thus, while North Dakota and South Dakota
wolves would continue to be provided the protections of the Act as
threatened species if this proposal is finalized, we do not intend to
establish separate wolf recovery programs for wolves in those States.
In recognition of the likelihood that wolves dispersing into these two
States frequently will encounter domestic livestock and become
predators of them, we are including North Dakota and South Dakota in
the proposed 4(d) special regulation that allows lethal control of
depredating wolves throughout the Western Great Lakes DPS.
Wolves in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains are also making steady
progress toward recovery. In 1999, wolves achieved the biological
intent of the reclassification criterion in the Northern Rockies Plan--
20 breeding pairs for 3 years (a total of about 200 adult wolves).
Therefore, wolves in the Western DPS no longer meet the Act's
definition of endangered (``any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range''), and
should be proposed for reclassification to threatened status.
While wolves in the four northeastern States exist in very low
numbers, if present at all, we believe a number of factors justify the
establishment of a Northeastern Gray Wolf DPS and reclassification to
threatened status. We have determined that, based on the Vertebrate
Population Policy, wolves that may exist in Maine are discrete from
wolves elsewhere in the lower 48 States. We have also determined that a
population of wolves in this portion of the lower 48 States is
significant and will contribute to the overall restoration of the
species. In addition, there appears to be adequate habitat and a
sufficient prey base for one or more viable wolf populations, and a
source wolf population exists in nearby areas of Canada for dispersal
or reintroduction of gray wolves into the Northeast. Public support for
wolf recovery is evident in these States, although at this time we can
not evaluate the scope of that support, or the degree of opposition to
wolf recovery. Finally, the special regulation that we are proposing
for the Northeastern DPS is intended to reduce wolf-human conflicts and
land-use restrictions, and therefore the threat of wolf persecution by
humans should significantly diminish. Because human-caused wolf
mortality is the primary threat to continued viability of wolf
populations worldwide, reducing this threat should significantly
increase the likelihood of successful wolf recovery in the Northeast.
Wolves in the Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolf DPS will remain
endangered if this proposed regulation is finalized. Wolf
reintroduction in that area is still in its initial stages, and its
success is not yet assured. Human-caused mortalities of reintroduced
gray wolves in 1998 show that there still is much to be done to reduce
the threats to a level where a viable wolf population can be
reestablished.
This proposal would not remove the two existing nonessential
experimental population designations for gray wolves in the northern
U.S. Rocky Mountains. Those experimental population designations would
remain superimposed on the geographically larger Western DPS where
wolves would be listed as threatened. The regulations associated with
those two experimental population designations would remain in effect;
the new section 4(d) special regulation for the Western DPS would apply
only to areas outside of the experimental population areas.
Similarly, this proposal would not remove the existing nonessential
experimental population designation for gray wolves in the Southwestern
(Mexican) DPS. The nonessential experimental population designation
would remain superimposed on a geographically larger area where wolves
would remain listed as endangered.
In addition to proposing to reclassify gray wolves in three DPSs,
we are proposing to reduce the geographic area in which gray wolves
would continue to be protected by the Act. We believe that several
decades of conducting wolf recovery activities have made it clear that
the recovery goals of the Act can readily be achieved for the gray wolf
without maintaining protection for the species throughout the many
States within its historical range where gray wolf recovery is no
longer potentially feasible or is not necessary under the Act.
When a species is first listed as threatened or endangered under
the Act we normally apply that listing and its resultant protection
across the entire recognized historical range of the species in order
to retain a wide spectrum of options for its recovery. As recovery
programs are implemented and progress, we gain important information
concerning the areas where restoration is necessary and feasible. We
also become aware of areas where restoration is unnecessary or unlikely
to be successful. For species listed across a broad geographic area, it
is especially appropriate for us to use this type of recovery
information to reduce or eliminate the Act's restrictions and impacts
in those areas where restoration is not necessary or potentially
feasible. This is consistent with our Interagency Cooperative Policy on
Recovery Plan Participation and Implementation Under the Endangered
Species Act (59 FR 34272; July 1, 1994) which established our policy to
minimize the social and economic impacts arising from the recovery of
species listed as threatened or endangered under the Act.
We anticipate successful restoration of viable gray wolf
populations in the four DPSs. Upon achieving this recovery of the gray
wolf, the species will no longer qualify as either a threatened or
endangered species within the definitions of the Act. Thus, we have
chosen to also remove the protections of the Act from any gray wolves
that may occur now or in the future in all other geographic areas
outside of the boundaries of the four DPSs. Gray wolves will remain
listed as endangered, threatened, or as experimental populations only
in Mexico, the entire States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana,
Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, New York, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, South
Dakota, and part of Texas.
We recognize that there is significant private and public interest
in initiating programs to restore gray wolves to areas outside of the
four proposed DPSs where the gray wolf will remain listed as threatened
or endangered. This proposal should not be interpreted that such
interest and any resulting non-Service wolf restoration programs are
unwise, unjustified, infeasible, or otherwise ill-advised. Rather, with
this proposal we are stating that our mandate to recover gray wolves
under
[[Page 43478]]
the Act does not require our initiation of such efforts. Our future
role in gray wolf recovery would focus only on those four areas where
wolves will remain listed as threatened, endangered, or as experimental
populations. However, we remain willing to provide assistance, as
budget and staff limitations allow, to other wolf restoration efforts
that may be initiated by other partners, including private
organizations.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 43479]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP13JY00.012
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 43480]]
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat was designated for the gray wolf in 1978 (43 FR
9607). That rulemaking (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 3800 sq km (9800 sq
mi) in northeastern and north central Minnesota. This proposal will not
affect those existing critical habitat designations.
Special Regulations Under Section 4(d) for Threatened Species
General
The Act and its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set
forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all
endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any endangered
wildlife species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally.
Certain exceptions apply to our agents and agents of State conservation
agencies.
The implementing regulations for threatened wildlife under the Act
incorporate the section 9 prohibitions for endangered wildlife (50 CFR
17.31), except when a special regulation promulgated pursuant to
section 4(d) applies (50 CFR 17.31(c)). Section 4(d) of the Act
provides that whenever a species is listed as a threatened species, we
shall issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation of the species. Conservation means the use of all
methods and procedures necessary to bring the species to the point at
which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary. Section 4(d)
also states that we may, by regulation, extend to threatened species,
prohibitions provided for endangered species under section 9.
In this proposal we are recommending retaining the special
regulation that has been crucial to conserving the gray wolf in
Minnesota, and are proposing a similar special regulation to provide
similar authority for lethal control of depredating wolves in Michigan,
Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
We are also proposing the establishment of two new special
regulations for other geographic areas. One new section 4(d) special
regulation would assist in managing the rapidly expanding gray wolf
numbers in the Western DPS and will apply to wolves outside the
boundaries of the currently designated nonessential experimental
population areas. The existing 10(j) special regulations for the
currently designated nonessential experimental populations in Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming will remain in effect. The other new section 4(d)
special regulation is intended to encourage Northeast States and Tribes
to become partners with us in wolf recovery in the Northeastern DPS. We
intend to continue to work with the States and Tribes in developing
management plans and agreements with the objective of recovery and
eventual delisting of the gray wolf in the Western, Northeastern, and
Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPSs. These three proposed section 4(d)
special regulations would offer additional management flexibility to
assist in meeting this objective.
The existing special regulation for the gray wolf nonessential
experimental population in portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas
remains unaffected.
Continuation of Existing Special Regulations for Minnesota Gray Wolves
In 1978 we developed special regulations under section 4(d) of the
Act for gray wolves in Minnesota in order to reduce the conflicts
between gray wolves and livestock producers. These regulations were
modified in 1985 (50 FR 50792; December 12, 1985, 50 CFR 17.40(d)) and
remain unchanged. The regulations divided the State into five
management zones and established the conditions under which certain
State or Federal employees or agents may trap and kill wolves that are
likely to continue preying on lawfully present domestic animals. The
intent of these regulations was to provide an effective means to reduce
the economic impact of livestock losses due to wolves. We believe that
by reducing these impacts, private citizens would have less incentive
to resort to illegal and excessive killing of problem wolves, and that
consequently the recovery of the wolf would be hastened in Minnesota.
We operated this Minnesota Wolf Depredation Control Program from
1976 into 1986. However, in 1986 the Animal Damage Control Program was
transferred by Congressional action from us to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). In
1997 the Animal Damage Control program was renamed ``Wildlife
Services.'' APHIS-Wildlife Services continues to operate the Wolf
Depredation Control Program in Minnesota. This proposal, if finalized,
will not change the special regulations which authorize these wolf
depredation control activities in Minnesota.
New Special Regulations
Special regulations are being proposed for the gray wolf
populations in the western, northeastern, and Western Great Lakes
States (excluding Minnesota) that will receive a threatened designation
if this proposed regulation is finalized. The proposed special
regulations are intended to promote the conservation of the gray wolf
in those areas by reducing actual and perceived conflicts with human
activities, thus reducing the likelihood and extent of illegal killing
of wolves.
In the case of the Western Gray Wolf DPS, the proposed section 4(d)
regulation will apply only to wolves outside of the nonessential
experimental population areas. The existing 1994 special regulations
that apply to the two nonessential experimental population areas (50
CFR 17.84(i)) will remain in effect. The proposed special regulations
will allow similar, but increased, management flexibility for problem
wolves in all areas of the Western DPS that are outside of the
boundaries of the two experimental population areas. The existing
experimental population special regulations, while not allowing the
same degree of management flexibility, will remain in effect within the
two experimental population areas as long as those experimental areas
remain designated.
Western Gray Wolf DPS Special Regulations
The survival and recovery of the gray wolf in the northern U.S.
Rocky Mountain region will continue to depend heavily on human
tolerance of wolves. Human actions, legal and illegal, intentional and
accidental, remain the primary cause of gray wolf deaths in the western
half of the United States (Bangs et al. 1998). We are committed to
reducing illegal killing of wolves through law enforcement and by
minimizing the perception that such killings are ``necessary'' because
wolves are causing too many problems.
The proposed section 4(d) regulations for threatened gray wolves in
the Western DPS are designed to conserve the wolf population while
addressing local public and State government concerns about conflicts
between humans and wolves. The existing special regulations (50 CFR
17.84(i)) for
[[Page 43481]]
the central Idaho and Yellowstone nonessential experimental population
areas were developed through years of extensive public involvement,
scientific review, and agency coordination. To date those special
regulations have been effective at both promoting rapid growth in wolf
distribution and numbers toward recovery goals, and resolving conflicts
with local residents who were fearful of excessive government
regulation and ongoing wolf-caused losses of livestock and other
domestic animals. During the years that wolf recovery has been
occurring in the West we have learned a great deal about both actual
and perceived conflicts between wolves and human activities, and we
have also learned how these conflicts and perceptions can be reduced
while allowing wolf recovery to proceed. Because of the knowledge we
have gained during these years of wolf management and recovery, we
believe we can provide several additional methods to reduce wolf-human
conflicts during wolf recovery. Thus, the proposed section 4(d) rule is
very similar to, but provides more management flexibility than, the
existing special regulations that have been successfully implemented
for the Yellowstone and central Idaho nonessential experimental
populations since January 1995. We believe that the proposed section
4(d) rule will further aid in the conservation and enhancement of the
gray wolf in the Western DPS.
The proposed section 4(d) rule would continue to protect wolves
under the Act. Wolves that do not depredate on domestic animals would
be protected from take by the public, except for non-lethal harassment
of wolves. Agencies would have management flexibility to take wolves
under controlled circumstances, such as on the rare occasions that wolf
predation may significantly affect wild ungulate populations, but only
when such take would not affect wolf recovery. The proposed section
4(d) rules would allow increased flexibility by the public and by
agencies to manage those few wolves that come into conflict with people
by attacking domestic animals. We believe that, by effectively managing
problem wolves and including the affected public in that management,
local tolerance of non-depredating wolves will be enhanced. Tolerance
of wolves by the local public reduces illegal killing of wolves, allows
more opportunity for the public and us to investigate innovative ways
to reduce wolf/livestock conflicts without killing wolves (such as
aversive conditioning), and enhances communication between resource
agencies and people who live near wolves leading to more accurate data
gathering on wolf restoration efforts. All this ultimately increases
the likelihood of successful wolf recovery in the region.
The provisions of the current special regulations for the two
nonessential experimental populations in the northern U.S. Rockies are
compared with the proposed special regulation for the Western DPS in
the following table.
Comparison of the Normal Protections of the Endangered Species Act With the Current Experimental Population
Special Rules and the Proposed Special Rule for the Northern U.S. Rocky Mountain Gray Wolves
[Proposed Western DPS]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current experimental
Provision populations special rules Proposed section 4(d) Normal protections for
(50 CFR Sec. 17.84(i)) special rule an endangered species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geographic area.................. This special rule applies This special rule will Throughout area in which
only to wolves within apply to any gray it is listed as
the areas of two wolves that occur endangered.
Nonessential throughout the area
Experimental Populations designated as the
(NEP), which together Western Distinct
include--Wyoming, the Population Segment
southern portion of (WDPS)--Washington,
Montana, and Idaho south Oregon, Idaho, Montana,
of Interstate 90. These Wyoming, Utah,
gray wolves are treated Colorado, and the
as a threatened species northern portions of
under the Endangered Arizona and New Mexico,
Species Act. Any wolves except where listed as
that disperse beyond an experimental
this geographic area population. These gray
receive the full wolves would be listed
protection of the as threatened.
Endangered Species Act
under a classification
of endangered.
Interagency Coordination (Sec. 7 Federal agency Federal agency Federal agencies must
consultation). consultation with the consultation with the consult with the U.S.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on agency Fish and Wildlife
Service on agency actions that may affect Service (Service) on
actions that may affect gray wolves is all agency actions that
gray wolves is not required, but will not may affect the gray
required within the two result in land-use wolf.
NEPs, unless those restrictions unless
actions are on lands of needed to avoid direct
the National Park System take at active den
or the National Wildlife sites between April 1
Refuge System. and June 30.
Opportunistic harassment......... Landowners and grazing Identical to the current Harassment is included
allotment holders can experimental population within the definition
opportunistically harass special rules. of ``take'' and is
gray wolves in a non- prohibited.
injurious manner without
a Service permit.
Intentional harassment Permits... No specific provision for The Service can issue a No specific provision
intentional harassment 90-day permit to for intentional
permits. However, see private landowners (not harassment permits.
provision below for available for public However, see provision
``Permits for recovery grazing allotments) below for ``Permits for
actions that include after verified recovery actions that
take of gray wolves''. persistent wolf include take of gray
activity on their wolves.''
private land; permit
would allow intentional
and potentially
injurious, but non-
lethal, harassment of
wolves.
[[Page 43482]]
Taking wolves ``in the act'' on Livestock producers on Similar to the current No provision for such
PRIVATE land. their private land may experimental population take.
take a gray wolf in the special rules, but this
act of killing, provision is broadened
wounding, or biting to also apply to gray
livestock. Injured or wolves attacking any
dead livestock must be domestic animals.
in evidence to verify
the wolf attack.
Taking persistent problem wolves If six breeding pairs of Same permits are No provision for such
``in the act'' on PUBLIC land. wolves are established available, but they can take.
in a NEP area, livestock be issued regardless of
producers and permittees the wolf population
with current valid level. Also allows
livestock grazing permits to take wolves
allotments on public attacking livestock
land may receive a 45- guarding or herding
day permit from the animals or other
Service or other domestic animals.
agencies designated by
the Service, to take
gray wolves in the act
of killing, wounding, or
biting livestock. The
Service must have
verified previous
attacks by wolves, and
must have completed
agency efforts to
resolve the problem. The
taking must be reported
as soon as possible.
Permits for additional taking by No specific provision for If 10 or more breeding No specific provision
private citizens on their such permits. However, pairs are present in a for such permits.
private land. see provision below for State and the Service However, see provision
``Permits for recovery has determined that below for ``Permits for
actions that include wolves are routinely recovery actions that
take of gray wolves''. present on private include take of gray
property and present a wolves.''
significant risk to
domestic animals, a
private landowner may
receive a permit from
the Service to take
those wolves, under
specified conditions.
Government take of problem wolves The Service or agencies No numerical threshold No provision for such
designated by the applies, so all control take.
Service may take wolves measures, including
that attack livestock or lethal control, can be
that twice in a calendar used regardless of the
year attack domestic number of breeding
animals other than pairs in a State. No
livestock. When six or upper threshold of six
more breeding pairs are breeding pairs limiting
established in a NEP, protection of females
lethal control of and their pups prior to
problem wolves or October 1 on public
permanent placement in lands, thus females and
captivity may be their pups will be
authorized by the released if captured on
Service or agency public land, regardless
designated by the of the number of
Service. When five or breeding pairs of
fewer breeding pairs are wolves. Otherwise, the
established in a NEP, proposed special rule
taking may be limited to is similar to the
non-lethal measures such current experimental
as aversive population special
conditioning, nonlethal rules.
control, and/or
translocating wolves. If
during depredation
control activities on
Federal or other public
lands, prior to six
breeding pairs becoming
established in a NEP and
prior to October 1, a
female wolf having pups
is captured, the female
and her pups will be
released at or near the
site of capture. All
problem wolves on
private land, including
female wolves with pups,
may be removed
(including lethal
control) if continued
depredation occurs. All
chronic problem wolves
(wolves that depredate
on domestic animals
after being moved once
for previous domestic
animal depredations)
will be removed from the
wild (killed or placed
in captivity).
[[Page 43483]]
Govt. translocation of wolves to States and Tribes may Similar to the current No provision for such
reduce impacts on wild ungulates. capture and translocate experimental population relocation.
wolves to other areas special rules, but
within the same NEP translocated wolves
area, if the gray wolf must be released within
predation is negatively the Western Distinct
impacting localized wild Population Segment.
ungulate populations at Additionally, the
an unacceptable level, proposed special rule
as defined by the States has a new provision:
and Tribes. State/Tribal After 10 breeding pairs
wolf management plans are established in a
must be approved by the state, the Service, in
Service before such cooperation with the
movement of wolves may states and tribes, may
be conducted, and the translocate wolves that
Service must determine it determines are
that such translocations impacting localized
will not inhibit wolf wild ungulate
population growth toward populations at
recovery levels. unacceptable levels..
Protection of human life and The Service, or agencies Identical to the current The Service, other
safety. authorized by the experimental population Federal land management
Service, may promptly special rules. agency, a state
remove (that is, place conservation agency, or
in captivity or kill) an agent of these, may
any wolf determined by take a wolf that is a
the Service or demonstrable but non-
authorized agency to be immediate threat to
a threat to human life human safety. (50 CFR
or safety. 17.21(c)(3)(iv))
Take in self defense............. Identical to the normal Identical to the normal Any person may harass or
protections. protections. take (kill or injure) a
wolf in self defense or
in defense of others.
(50 CFR 17.21(c))
Incidental take.................. Any person may take a Similar in intent to the Can be authorized by
gray wolf if the take is current experimental permit after Service
incidental to an population special approval of a habitat
otherwise lawful rules, with some minor conservation plan. (50
activity, and is wording changes. CFR 17.22).
accidental, unavoidable,
unintentional, not
resulting from negligent
conduct lacking
reasonable due care, and
due care was exercised
to avoid taking the wolf.
Permits for recovery actions that Available for scientific Identical to the current Available for scientific
include take of gray wolves. purposes, enhancement of experimental population purposes, and
propagation or survival, special rules. enhancement of
zoological exhibition, propagation or survival
educational purposes, or (50 CFR 17.22).
other purposes
consistent with the Act
(50 CFR 17.32).
Additional taking provisions for Any employee or agent of Identical to the current Any employee or agent of
agency employees. the Service or experimental population the Service, a Federal
appropriate Federal, special rules, except land management agency,
State, or Tribal agency, it has an additional or a State conservation
who is designated in provision that allows agency, who is
writing for such such take of wolves designated in writing
purposes by the Service, ``to prevent wolves for such purposes, when
when acting in the with abnormal physical acting in the course of
course of official or behavioral official duties, may
duties, may take a wolf characteristics from take a wolf from the
from the wild, if such passing on those traits wild if such action is
action is for: (A) to other wolves''. to: (1) Aid a sick,
Scientific purposes; (B) injured, or orphaned
to avoid conflict with specimen, (2) dispose
human activities; (C) to of a dead specimen, or
relocate a wolf within (3) salvage a dead
the NEP areas to improve specimen which may be
its survival and useful for scientific
recovery prospects; (D) study. (50 CFR
to return wolves that 17.21(c)(3)).
have wandered outside of
the NEP areas; (E) to
aid or euthanize sick,
injured, or orphaned
wolves; (F) to salvage a
dead specimen which may
be used for scientific
study; or (G) to aid in
law enforcement
investigations involving
wolves.
[[Page 43484]]
Land-use restrictions on private When five or fewer Land-use restrictions Various land-use
or Federal lands. breeding pairs of wolves may be employed for restrictions may be
are in an experimental wolf recovery purposes employed on Federal
population area on national parks and lands if the Service
temporary land-use national wildlife believes they are
restrictions may be refuges. Between April necessary to recovery
employed on Federal 1 and June 30 land-use the species and to
public lands to control restrictions may be minimize take of
human disturbance around employed to prevent wolves. Land-use
active wolf den sites. direct take of wolves restrictions may be
These restrictions may at active den sites on employed on private
be required between any Federal lands. land and other non-
April 1 and June 30, Federal land if
within 1 mile of active necessary to minimize
wolf den or rendezvous take of wolves.
sites, and would only
apply to Federal public
lands or other such
lands designated in
State and Tribal wolf
management plans. When
six or more breeding
pairs are established in
an experimental
population area, no land-
use restrictions may be
employed on Federal
public lands outside of
national parks or
national wildlife
refuges, unless that
wolf population fails to
maintain positive growth
rates for two
consecutive years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed section 4(d) rule landowners would be allowed to
harass wolves from areas where potential conflicts are of greatest
concern, such as private property and near grazing livestock. In
addition to the authority for landowners and livestock producers to
opportunistically harass gray wolves in a non-injurious manner (as
already allowed by the current special regulations within the two
experimental populations), the proposed rule would allow us to issue
temporary permits for deliberate harassment of wolves in an injurious
manner under certain situations. Harassment methods that would be
allowed under this provision include rubber bullets and shotgun shells
containing small shot (#8). Since all such harassment would be
nonlethal, and most is expected to be noninjurious, to wolves, no
effect on wolf population growth is expected to occur. Fewer wolf
depredations on livestock and pets should result from more focused and
more unpleasant harassment of the problem wolves. Fewer depredations
will result in fewer control actions, and consequently fewer wolves
will be killed by management agencies. This provision allows us to work
closely with the public to avoid conflicts between wolves and livestock
or pets, thereby reducing the need for wolf control. Because we will
have to confirm persistent wolf activity, and each intentional
harassment permit will contain the conditions under which such
harassment could occur, there should be little potential for abuse of
this management flexibility.
Under the proposed special regulation for the Western DPS,
landowners would be allowed to take (kill or injure) wolves actually
seen attacking their livestock on private land (as currently allowed by
the current special regulations within the two experimental
populations). The proposed special regulation would also expand this
provision so that it applies to wolves attacking any domestic animals
on private land outside of the experimental areas. Furthermore, the
proposed special regulation would allow us to issue permits to take
wolves seen attacking livestock and livestock guard or herding animals
on public land. (The current special regulations that will continue to
apply to the two experimental population areas do not allow such
permits to be issued for attacks on guard or herding animals, and do
not allow such permits to be issued if there are fewer than six
breeding pairs of wolves in the experimental population area.) Because
such take has to be reported and confirmation of livestock attacks must
be made by agency investigators, we anticipate that no additional
significant wolf mortality will result from this provision. However,
those few wolves that are killed will be animals with behavioral traits
that were not conducive to the long term survival and recovery of the
wolf in the northern Rocky Mountains. The required confirmation process
will greatly reduce the chances that wolves that have not attacked
domestic animals would be killed under this provision. Once a
depredating wolf is shot, no further control on the pack would be
implemented by the agencies unless additional livestock were attacked.
This could result in even fewer wolves being taken in agency control
actions, because the wolf that was killed would be the individual from
that pack that was attacking livestock.
The proposed special regulation will allow us or other agencies and
the public to continue to take wolves in the rare event that they
threaten human life or safety. While this is a highly unlikely
situation, and one that is already addressed by the Act and the current
special regulation, emphasizing the Act's provision to defend human
life and safety should reduce the public's concern about human safety.
The proposed special regulation would allow government agencies to
remove problem wolves (wolves that attack livestock or twice in a year
attack other domestic animals) outside the experimental areas using
lethal methods regardless of the number of breeding pairs present in
the area. (The current special regulations that will continue to apply
within the two experimental
[[Page 43485]]
population areas allow lethal methods only if there are six or more
breeding pairs present in that experimental population area.)
Prior to October 1 of each year, the proposed special regulation
would require the release of trapped female wolves with pups,
regardless of the number of breeding pairs on public land. (The current
special regulations that will continue to apply within the two
experimental population areas require the release of such female wolves
if there are fewer than six breeding pairs present in that experimental
population area.)
The proposed special regulation would allow us to issue permits for
private landowners to take wolves on their private lands if 10 or more
breeding pairs are present in the State and if we have determined that
wolves are routinely present on that land and present a significant
risk to domestic animals. (The current special regulations that will
continue to apply within the two experimental areas have no provision
for this type of permit to take wolves.)
The proposed special regulation addresses public concerns about the
presence of wolves disrupting traditional human uses of public and
private land. Except for within national parks and national wildlife
refuges, the only potential restrictions on Federal lands, may be
seasonal restrictions to avoid the take of wolves at active den sites.
These seasonal restrictions would likely run from April 1 to June 30 of
each year and apply to land within one mile of the active den site.
Managing wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains has shown that
successful wolf recovery does not depend upon land-use restrictions due
to the wolves' ability to thrive in a variety of land uses. Since 1987,
as a result of the experience we gained in the northern Rockies, we
believe there is little, if any, need for land-use restrictions to
protect wolves in most situations, with the possible exception of
temporary restrictions around active den sites on Federal lands.
Additionally, the public is much more tolerant of wolf recolonization
if restrictive government regulations do not result from the presence
of wolves. While the threatened status of wolves will require Federal
agencies to consult under section 7, the proposed special regulation
will simplify that process by stating that no land-use restrictions
will be imposed except to protect wolves at active den sites on Federal
lands, as described above.
All other provisions of the proposed section 4(d) special
regulation for the Western DPS are identical or very similar to the
current special regulations that will continue to apply to the two
nonessential experimental populations in the northern United States
Rocky Mountains.
We reemphasize that the management flexibility provided by the
current special regulation will continue to apply to the two
nonessential experimental populations established in 1994 in Wyoming
and in portions of Idaho and Montana (refer to Map 1). Currently, any
western gray wolves that reside outside of, or disperse beyond, those
experimental areas are protected under the Act as endangered gray
wolves; thus, wolves in and around Glacier National Park in
northwestern Montana are endangered wolves. Captured wolves known to be
experimental are not endangered. In contrast, the proposed
reclassification to threatened status and the proposed section 4(d)
special regulation would apply a degree of greater management
flexibility across the rest of the area defined as the Western DPS,
which includes all of seven States and portions of two others.
In conclusion, the proposed 4(d) rule for the Western Gray Wolf DPS
would continue to protect wolves from human persecution outside of the
two experimental population areas, but would improve and expand the
management options for problem wolves. By focusing management efforts
on the occasional problem wolf, we believe that the public will become
more tolerant of non-depredating wolves. Based on our experience with
wolf recovery in Minnesota, this increased public tolerance is expected
to result in fewer illegal killings of Western DPS wolves and more
opportunity for us to work with local agencies and the public to find
innovative solutions to potential conflicts between wolves and humans.
Overall, we expect that this proposed special regulation will promote
the conservation of the gray wolf and speed the species' recovery in
the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains.
Northeastern Gray Wolf DPS Special Regulations
Using section 4(d) of the Act and 50 CFR 17.31(c), we propose to
define the conditions under which intentional and incidental take of
gray wolves resulting from activities regulated or carried out by State
and Tribal governments will not violate section 9 of the Act or any
regulations under 50 CFR part 17 that implement section 9, and thus
could be performed without need for a permit under sections 10(a)(1)(A)
or 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Under the proposed special regulation for
the Northeastern DPS, the normal provisions of 50 CFR 17.31(b) will
continue to apply to any employee or agent of the Service and of a
State conservation agency. Furthermore, incidental take of wolves when
conducting otherwise lawful activities, regardless of their
relationship to wolf conservation, addressed in a wolf conservation
plan prepared by individual States or Tribes and approved by us, would
not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act.
The intent of this special regulation is to provide those
northeastern States and Tribes that have an active interest in
participating in gray wolf conservation the authority to maintain the
lead role in protection, management, and recovery of the species.
Importantly, this special regulation will increase the options for wolf
restoration to portions of historical gray wolf range in the
northeastern United States by providing greater regulatory flexibility
to State and Tribal governments. Greater regulatory flexibility will
enable participating States and Tribes to manage wolves released as
part of a reintroduction effort and to address problem wolves, such as
those that depredate domestic animals.
In addition to accommodating concerns for domestic animals, we
realize that the effects of introduced wolves on moose and deer
populations are significant concerns among State and Tribal wildlife
agencies and hunters. There is concern that wolves compete with hunters
for moose and deer. For this reason, we propose a special provision to
allow limited lethal take of wolves by Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and State and Tribal agency personnel to take effect 5
years after reintroductions are completed in the Northeastern Gray Wolf
DPS. Such take can occur only after the agency has informed us of the
need for lethal control and established the extent to which individual
packs will be reduced. No pack will be reduced by more than 30 percent,
and no packs will be reduced more frequently than every 3 years.
This special regulation will provide northeastern State and Tribal
governments that have developed and implemented a wolf conservation
plan the following authority:
1. Lethal control of wolves depredating domestic animals. This
authority does not extend to wolf pups less than 6 months of age.
2. Incidental take of wolves resulting from otherwise lawful
activities that are included in the conservation plan.
[[Page 43486]]
3. Capture and relocation of wolves that have dispersed outside of
areas considered suitable for wolf restoration.
4. Five years after reintroduction is completed, the capture and
relocation of wolves that threaten ungulate populations of management
concern will be allowable if consistent with the terms of the
conservation plan.
5. Capture and lethal control of diseased wolves (e.g., carriers of
rabies or canine parvovirus) determined to be a potential threat to
other wolves domestic animals, or humans.
We believe that activities that modify gray wolf habitat will not
adversely affect or incidentally take gray wolves within northeastern
State boundaries or on Tribal lands. Therefore, it is not anticipated
that land use restrictions will generally be needed to achieve
conservation for the wolf in the Northeast. Wolves can successfully
inhabit a variety of habitats provided that adequate prey are available
and that they are not persecuted by humans. However, we encourage
States and Tribes to identify any such activities that may modify wolf
habitat that result in incidental take, along with actions ongoing or
planned to reduce the effects of those activities, and submit them to
us as part of a wolf conservation plan.
When wolf conservation plans are received, we will make them
available for public comment through Federal Register notice. We will
consider public comments and the criteria outlined in this section to
determine whether the plan will reduce threats and promote the
conservation of the gray wolf within State boundaries or on Tribal
lands. We will work closely with northeastern State or Tribal officials
to revise or strengthen sections of the plan as may be necessary to
obtain plan approval. We will comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act in reviewing and
approving conservation plans.
We recommend that the conservation plans contain, but not be
limited to, the following sections: (1) A discussion of the status of
the wolf in the State or on Tribal lands, including population
estimates, habitat quantity and quality, and threats to its existence;
(2) a discussion of the lawful activities having the potential to
incidentally take wolves; such activities may include trapping and
hunting programs that target other species; forest management; road
construction, maintenance, and use; and recreational activities and
development; (3) a discussion of potential impacts to gray wolves from
these activities and existing or planned provisions to monitor,
minimize, and mitigate those effects; (4) provisions for identifying
and correcting any situations that are likely to be causing incidental
take and monitoring the effects of such corrective actions; (5) a
discussion of existing or planned conservation measures to promote wolf
recovery; and (6) a discussion of measures that may be needed to reduce
conflicts with domestic animals and significant effects to wild
ungulate populations. The plan must be consistent with the conservation
of the gray wolf.
The criteria we will use to evaluate the conservation plans are as
follows:
1. Any incidental taking of gray wolves, as described in the plan,
occurs unintentionally while conducting an otherwise lawful activity.
The purpose of the activity cannot be to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect wolves from the wild. The
plan explains why alternatives that would not result in incidental take
are not being used.
2. The plan includes a strategy to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
any proposed incidental take. Compliance with this standard involves a
planning strategy that emphasizes avoidance of impacts to gray wolves
and provides measures to minimize potential impacts by modifying
practices.
3. The plan is adequately funded and contains provisions to deal
with unforeseen circumstances. A summary of the funding that will be
available to implement provisions of the plan, including enforcement
and monitoring, is provided. The plan outlines how it will be
determined that a previously unforeseen problem has arisen and should
include the specific steps that will be taken to correct that problem.
4. Any incidental taking allowed pursuant to the plan does not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of wolves in
the wild. This criterion is equivalent to the regulatory requirement to
avoid causing ``jeopardy'' under section 7(a)(2) of the Act (i.e., to
avoid engaging in any activity that reasonably would be expected,
directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both
the survival and recovery of the gray wolf). In the case of incidental
trapping of wolves, the plan includes an assessment of the potential
for gray wolves to be incidentally caught by trappers targeting other
species, the likelihood of mortality to a wolf that is trapped and
released (including the potential for it to be trapped more than once),
and the resulting impact to the wolf population.
5. We are assured that the plan will be implemented. The plan
specifies how the State or Tribal governments will exercise the
existing authorities to adhere to the commitments made in the plan.
Terms and conditions for implementation and monitoring of the plan are
included to ensure that the plan's requirements and the requirements of
the Act are met. Any violations could be a basis for revocation of our
approval of the plan.
6. We are assured that States and Tribes have involved stakeholders
in plan development (e.g., timber companies or associations, trappers
associations, recreational interests).
The take prohibitions of section 9 will be in effect throughout the
Northeastern DPS until a conservation plan is approved by us. Once a
plan is approved by us, the conditions contained in the approved plan
will be the conditions, pursuant to section 4(d), under which the
intentional and incidental take of gray wolves resulting from
activities regulated by the State and Tribal governments included in
the conservation plan would not be a violation of section 9.
Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota Special Regulation
The current endangered status of wolves in Michigan and Wisconsin
restricts depredation control activities in these States to capturing
depredating wolves and releasing them at another location in the State.
Wolves released in this manner commonly either return to the vicinity
of their capture and resume their depredating habits, begin pursuing
domestic animals at their new location, or are killed by resident wolf
packs in the release area. Thus, in order for translocation to have a
reasonable probability of succeeding, there must be unoccupied wolf
habitat available within the State, but at a great distance from the
depredation incident site.
As the Michigan and Wisconsin wolf populations expand in number and
range, the frequency of depredation incidents is increasing, yet there
are fewer suitable release sites available. Releases of depredating
wolves at marginal locations (that is, near existing wolf packs or too
close to their capture site) are likely to fail. For example, a
depredating wolf recently released into the Nicolet National Forest in
Wisconsin at a location 46 miles from his initial capture had returned
to within 23 miles of his capture location when he was mistaken for a
coyote and shot only 13 days after his release.
Similar problems with relocating depredating wolves have occurred
in northwestern Montana. Of 28 relocated wolves, 25 either died a short
time after their release or resumed attacking livestock again and had
to be killed.
[[Page 43487]]
Only 2 of the 28 relocated wolves survived long enough to reproduce and
contribute to wolf recovery. A review of wolf relocation as a means of
reducing depredations on livestock in northwestern Montana concluded
that relocation should be discontinued and that both livestock losses
and depredation control costs could be reduced by killing, instead of
relocating, depredating wolves (63 FR 20212, April 23, 1998; Bangs
1998; Bangs et al. 1998).
This proposed regulation would allow us, the Michigan and Wisconsin
DNRs, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, the South Dakota Game,
Fish and Parks Department, or Tribes within these States, or the
designated agents of these agencies to carry out lethal control of
depredating wolves. The restrictions for these actions would be similar
to those used for the Minnesota wolf depredation control program since
1985: (1) Wolf depredation must be verified, (2) the depredation is
likely to be repeated, (3) the taking must occur within one mile of the
depredation site in Michigan and Wisconsin, and within 4 miles of the
depredation site in North Dakota and South Dakota, (4) taking, wolf
handling, and euthanizing must be carried out in a humane manner, which
includes the use of steel leghold traps, and (5) any young of the year
trapped before August 1 must be released.
Lethal depredation control has been successful in reducing
conflicts between the recovering wolf population and domestic animals
in Minnesota. It resolves the immediate depredation problem without the
removal of excessive numbers of wolves, and avoids removing any wolves
when the depredation was not verified as being caused by wolves or is
not likely to be repeated. It is significantly less expensive than
translocating such problem wolves, and thus is more appropriate for the
rapidly expanding wolf populations that exist in Michigan and
Wisconsin.
Based upon Minnesota wolf depredation control data from the early
1980s when the wolf population was probably less than 1,500 animals, we
estimate that a maximum of about 2 to 3 percent of Wisconsin and
Michigan wolves would be taken annually under the provisions of this
special regulation. At current population levels this would be about 4
to 6 wolves per State. This level of take should not appreciably affect
the wolf population or its continued expansion in either of these
States. As their wolf population already exceeds the numerical
delisting criterion, this take will have no effect on the recovery of
Michigan and Wisconsin wolves under the Act. The level and effects of
this take will be closely monitored by continuing the annual monitoring
of wolf populations in these States and the required reporting of the
lethal take under this special regulation.
We propose to limit depredation control activities to an area
within one mile of the depredation site in Wisconsin and Michigan.
Because wolf pack territories are large (in Wisconsin and Michigan they
range from 52 to 518 sq km (20 to 200 sq mi), and the locations of
Wisconsin and Michigan wolf packs are much more precisely known than is
the case for Minnesota wolf packs, it will be possible for depredation
control actions to be directed at only the depredating pack. Thus, the
one-mile limit will enable depredation control trappers to focus their
trapping within the activity areas of the target pack without
significant risk of trapping wolves from nearby non-depredating packs.
The situation in North Dakota and South Dakota is quite different
from that in Michigan or Wisconsin. Wolves that appear in North Dakota
and South Dakota are dispersing individuals from Minnesota and Canada,
or rarely may be a pair or small pack along North Dakota's border with
Canada. None of our recovery plans or recovery programs recommends
actions to promote gray wolf recovery in either of these two States,
and we do not believe the Act requires nor encourages such recovery
actions. We also recognize that, due to the more open landscape of
these States, and the high likelihood that dispersing wolves will
encounter livestock, wolves are more likely to become involved in
depredations on domestic animals. Therefore, we believe we should
provide a mechanism for prompt control of depredating wolves in these
States. Because there are very few or no established wolf packs in
these States, and there are very few wolves dispersing into these
States, we believe there is minimal risk of trapping or shooting wolves
from a nearby non-depredating pack or dispersers not involved in the
depredation under the proposed special regulation. For this reason, as
well as recognition that the much more open landscape of North Dakota
and South Dakota means that depredating wolves are likely to travel a
much greater distance from the depredation site to secure cover, we
propose to allow lethal depredation control actions to be undertaken up
to 4 miles from the depredation site.
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. Many of these measures have already
been successfully applied to gray wolves in the conterminous States.
If this proposed regulation is finalized, the protections of the
Act will continue to apply to the endangered Southwestern (Mexican)
Gray Wolf DPS and to the threatened Western Great Lakes, Northeastern,
and Western DPSs. The protections of the Act will be removed only from
wild gray wolves in areas outside of these four DPSs. We do not believe
there are any wild gray wolves in the States outside of the these four
DPSs, nor would they be significant to gray wolf recovery, under the
Act, if they are found there. This proposal does not modify or withdraw
the existing special regulations or the nonessential experimental
population designations for the reintroduced gray wolf populations in
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico, nor does it make any
changes to the threatened classification and existing section 4(d)
special regulation for gray wolves in Minnesota. Similarly, the
existing critical habitat designations for portions of Minnesota and
Michigan will remain unchanged, and will continue to be considered
during consultations with other Federal agencies. This proposal does
not affect the protection or listing of the red wolf (Canis rufus).
To the extent necessary, we will revise our existing gray wolf
recovery plans to accommodate the potential changes in geographic
coverage, Federal status, and gray wolf protection that would be
brought about by new special regulations. Changes to the recovery plan
for northern U.S. Rocky Mountain wolves will also be considered in
light of the localities chosen by the colonizing wolves and the
expansion and anticipated merging of the three recovery populations. We
will also consider developing, in partnership with interested agencies
and organizations, a Federal recovery plan for the Northeastern DPS.
The protection required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions
against taking and harm are discussed in Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species, part D, above.
[[Page 43488]]
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is listed as endangered or
threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being
designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2)
requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any species listed as endangered or threatened, or to destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency
must enter into formal consultation with us. If a Federal action is
likely to jeopardize a species proposed to be listed as threatened or
endangered or destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat,
the responsible Federal agency must confer with us.
Federal agency actions that may require consultation or
conferencing, as described in the preceding paragraph, include
activities by the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, the
U.S. Geological Survey, USDA/APHIS-Wildlife Services, the Bureau of
Land Management, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
However, under section 10(j)(2)(C) of the Act, for those three
areas currently designated as nonessential experimental populations in
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas for the purpose
of interagency consultation under section 7 of the Act the gray wolf
will continue to be considered a species proposed for listing under the
Act, except where the species occurs on an area within the National
Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park System. For all other
purposes of the Act, gray wolves that are currently designated as
experimental populations shall continue to be treated as a threatened
species. Furthermore, the existing special regulations found in 50 CFR
17.84(i) and 17.84(k) regarding the taking of wolves depredating on
livestock in these experimental population areas will continue to apply
as long as these experimental population designations remain in force.
The Act and implementing regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered and threatened
wildlife. The prohibitions codified at 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31 in part
make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to take (including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import or
export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce,
any listed species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver,
carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken
illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies. Additionally, as discussed above, special
regulations promulgated under sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act
provide additional exceptions to these general prohibitions for the
gray wolf.
The proposed 4(d) rule for gray wolves in the northeastern DPS will
have no immediate effect on current conservation measures in place for
any naturally occurring or recolonizing gray wolves. It is the intent
of the 4(d) rule to provide regulatory flexibility so that there will
be fewer obstacles for States and Tribes to assume an active role in
wolf restoration. As a threatened species with a 4(d) rule, States and
Tribes can undertake wolf restoration without nullifying the authority
to manage introduced ``problem'' wolves in a manner consistent with
other wildlife population objectives. As stated earlier in the section
Northeastern Gray Wolves, if future wolf reintroductions occur in the
Northeast, and conditions allowing incidental or intentional take
pursuant to the 4(d) rule are met, it will not be possible in every
instance to distinguish naturally occurring wolves from the unmarked
progeny of reintroduced wolves. Therefore, in the event that one or
more States or Tribes actively reintroduce wolves into the Northeast,
some incidental or intentional take of naturally occurring wolves may
occur in the future.
It is our policy (59 FR 34272; July 1, 1994) to identify to the
maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed those
activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9
of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness
of the effect of the listing on proposed and ongoing activities within
a species' range. Activities that we believe could potentially harm or
kill the gray wolf in the area where it will remain listed as
threatened or endangered and may result in take include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Taking of gray wolves by any means or manner not authorized
under the provisions of the existing special regulation established for
the designated nonessential experimental population in Arizona, New
Mexico, and Texas as long as that designation and special regulation
remain in effect;
(2) Taking of gray wolves within the Western Gray Wolf DPS or in
the Northeastern DPS in a manner not authorized under the provisions of
the 4(d) special regulations proposed in this document, or in a manner
not authorized under the existing experimental population regulations
which would continue to apply to gray wolves in Wyoming and in parts of
Idaho and Montana;
(3) Taking of gray wolves within the Western Great Lakes DPS in a
manner not authorized in either the existing section 4(d) special
regulation for Minnesota or the proposed section 4(d) special
regulation for Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota;
(4) Taking of captive members of the Southwestern (Mexican) DPS
unless such taking results from implementation of husbandry protocols
approved under the Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan or are otherwise
approved or permitted by the Service;
(5) Intentional killing of a live-trapped canid that is
demonstrably too large to be a coyote (that is, greater than 27 kg (60
lb)) in the Northeastern Gray Wolf DPS; or
(6) Killing or injuring of, or engaging in the interstate commerce
of, captive wolves which originated from, or whose ancestors originated
from, the areas included within the Western Great Lakes, Western,
Northeastern, or Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolf DPSs, unless
authorized in a Service permit.
We believe, based on the best available information, that the
following actions will not result in a violation of section 9:
(1) Taking of a gray wolf in defense of human life;
(2) Taking of gray wolves outside of the areas described as the
Western, Western Great Lakes, Northeastern, or Southwestern (Mexican)
Gray Wolf DPS;
(3) Taking of gray wolves under the provisions of the existing
special regulations established for the three designated nonessential
experimental populations in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Wyoming, Idaho,
and Montana as long as those designations and special regulations
remain in effect;
(4) Taking of gray wolves under the provisions of the special
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act, as proposed at this time for
threatened gray wolves in the Northeastern Gray Wolf DPS, the Western
Gray Wolf DPS, or the Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPS States of
Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota;
(5) Taking of gray wolves under the provisions of the existing
special
[[Page 43489]]
regulation at 50 CFR Sec. 17.40(d) for Minnesota wolves; or
(6) Taking of captive members of the Southwestern (Mexican) Gray
Wolf DPS in accordance with husbandry protocols approved under the
Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan or other approvals or permits issued
by the Service.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.22,
17.23, and 17.32. For endangered species such permits are available for
scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species, for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful
activities, and/or for economic hardship. For threatened species such
permits are also available for zoological exhibition, educational
purposes, and/or for special purposes consistent with the purposes of
the Act, but not for economic hardship.
Questions regarding whether specific activities may constitute a
violation of section 9 should be directed to the nearest regional or
Ecological Services field office of the Service. Requests for copies of
the regulations regarding listed species and inquiries about
prohibitions and permits may be addressed to any Service regional
office or to the Washington headquarters office. The location, address,
and phone number of the nearest regional or Ecological Services/
Endangered Species field office may be obtained by calling us at 703-
358-2171 or by using our World Wide Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/where/index.html.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This proposed rule was subject to Office of Management and Budget
review under Executive Order 12866. An economic analysis is not
required because this proposed regulation will result in only minor
(positive) effects on the very small percentage of livestock producers
within wolf range.
Currently the vast majority of wolves that occur in the western
Great Lakes area are found in the State of Minnesota where they are
listed as threatened. A special regulation exists for Minnesota wolves
that allows the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Minnesota DNR, other
designated agencies, and their agents to manage wolves to ensure
minimal economic impact. These special regulations allow some direct
``take'' of wolves. A State program compensates livestock producers up
to $750 per head if they suffer confirmed livestock losses by wolves.
The value of the confirmed livestock losses amounted to an annual
average of about $53,000 over the last five years. Because this
proposal will not affect the existing special regulations for Minnesota
wolves, there will be no economic effect on livestock producers or
other economic activities in Minnesota.
This proposed regulation will reclassify wolves in Michigan and
Wisconsin from endangered to threatened and provide special regulations
similar to those for Minnesota as described above. Thus specified
State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and their designated agents will be
allowed to take wolves in certain circumstances without a permit. Under
normal protections of the Act, that is, without the benefit of special
regulations proposed for Michigan and Wisconsin, permits would be
required. This proposed special regulations will benefit the small
percentage of livestock producers in wolf range in Michigan and
Wisconsin that experience wolf attacks on their animals. Since only
about 1.2 percent of livestock producers in nearby Minnesota, where the
wolf population is much greater (Minnesota contains 2500 wolves, while
Michigan and Wisconsin have 197 and 174 wolves, respectively), are
adversely affected by wolves, the potential beneficial effect to
livestock producers in Michigan and Wisconsin is small, but it may be
significant to a few producers. In addition, State programs in Michigan
and Wisconsin compensates livestock producers if they suffer confirmed
livestock losses by wolves. In Wisconsin compensation is at full market
value, while Michigan provides partial compensation and is planning on
offering full compensation soon. The net effect of the proposed
reclassification and 4(d) rule to livestock producers in Michigan and
Wisconsin is the control of depredating wolves will become more
efficient and effective, thus reducing the economic burden of livestock
producers resulting from wolf recovery in those states. Similar
positive, but geographically scattered and minor economic benefits will
occur for livestock producers in North and South Dakota.
The majority of wolves in the West are protected under nonessential
experimental population designations that cover Wyoming, most of Idaho,
and southern Montana that effectively treat wolves as threatened
species. A smaller, but naturally-occurring population of about 80
wolves is found in northwestern Montana. The wolves with the
nonessential experimental population designation were reintroduced into
these States from Canada. Special regulations exist for these
experimental populations that allow government employees and designated
agents, as well as livestock producers, to take problem wolves. Because
this proposal does not change the nonessential experimental designation
or associated special regulations, it will have no economic impact on
livestock producers or other entities in these areas. However, the
naturally occurring wolves in northwestern Montana (outside of the
nonessential experimental population areas) and wolves that may occur
in other Western States are proposed for reclassification to
threatened. Under normal protections of the Act, that is, without the
benefit of special regulations proposed for the Western States not
included in the nonessential experimental designation, permits would be
required for nearly all forms of take. For example, currently a private
landowner on his or her own land in northwestern Montana could not take
a wolf in the act of attacking a domestic animal. This proposed rule
would allow such take without a permit. The proposed reduction of the
restrictions on taking problem wolves will make their control easier
and more effective, thus, reducing the economic losses that result from
wolf depredation on livestock and other domestic animals. Furthermore,
a private program compensates livestock producers if they suffer
confirmed livestock losses by wolves. Average compensation for
livestock losses has been slightly over $7,000 per year. The potential
effect on livestock producers in Western States outside of the
experimental population is small, but could be entirely beneficial to
their operation.
We propose delisting the gray wolf in a large number of states
outside of the four distinct population segments identified in the
proposed rule. We are proposing these areas for delisting because we
believe wolf recovery in these areas is not feasible or is not
necessary in order to carry out our responsibilities under the ESA.
These areas currently contain no wolves and are not likely to contain
wolves in the future given the modification of the habitat by humans.
Current regulations that protect wolves are unnecessary and currently
provide no protection to wolves. Livestock producers and other economic
activities in these States have not been affected by the wolf and will
not be affected by the actions in this
[[Page 43490]]
proposal because we are simply proposing to remove the current
regulations which have no effect on landowners.
a. This proposed regulation would not have an annual economic
effect of $100 million or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. As
explained above, this proposed regulation will result in only minor
positive economic effects for a very small percentage of livestock
producers.
b. If finalized, this proposed regulation would not create
inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. This proposed regulation
reflects continuing success in recovering the gray wolf through long-
standing cooperative and complementary programs by a number of federal,
state, and tribal agencies.
c. This proposed regulation would not materially affect
entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients.
d. This proposed regulation would not raise novel legal or policy
issues. This proposed regulation is consistent with the ESA,
regulations, and policy.
This proposed regulation would not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). As stated above,
this proposed regulation will result in only minor positive economic
effects for a very small percentage of livestock producers. Only 1.2
percent of the livestock producers are affected in Minnesota and fewer
are expected to be effected in the other States.
This proposed regulation would not be a major rule under 5 U.S.C.
801 et seq., the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
a. This proposed regulation would not produce an annual economic
effect of $100 million. The majority of livestock producers within the
range of the wolf are small family-owned dairies or ranches and the
total number of livestock producers that may be affected by wolves is
small. (For example, only about 1.2 percent of livestock producers in
Minnesota are affected by wolves where the largest wolf population, by
far, exists.) The proposed take regulations that are proposed further
reduce the effect that wolves will have on individual livestock
producers by reducing or eliminating permit requirements. Compensation
programs are also in place to offset losses to individual livestock
producers. Thus, even if livestock producers affected are small
businesses, their combined economic effects will be minimal and the
effects are a benefit to small business by reducing or eliminating
paperwork requirements.
b. This proposed regulation would not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State,
or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
c. This proposed regulation would not have a significant adverse
effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501,
et seq.):
a. The Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this proposed
rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given
year on local or State governments or private entities. As stated
above, this proposed regulation will result in only minor positive
economic effects for a very small percentage of livestock producers.
b. This proposed regulation would not produce a Federal mandate of
$100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This
proposed regulation will not impose any additional wolf management or
protection requirements on the States or other entities.
Takings Implications Assessment
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed regulation
would not have significant implications concerning taking of private
property by the Federal government. This proposed regulation will
reduce regulatory restrictions on private lands and, as stated above,
will result in minor positive economic effects for a small percentage
of livestock producers.
Federalism Assessment
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this proposed regulation
would not have significant Federalism effects. This proposed regulation
would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the States and the Federal government, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, this proposed regulation
does not unduly burden the judicial system.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed regulation does not contain any new collections of
information other than those already approved under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of
Management and Budget clearance number 1018-0094.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this proposed rulemaking in accordance with the
criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act and 318 DM 2.2(g) and
6.3(D). We have determined that Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact Statements, 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. A notice outlining our reasons for this determination was
published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Section 7 Consultation
We do not need to complete a section 7 consultation on this
proposed rulemaking. An intra-Service consultation is completed prior
to the implementation of recovery or permitting actions for listed
species; however, the acts of listing, delisting, or reclassifying
species under the ESA are not subject to the requirements of section 7
of the ESA.
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit
data, comments, or suggestions from the public, other concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning the actions contained in this proposal. Our
practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of
respondents, available for public review during regular business hours.
Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address
from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable
by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold from the rulemaking
record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us
to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this request
prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not
consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their
entirety (see
[[Page 43491]]
ADDRESSES section). Comments particularly are sought concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threat, or lack thereof, to gray wolves in the 48 conterminous
States and Mexico;
(2) Additional information concerning the range, distribution,
population size, and population trends of gray wolves in the
conterminous 48 States and Mexico;
(3) Information concerning the adequacy of the reclassification and
recovery criteria described in the 1992 Recovery Plan for the Eastern
Timber Wolf, the 1987 Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan, and
the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan;
(4) The extent of State and Tribal protection and management that
would be provided to the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes area as
either a threatened or a delisted species;
(5) Information concerning the potential for recovery of gray
wolves in the northeastern United States, and the potential involvement
of the Service in such recovery activities;
(6) Information concerning approaches to controlling wolf
depredation on domestic animals and significant impacts to wild
ungulate populations in States where the wolf may be reclassified to a
threatened species, including the use of section 4(d) special
regulations to allow lethal depredation control and additional
opportunities for harassment of wolves by livestock producers;
(7) Comments and information regarding the merits of alternatives
described in this proposal that were not selected, including the
alternative of removing the two existing nonessential experimental
population designations for the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains; and
(8) Information concerning other alternative approaches to changing
the listing status of the gray wolf to reflect recovery progress and
recovery needs, including alternatives not discussed in this proposal.
(9) Appropriateness of authorizing take in the Northeastern DPS in
accordance with an approved State or Tribal Conservation Plan.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposal is
available upon request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3
Office at Ft. Snelling, Minnesota (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
section).
Author
The primary author of this notice is Ronald L. Refsnider, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota Regional Office (see
ADDRESSES section). Substantial contributions were also made by Service
employees Michael Amaral (Concord, New Hampshire), Ed Bangs (Helena,
Montana), John Fay (Arlington, Virginia), Scott Johnston (Washington,
D.C.), Paul Nickerson (Hadley, Massachusetts), and David Parsons
(Albuquerque, New Mexico).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
record keeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulation, 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.
2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by removing the first two entries
for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) under MAMMALS in the list of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and adding in their place the following three
entries, while retaining the current final two entries for the gray
wolf, which designate nonessential experimental populations in Wyoming,
Idaho, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate population
-------------------------------------------------- Historic range where endangered or Status When listed Critical Special rules
Common name Scientific name threatened habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Wolf, gray.................... Canis lupus...... Holarctic........ U.S.A. (AZ south of E 1, 6, 13, 15, NA NA.
the Colorado and 35, 631,____
Little Colorado
Rivers between
Hoover Dam and
Winslow and south of
Interstate Highway
40 between Winslow
and the eastern
State boundary, NM
south of Interstate
Highway 40, TX south
of Interstate
Highway 40 and west
of Interstate
Highway 35), Mexico,
except where listed
as an experimental
population; captive
wolves who were, or
whose ancestors
were, removed from
the wild in this
area.
Do............................ do............... do............... U.S.A. (MI, MN, ND, T 1, 6, 13, 15, 17.95(a) 17.40(d),
SD, WI); captive 35,____ 17.40(n).
wolves who were, or
whose ancestors
were, removed from
the wild in this
area.
Do............................ do............... do............... U.S.A. (ME, NH, NY, T 1, 6, 13, 15, NA 17.40(m).
VT); captive wolves 35,____
who were, or whose
ancestors were,
removed from the
wild in this area.
[[Page 43492]]
Do............................ do............... do............... U.S.A. (CO, ID, MT, T 1, 6, 13, 15, NA 17.40(l).
OR, UT, WA, WY, AZ 35, 561,
north of the 562,____
Colorado and Little
Colorado Rivers
between Hoover Dam
and Winslow and
north of Interstate
Highway 40 between
Winslow and the
eastern State
boundary, and NM
north of Interstate
Highway 40), except
where listed as an
experimental
population; captive
wolves who were, or
whose ancestors
were, removed from
the wild in this
area.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Service amends Sec. 17.40 by adding new paragraphs (m), (n),
and (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.40 Special rules--mammals
* * * * *
(m) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Western Distinct Population Segment
(DPS). The gray wolf Western DPS occurs in the States of Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and the parts of
Arizona and New Mexico north of the Colorado River and the Little
Colorado River between Hoover Dam and Winslow (Arizona) and north of
Interstate Highway 40 between Winslow and the eastern boundary of New
Mexico, except where listed as an experimental population.
(1) Does this Special rule apply to the experimental populations
located in the Western DPS? No. Paragraphs (m)(2) through (6) of this
section apply to gray wolves within the Western Gray Wolf Distinct
Population Segment, but excludes those wolves occurring in areas that
are designated as experimental populations in Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended.
(2) What are the definitions of terms used in this paragraph (m)?
(i) Active den site. A den or a specific aboveground site that is
being used on a daily basis by wolves to raise newborn pups during the
period April 1 to June 30.
(ii) Breeding pair. An adult male and an adult female wolf that,
during the previous breeding season, have produced at least two pups
that survived until December 31 of the year of their birth.
(iii) Domestic animals. Animals that have been tamed for use by
humans, including use as pets.
(iv) Livestock. Cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as otherwise
defined in State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the
Service.
(v) Noninjurious. Does not cause either temporary or permanent
physical damage or death.
(vi) Opportunistic harassment. Harassment without the conduct of
prior purposeful actions to attract, track, wait for, or search out the
wolf.
(vii) Problem wolves. Wolves that attack livestock, or wolves that
twice in a calendar year attack domestic animals other than livestock.
(viii) Public land. Federal land and any other public land
designated in State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the
Service.
(ix) Remove. Place in captivity or kill.
(x) Service (we). The Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department
of the Interior.
(xi) Take (taking). To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct.
(xii) Wounded. Torn flesh and bleeding or evidence of physical
damage caused by a wolf bite.
(3) What forms of take of gray wolves are allowed in the Western
DPS? The following activities, in certain circumstances as described
below, are allowed: Opportunistic harassment; intentional harassment;
taking on private land; taking on public land; taking in response to
impacts on wild ungulates; taking in defense of human life; taking to
protect human safety; taking to remove problem wolves; incidental take;
taking under permits; and taking authorizations for agency employees.
Other than as expressly allowed in the rule, all the prohibitions of 50
CFR 17.31(a) and (b) apply to gray wolves in this DPS, and all other
activities are considered a violation of section 9 of the Act. Any
wolf, or wolf part, taken legally must be turned over to the Service.
Any taking of wolves must be reported to the Service as outlined in
paragraph (m)(6) of this section.
(i) Opportunistic harassment. Landowners on their own land and
livestock producers or permittees who are legally using public land
under valid livestock grazing allotments may conduct opportunistic
harassment of any gray wolf in a noninjurious manner at any time.
Opportunistic harassment must be reported to us within 7 days.
(ii) Intentional harassment. After we or our designated agent have
confirmed persistent wolf activity on privately owned land, we may,
pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, issue a 90-day permit, with
appropriate conditions, to any landowner to harass wolves in a
potentially injurious manner (such as by projectiles designed to be
nonlethal to larger mammals). The harassment must occur as specifically
identified in the Service permit.
(iii) Taking on private land. We allow landowners to take wolves on
privately owned land in two circumstances:
(A) Any landowner may take a gray wolf that is in the act of
biting, wounding, or killing any domestic animal, provided that the
domestic animal(s) freshly (less than 24 hours) wounded or killed by
wolves are evident, and we or our designated agent are able to confirm
that the domestic animal(s) were wounded or killed by wolves. The
taking of any wolf without such evidence may be referred to the
appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(B) A private landowner who has a permit issued by the Service
pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act may take a gray wolf on
their private land if:
(1) Ten or more breeding pairs of gray wolves are present in that
State where the permit is to be used, and
(2) We or our designated agent have determined that wolves are
routinely present on that private property and
[[Page 43493]]
present a significant risk to the health and safety of domestic
animals. The landowner must conduct the take in compliance with the
permit issued by the Service.
(iv) Take on public land. Under the authority of section
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, we may issue permits to take gray wolves under
certain circumstances to livestock producers or permittees who are
legally using public land under valid livestock grazing allotments. The
permits, which may be valid for up to 45 days, can allow the take of a
gray wolf that is in the act of killing, wounding, or biting livestock,
livestock guard and herding animals, or other domestic animals,
provided that we or our designated agent have confirmed that wolves
have previously wounded or killed livestock and agency efforts to
resolve the problem have been completed. We or our designated agent
will investigate and determine if the previously wounded or killed
livestock were wounded or killed by wolves. There must be evidence of
livestock freshly wounded or killed by wolves. The taking of any wolf
without such evidence may be referred to the appropriate authorities
for prosecution.
(v) Take in response to wild ungulate impacts. If wolves are
causing unacceptable impacts to wild ungulate populations, a State or
Tribe may capture and translocate wolves to other areas within the
Western DPS. In their State or Tribal wolf management plans, the States
or Tribes will define such unacceptable impacts, describe how they will
be measured, and identify possible mitigation measures. Before wolves
can be captured and translocated, we must approve these plans and
determine that such translocations will not inhibit wolf population
growth toward recovery levels. In addition, if, after 10 or more
breeding pairs are established in a State, we determine that wolves are
causing unacceptable impacts to wild ungulate populations, we may, in
cooperation with the appropriate State fish and game agencies or
Tribes, relocate wolves to other States within the Western DPS.
(vi) Take in defense of human life. Any person may take a gray wolf
in defense of the individual's life or the life of another person. The
taking of a wolf without an immediate and direct threat to human life
may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(vii) Take to protect human safety. We or a Federal land management
agency or a State or Tribal conservation agency may promptly remove any
wolf that we or our designated agent determines to present a threat to
human life or safety.
(viii) Take of problem wolves. We or our designated agent may carry
out aversive conditioning, nonlethal control, translocation, permanent
placement in captivity, or lethal control of problem wolves. If
nonlethal depredation control activities occurring on Federal lands or
other public lands identified in State or Tribal wolf management plans
result in the capture, prior to October 1, of a female wolf showing
signs that she is still raising pups of the year (e.g., evidence of
lactation, recent sightings with pups), whether or not she is captured
with her pups, then she and her pups will be released at or near the
site of capture. All problem wolves on private land, including female
wolves with pups, may be removed if continued depredation occurs. All
chronic problem wolves (wolves that repeatedly depredate on domestic
animals including female wolves with pups regardless of whether on
public or private lands) will be removed from the wild (killed or
placed in captivity). To determine the status of problem wolves, we
must have the following:
(A) Evidence of wounded livestock or remains of a livestock carcass
that clearly shows that the injury or death was caused by wolves (such
evidence is essential because wolves feed on carrion that they find and
did not kill);
(B) Reason to believe that additional livestock losses would occur
if no control action is taken;
(C) No evidence of attractants or artificial or intentional feeding
of wolves; and
(D) Evidence that, on public lands, animal husbandry practices
previously identified in existing approved allotment plans and annual
operating plans for allotments were followed.
(ix) Incidental take. We will allow certain incidental take of gray
wolves in the Western DPS if the take was accidental and incidental to
an otherwise lawful activity. Take that does not conform with the
provisions above may be referred to the appropriate authorities for
prosecution. Shooters have the responsibility to identify their target
before shooting. Shooting a wolf as a result of mistaking it for
another species is not considered accidental and may be referred to the
appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(x) Take under permits. Any person with a valid permit issued by
the Service under 50 CFR 17.32 may take wolves in the wild in the
Western DPS, pursuant to terms of the permit.
(xi) Additional taking authorizations for agency employees. When
acting in the course of official duties, any employee or agent of the
Service or appropriate Federal, State, or Tribal agency, who is
designated in writing for such purposes by the Service, may take a wolf
if such action is for:
(A) Scientific purposes;
(B) To avoid conflict with human activities;
(C) To improve wolf survival and recovery prospects;
(D) To aid or euthanize sick, injured, or orphaned wolves;
(E) To salvage a dead specimen that may be used for scientific
study;
(F) To aid in law enforcement investigations involving wolves; or
(G) To prevent wolves with abnormal physical or behavioral
characteristics, as determined by the Service, from passing on those
traits to other wolves.
Any additional taking authorizations for agency employees
identified in this subparagraph must reported to us within 15 calendar
days.
(4) What types of take of gray wolves are not allowed in the
Western DPS?
(i) Any manner of take not described under paragraph (m) (3) of
this section.
(ii) No person may possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship,
import, or export by any means whatsoever, any wolf or wolf part from
the State of origin taken in violation of the regulations in this
paragraph (m) or in violation of applicable State or Tribal fish and
wildlife laws or regulations or the Act.
(iii) In addition to the offenses defined in this paragraph (m), we
consider any attempts to commit, solicitations of another to commit, or
actions that cause to be committed any such offenses to be unlawful.
(iv) Use of unlawfully taken wolves. No person, except for an
authorized person, may possess, deliver, carry, transport, or ship a
gray wolf taken unlawfully in the Western DPS.
(5) How does the gray wolf Western DPS affect use of Federal lands.
Restrictions on the use of any Federal lands within the Western DPS may
be put in place to prevent the direct take of wolves at active den
sites between April 1 and June 30. Otherwise, no additional land-use
restrictions on Federal lands, except for national parks or national
wildlife refuges, may be employed to reduce or prevent take of wolves
solely to benefit gray wolf recovery under the Act. This prohibition
does not preclude restricting land use when necessary to reduce
negative impacts of wolf restoration efforts on other endangered or
threatened species.
(6) What are the reporting requirements when a gray wolf is taken?
Except when otherwise indicated in this paragraph (m), or when a permit
issued under 50 CFR 17.32 specifies otherwise, any taking must be
reported to us within
[[Page 43494]]
24 hours. We will allow additional reasonable time if access is
limited. Report wolf takings or opportunistic harassment to Fish and
Wildlife Service, Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, 100 N. Park,
#320, Helena, MT 59601; 406-449-5225; facsimile 406-449-5339, or a
Service-designated representative of another Federal, State, or Tribal
agency. Any wolf, or wolf part taken legally, must be turned over to
the Service which will determine the disposition of any live or dead
wolves.
(n) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Northeastern Distinct Population
Segment (DPS). The gray wolf Northeastern DPS occurs in New York,
Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.
(1) What are the definitions of terms used in paragraph (n)?
(i) Domestic animals. Animals that have been tamed for use by
humans, including use as pets.
(ii) Livestock. Cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as otherwise
defined in State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the
Service.
(iii) Service (we). The Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department
of the Interior.
(iv) Take (taking). To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct.
(2) What forms of take of gray wolf are allowed in the Northeastern
DPS? The following activities, in certain circumstances as described
below, are allowed: take in defense of human life, take to protect
human safety, take under permits, take for conservation purposes, and
incidental take. Other than as expressly allowed in this rule, all the
prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31(a) apply to gray wolves in this DPS, and
all other activities are considered a violation of section 9 of the
Act. Any wolf, or wolf part, taken legally must be turned over to the
Service. Any taking of wolves must be reported to the Service as
outlined in paragraph (n)(6) of this section.
(i) Take in defense of human life. Any person may take a gray wolf
in defense of the individual's life or the life of another person. The
taking of a wolf without an immediate and direct threat to human life
may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(ii) Take to protect human safety. We or a Federal land management
agency or a State or Tribal conservation agency may promptly remove any
wolf that we or our designated agent determines to present a threat to
human life or safety.
(iii) Take under permits. Any person with a valid permit issued by
the Service under 50 CFR section 17.32 may take wolves in the wild in
the Northeastern DPS, pursuant to terms of the permit.
(iv) Take for conservation purposes.
(A) When acting in the course of official duties, any authorized
Service employee or agent, as described in Sec. 17.31(b), or State
conservation agency who is designated by his/her agency for such
purposes under a Cooperative Agreement under section 6 of the Act, may
take a gray wolf in his/her respective State to carry out scientific
research or conservation programs.
(B) Federally recognized Tribes or States that have an approved
gray wolf conservation plan as described below in paragraph (n)(3) of
this section may take gray wolf in accordance with that plan.
(v) Incidental Take. Take that is incidental to an otherwise lawful
activity included in an approved State or Tribal gray wolf conservation
plan in accordance with (n)(3) of this section is not unlawful.
(3) What are the elements that may comprise an approved State or
Tribal gray wolf conservation plan? We will review these plans, make
them available for public comment, and approve them if the plans
promote the conservation of the gray wolf. Elements that may be
included in the conservation plan are listed below.
(i) A discussion of the status of the wolf in the State or on
Tribal lands, including population estimates, habitat quantity and
quality, and threats to its existence.
(ii) A discussion of existing or planned conservation measures to
promote wolf recovery.
(iii) A discussion of the lawful activities having the potential to
incidentally take wolves.
(iv) A discussion of potential impacts to gray wolves from these
activities and existing or planned provisions to monitor, minimize, and
mitigate those effects.
(v) Provisions for identifying and correcting any situations that
are likely to be causing incidental take and monitoring the effects of
such corrective actions.
(vi) A discussion of measures that may be needed to reduce
conflicts with domestic animals and significant effects to wild
ungulate populations.
(vii) Conservation plans that include provisions for lethal control
of wolves depredating on livestock or domestic animals will not include
provisions for euthanizing wolf pups less than 6 months of age.
(viii) A conservation plan may contain provisions for control
activities to include capturing, relocating, or euthanizing wolves that
threaten ungulate populations of management concern if the control
activities:
(A) Do not begin until at least 5 years after wolf reintroduction
is completed;
(B) Occur only after the State or Tribal natural resources agency
has informed the Service of the need for such activities and the extent
of control that will be implemented; and
(C) Will not reduce any wolf pack by more than 30 percent and more
frequently than every 3 years.
(ix) A conservation plan may contain provisions for capture and
lethal control of diseased wolves (e.g., carriers of rabies or canine
parvovirus) determined to be a potential threat to other wolves,
domestic animals, or humans.
(4) What are the criteria that will be used to evaluate the
conservation plans?
(i) Any incidental taking of gray wolves, as described in the plan,
occurs unintentionally while conducting an otherwise lawful activity.
The purpose of the activity cannot be to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect wolves from the wild. The
plan explains why alternatives that would not result in incidental take
are not being used.
(ii) The plan includes a strategy to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
any proposed incidental take. Compliance with this standard involves a
planning strategy that emphasizes avoidance of impacts to gray wolves
and provides measures to minimize potential impacts by modifying
practices.
(iii) The plan is adequately funded and contains provisions to deal
with unforeseen circumstances. A summary of the funding that will be
available to implement provisions of the plan, including enforcement
and monitoring, is provided. The plan outlines how it will be
determined that a previously unforeseen problem has arisen and should
include the specific steps that will be taken to correct that problem.
(iv) Any incidental taking allowed pursuant to the plan does not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of wolves in
the wild. This criterion is equivalent to the regulatory requirement to
avoid causing ``jeopardy'' under section 7(a)(2) of the Act (i.e., to
avoid engaging in any activity that reasonably would be expected,
directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both
the survival and recovery of the gray wolf). In the case of incidental
trapping of wolves, the plan includes an assessment of the potential
for gray wolves to be incidentally caught by trappers targeting other
species, the likelihood of mortality to a wolf that is trapped and
released (including the potential for it to be trapped more than
[[Page 43495]]
once), and the resulting impact to the wolf population.
(v) We are assured that the plan will be implemented. The plan
specifies how the State or Tribal governments will exercise the
existing authorities to adhere to the commitments made in the plan.
Terms and conditions for implementation and monitoring of the plan are
included to ensure that the plan's requirements and the requirements of
the Act are met. Any violations could be a basis for revocation of our
approval of the plan.
(vi) We are assured that States and Tribes have involved
stakeholders in plan development (e.g., timber companies or
associations, trappers associations, recreational interests,
conservation organizations).
(5) How will the conservation plans be reviewed? We will annually
review the conservation plans with the States and Tribes to measure
progress, identify problems, and recommend corrective action. If we
determine that a plan is not being effectively implemented, we will
present our concerns to the State or Tribe for joint determination of
an appropriate resolution. If the State or Tribe does not take the
agreed-upon corrective action within 90 days, we may partially or
completely revoke approval of the plan. We will publish notice of our
decision to revoke our approval and our reasons for doing so in the
Federal Register, providing a 30-day public comment period prior to
revocation. If we decide to revoke our approval, the take prohibitions
that had been removed through approval of the conservation plan will be
reinstated.
(6) What types of take of gray wolves are not allowed in the
Northeastern DPS?
(i) Any manner of take not described under paragraph (n)(2) of this
section.
(ii) Export and commercial transactions. Except as may be
authorized by a permit issued under 50 CFR 17.32, no person may
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or export by
any means whatsoever, any wolf or wolf part from the State of origin
taken in violation of the regulations in this paragraph (n) or in
violation of applicable State or Tribal fish and wildlife laws or
regulations or the Act.
(iii) In addition to the offenses defined in this paragraph (n), we
consider any attempts to commit, solicitations of another to commit, or
actions that cause to be committed any such offenses to be unlawful.
(iv) Use of unlawfully taken wolves. No person, except for an
authorized person, may possess, deliver, carry, transport, or ship a
gray wolf taken unlawfully in the Northeastern DPS.
(7) What are the reporting requirements when a gray wolf is taken?
Except when otherwise indicated in this paragraph (n), or when a permit
issued under 50 CFR 17.32 specifies otherwise, any taking must be
reported to us within 24 hours. We will allow additional reasonable
time if access is limited. Report wolf takings to Fish and Wildlife
Service, Chief, Endangered Species, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley,
MA; 413-253-8657. Any wolf or wolf part taken legally, must be turned
over to the Service which will determine the disposition of any live or
dead wolves.
(o) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) in Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota,
and South Dakota.
(1) What are the definitions of terms used in paragraph (o)?
(i) Domestic animals. Animals that have been tamed for use by
humans, including use as pets.
(ii) Livestock. Cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as otherwise
defined in State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the
Service.
(iii) Service (we). The Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department
of the Interior.
(iv) Take (taking). To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct.
(2) What forms of take of gray wolves are allowed in Michigan,
Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota? The following activities, in
certain circumstances as described below, are allowed: Take in defense
of human life; take to protect human safety; take to aid, salvage, or
dispose; take for depredation control; take under cooperative
agreements; and take under permit. Other than as expressly allowed in
this rule, all the prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31(a) apply to gray wolves
in this DPS, and all other activities are considered a violation of
section 9 of the Act. Any wolf, or wolf part, taken legally must be
turned over to the Service. Any taking of wolves must be reported to
the Service as outlined in paragraph (o)(4) of this section.
(i) Take in defense of human life. Any person may take a gray wolf
in defense of the individual's life or the life of another person. The
taking of a wolf without an immediate and direct threat to human life
may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(ii) Take to protect human safety. We or a Federal land management
agency or a State or Tribal conservation agency may promptly remove any
wolf that we or our designated agent determines to present a threat to
human life or safety.
(iii) Allowable take for Aiding, Salvaging, or Disposing of
Specimens. When acting in the course of official duties, any authorized
employee or agent of the Service; any other Federal land management
agency; the Michigan Department of Natural Resources; the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources; the North Dakota Game and Fish
Department; the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department; or a
federally recognized American Indian Tribe, who is designated by his/
her agency for such purposes, may take a gray wolf in Michigan,
Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota without a Federal permit if
such action is necessary to:
(A) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned specimen;
(B) Dispose of a dead specimen; or
(C) Salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for scientific study
or for traditional, cultural, or spiritual purposes by Indian Tribes.
Any taking to aid, salvage, or dispose of a specimen must reported to a
Law Enforcement Office of the Service within 15 calendar days. The
specimen may be retained, disposed of, or salvaged only in accordance
with directions from the Service.
(iv) Allowable take for Depredation Control. When acting in the
course of official duties, any authorized employee or agent of the
Service; the Michigan Department of Natural Resources; the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources; the North Dakota Game and Fish
Department; the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department; or a
federally recognized American Indian Tribe, who is designated by his/
her agency for such purposes, may take a gray wolf or wolves within the
person's State or Reservation boundaries, in response to depredation by
a gray wolf on lawfully present livestock or domestic animals. However,
such taking must be preceded by a determination by one of the agencies
listed above in this subparagraph that the depredation was likely to
have been caused by a gray wolf and depredation at the site is likely
to continue in the absence of a taking. In addition, such taking must
be performed in a humane manner and occur within 1 mile of the place
where the depredation occurred if in Michigan or Wisconsin and within 4
miles of the place where the depredation occurred if in North Dakota or
South Dakota. Any young of the year taken by trapping on or before
August 1 of that year must be released. Any take for depredation
control must reported to a Law Enforcement Office of the Service within
15 calendar days. The specimen may be retained, disposed of, or
salvaged only in accordance with directions from the Service.
[[Page 43496]]
(v) Take Under Section 6 Cooperative Agreements. When acting in the
course of official duties, any authorized employee or agent of the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources; the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources; the North Dakota Game and Fish Department; or the
South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department, as described in section
17.31(b), who is designated by his/her agency for such purposes under a
Cooperative Agreement under section 6 of the Act, may take a gray wolf
in his/her respective State to carry out scientific research or
conservation programs. Such takings must be reported to the Service as
specified in the reporting provisions of the Cooperative Agreement.
(vi) Take under permit. Any person who has a permit under section
50 CFR 17.32 of this subpart may carry out activities as specified by
the permit with regard to gray wolves in Michigan, North Dakota, South
Dakota, and Wisconsin.
(3) What types of take are not allowed for gray wolves in Michigan,
Wisconsin, North Dakota, and South Dakota?
(i) Any form of taking not described in paragraph (o)(2) of this
section is prohibited.
(ii) Export and commercial transactions. Except as may be
authorized by a permit issued under section 17.32 of this subpart, no
person may sell or offer for sale in interstate commerce, import or
export, or in the course of a commercial activity transport or receive
any gray wolves from Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, or
Wisconsin.
(iii) In addition to the offenses defined in this paragraph (o), we
consider any attempts to commit, solicitations of another to commit, or
actions that cause to be committed any such offenses to be unlawful.
(iv) Use of unlawfully taken wolves. No person, except for an
authorized person, may possess, deliver, carry, transport, or ship a
gray wolf taken unlawfully in Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, or
Wisconsin.
(4) What are the reporting requirements for gray wolf takings?
Except when otherwise indicated in this paragraph (o), or when a permit
issued under 50 CFR 17.32 specifies otherwise, any taking must be
reported to us within 24 hours. Any wolf, or wolf part taken legally,
must be turned over to the Service which will determine the disposition
of any live or dead wolves.
Dated: June 9, 2000.
Stephen C. Saunders,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 00-17621 Filed 7-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P