# Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife for the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in the Eastern United States, Initiation of Status Reviews for the Gray Wolf and for the Eastern Wolf (Canis lycaon)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2011-9557

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** May 5, 2011
- **Citation:** 76 FR 26086

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2011-0029; 92220-1113-000; ABC Code: C6]
RIN 1018-AX57

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife for the Gray Wolf (
Canis lupus
) in the Eastern United States, Initiation of Status Reviews for the Gray Wolf and for the Eastern Wolf (
Canis lycaon
)

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Proposed rule, initiation of status reviews.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS) are re-evaluating the listing of the Minnesota population of gray wolves (
Canis lupus
) and propose to revise it to conform to current statutory and policy requirements. We propose to identify the Minnesota population as a Western Great Lakes (WGL) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the gray wolf and to remove this DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We propose these actions because the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the WGL DPS does not meet the definitions of threatened or endangered under the Act.

This proposed rule, if made final, would remove the currently designated critical habitat for the gray wolf in Minnesota and Michigan and the current special regulations for gray wolves in Minnesota. We also propose to revise the range of the gray wolf (the species
C. lupus
) by removing all or parts of 29 eastern states that we now recognize were not part of the historical range of the gray wolf. New information indicates that these areas should not have been included in the original listing of the gray wolf.

In this proposed rule, we recognize recent taxonomic information indicating that the gray wolf subspecies
Canis lupus lycaon
should be elevated to the full species
C. lycaon.
Given that a complete status review of this newly recognized species has never been conducted, we are initiating a rangewide review of the conservation status of
C. lycaon
in the United States and Canada. This rule also constitutes the initiation of our five-year review of the status of gray wolves under section 4(c)(2) of the Act, as well as the initiation of status reviews specific to gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest and Mexican wolves in the Southwest United States and Mexico.

DATES:

Comment submission:
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before July 5, 2011.

Public hearings:
We will hold two public hearings on this proposed rule scheduled on May 18, 2011 and on June 8, 2011. Informational meetings will be held from 6 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., followed by the public hearings from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.

ADDRESSES:

Comment submission:
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

Electronically:
Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov.
In the Enter Keyword or ID box, enter FWS-R3-ES-2011-0029, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel at the top of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Submit a Comment.”

By hard copy:
Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R3-ES-2011-0029; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

We will post all comments on
http://www.regulations.gov.
This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

Public hearings:
We have scheduled an informational meeting followed by a public hearing in Ashland, Wisconsin, on May 18, 2011, at the Northern Great Lakes Center, 29270 County Highway G. We have scheduled an informational meeting followed by a public hearing in Augusta, Maine, on June 8, 2011, at the Augusta Civic Center, 16 Cony Street. See the Public Hearings section below for more details.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura Ragan, 612-713-5350. Direct all questions or requests for additional information to: GRAY WOLF QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056. Additional information is also available on our Web site at
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf.
Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. In particular, we are seeking targeted information and comments on our national wolf strategy and our proposed revision of the Minnesota listing; see items (1)-(2) below. Also, as part of this proposed rule we are announcing initiation of a 5-year status review for
C. lupus
in the conterminous United States and Mexico; initiation of status reviews specific to, respectively, gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest and in the Southwest United States and Mexico; and initiation of a status review for
C. lycaon
throughout its range in the United States and Canada. For these status reviews to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on items (9)-(11) below from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties.

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant information concerning our analysis of the current gray wolf listing and the adequacy of our national wolf strategy, with particular respect to our recommended gray wolf listing units (
i.e.,
taxonomic or population units);

(2) Information that forms the basis for revising the currently listed Minnesota group of gray wolves under section 4(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.
), with particular respect to the factors in section 4(a) of the Act, which are:

(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(c) Disease or predation;

(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any current or likely future threat, or lack thereof, to wolves in the WGL DPS;

(4) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, population size, population trends, and threats with respect to wolves in the WGL DPS;

(5) Current or planned activities in the WGL DPS and their possible impacts on the wolves and their habitat;

(6) Information concerning the adequacy of the recovery criteria described in the 1992 Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf;

(7) The extent and adequacy of Federal, state, and Tribal protection and management that would be provided to wolves in the WGL DPS as delisted species; and

(8) The proposed geographic boundaries of the WGL DPS, and scientific and legal supporting information for alternative boundaries that might result in a larger or smaller DPS, including information on the discreteness and significance of the proposed DPS.

(9) New information concerning the biology and conservation of the gray wolf in the conterminous United States and Mexico that may be informative to the 5-year status review of
Canis lupus,
with particular attention to the listing units described under (1) above, including:

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;

(b) Genetics and taxonomy;

(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;

(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends;

(e) Historical, current, and projected levels of suitable gray wolf habitat;

(f) Past, ongoing, and emerging threats to extant gray wolf populations, their habitat, or both; and

(g) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the gray wolf, its habitat, or both.

(10) Information concerning the status of the gray wolf in the Pacific Northwest United States and the gray wolf subspecies
baileyi
(Mexican wolf) in the Southwest United States and Mexico, including:

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;

(b) Genetics and taxonomy;

(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;

(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends;

(e) Historical, current, and projected levels of suitable habitat;

(f) Past, ongoing, and emerging threats to these populations, their habitat, or both; and

(g) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these populations, their habitat, or both.

(11) Information concerning the biology, range, and population trends of
Canis lycaon,
including:

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;

(b) Genetics and taxonomy;

(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;

(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends;

(e) Historical, current, and projected levels of suitable habitat;

(f) Past, ongoing, and emerging threats to extant populations, their habitat, or both;

(g) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both; and

(h) The potential role that any portion of the historical range of the
C. lycaon
in the United States may play in the persistence and viability of the species.

You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES
. We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
ADDRESSES
. Comments must be submitted to
http://www.regulations.gov
before midnight (Eastern Daylight Time) on the date specified in
DATES.
Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in
DATES
.

We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on
http://www.regulations.gov.
If you provide personal identifying information, such as your street address, phone number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
http://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. FWS-R3-ES-2011-0029, or by appointment, during normal business hours at the following Ecological Services offices:

• Twin Cities, Minnesota Ecological Services Field Office, 4101 American Blvd. E., Bloomington, MN; 612-725-3548.

• Green Bay, Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office, 2661 Scott Tower Dr., New Franken, WI; 920-866-1717.

• East Lansing, Michigan Ecological Services Field Office, 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101, East Lansing, MI; 517-351-2555.

• New England Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 70 Commercial St., Suite 300, Concord, NH; 603-223-2541.

Public Hearings

We have scheduled an informational meeting followed by a public hearing in Ashland, Wisconsin, on May 18, 2011, at the Northern Great Lakes Center, 29270 County Highway G. The informational meeting will be held from 6 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., followed by a public hearing from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.

A second informational meeting followed by a public hearing will be held in Augusta, Maine, on June 8, 2011, at the Augusta Civic Center, 16 Cony Street. The informational meeting will be held from 6 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., followed by a public hearing from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Peer Review

In accordance with our policy, “Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,” which was published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinion of at least three appropriate independent specialists regarding scientific data and interpretations contained in this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that our decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer reviewers immediately following publication in the
Federal Register
.

Background

National Overview

Below we provide an overview of our proposed national approach to recovery of wolves in the conterminous United States and Mexico. This overview provides the context for our proposed actions for wolves in the eastern United States. In this overview, we discuss the listing history for the gray wolf, evaluate the current gray wolf listing, present the structured decision-making process we have used to date to formulate our national wolf strategy, and describe the strategy itself.

Gray Wolf Listing History

Here we present a brief overview of previous Federal actions relating to the listing of gray wolves and the recovery plans that have been developed pursuant to these listing actions. Additional Federal actions for western Great Lakes wolves are discussed in
Previous Federal Actions for WGL Wolves
below.

Gray wolves were originally listed as subspecies or as regional populations of subspecies in the conterminous United States and Mexico. In 1967, we listed the eastern timber wolf (
Canis lupus lycaon
) in the Great Lakes region (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967), and in 1973 we listed
C. l. irremotus
in the northern

Rocky Mountains (38 FR 14678, June 4, 1973). Both listings were promulgated under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969; subsequently, on January 4, 1974, these subspecies were listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (39 FR 1171). We listed a third gray wolf subspecies, the Mexican wolf (
C. l. baileyi
) as endangered on April 28, 1976 (41 FR 17740), in the southwestern United States and Mexico. On June 14, 1976 (41 FR 24064), we listed the Texas gray wolf subspecies (
C. l. monstrabilis
) as endangered in Texas and Mexico.

In 1978, we published a rule (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) reclassifying the gray wolf as an endangered population at the species level (
C. lupus
) throughout the conterminous 48 States and Mexico, except for the Minnesota gray wolf population, which was classified as threatened. At that time, we considered the Minnesota group of gray wolves to be a listable entity under the Act, and we considered the gray wolf group in Mexico and the 48 conterminous States other than Minnesota to be another listable entity (43 FR 9607, 9610, respectively, March 9, 1978). This reclassification was undertaken because of uncertainty about the taxonomic validity of some of the previously listed subspecies and because we recognized that wolf populations were historically connected, and that subspecies boundaries were thus malleable.

However, the 1978 rule also stated that “biological subspecies would continue to be maintained and dealt with as separate entities” (43 FR 9609), and offered “the firmest assurance that [the Service] will continue to recognize valid biological subspecies for purposes of its research and conservation programs” (43 FR 9610, March 9, 1978). Accordingly, recovery plans were developed for the wolf populations in the following regions of the United States: the northern Rocky Mountains in 1980, revised in 1987; the Great Lakes in 1978, revised in 1992; and the Southwest in 1982, the revision of which is now underway.

More detail on previous Federal actions for the Southwest and northern Rocky Mountains wolves is provided, respectively, within the 90-day finding for Mexican wolves (75 FR 46894) and in various notices and rulemakings for the management of northern Rocky Mountains wolves (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 68 FR 15879, April 1, 2003; 70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006; 71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009) . Further detail on previous Federal actions related to the WGL DPS is provided in
Previous Federal Actions for WGL Wolves
below.

Evaluation of the 1978 Gray Wolf Listing

The Service now considers the 1978
Canis lupus
listing rule at 43 FR 9607 to be in need of revision. This need has been identified based on our review of the best available taxonomic information, which indicates that
C. lupus
historically did not occupy large portions of the eastern United States and on our reconsideration of the listing in light of current statutory and policy requirements under the Act. These considerations are discussed in turn below.

Taxonomy and Historical Ranges of Wolves in the United States

Our review of the best available taxonomic information indicates that
Canis lupus
did not occupy large portions of the eastern United States:
i.e.,
the northeastern United States was occupied by the eastern wolf (
C. lycaon
), now considered a separate species of
Canis
rather than a subspecies of
lupus,
and the southeastern United States was occupied by the red wolf (
Canis rufus
) rather than the gray wolf. Our review of North American wolf taxonomy also suggests that changes in listing classification are warranted in other portions of the country.

At the time the gray wolf was listed in 1978, and until the molecular genetics studies of the last few years, the range of the gray wolf prior to European settlement was generally believed to include most of North America. The only areas that were believed to have lacked gray wolf populations were the coastal and interior portions of California, the arid deserts and mountaintops of the western United States, and parts of the eastern and southeastern United States (Young and Goldman 1944, Hall 1981, Mech 1974, and Nowak 1995). We note, however, that some authorities have questioned the reported historical absence of gray wolves in parts of California (Carbyn
in litt.
2000, Mech
in litt.
2000).

Furthermore, we note long-held differences of opinion regarding the precise boundary of the gray wolf's historical range in the eastern and southeastern United States. Some researchers regarded Georgia's southeastern corner as the southern extent of gray wolf range (Young and Goldman 1944, Mech 1974); others believed gray wolves did not extend into the Southeast at all (Hall 1981) or did so to a limited extent, primarily at somewhat higher elevations (Nowak 1995). The southeastern and mid-Atlantic States were generally recognized as being within the historical range of the red wolf (
Canis rufus
), and it is not known how much range overlap historically occurred between the two
Canis
species. Morphological work by Nowak (2000, 2002, 2003) supported extending the historical range of the red wolf into southern New England or even farther northward, indicating either that the historical range of the gray wolf in the eastern United States was more limited than previously believed, or that the respective ranges of several wolf species expanded and contracted in the eastern and northeastern United States, intermingling in post-glacial times along contact zones.

The results of recent molecular genetic analyses (
e.g.,
Wilson
et al.
2000, Wilson
et al.
2003, Wheeldon and White 2009, Wilson
et al.
2009, Fain
et al.
2010, Wheeldon
et al.
2010) and morphometric studies (
e.g.,
Nowak 1995, 2000, 2002, 2003) explain some of the past difficulties in establishing the gray wolf's range in the eastern United States. These studies show that the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States historically were occupied by the red wolf (
C. rufus
), and that New England and portions of the upper Midwest (eastern and western Great Lakes regions) historically were occupied by
C. lycaon;
they also indicate that the gray wolf (
C. lupus
) did not occur in the eastern United States.

Based on these recent studies, we view the historical range of the gray wolf as the central and western United States, including portions of the western Great Lakes region, the Great Plains, portions of the Rocky Mountains, the Intermountain West, the Pacific Northwest, and portions of the Southwest. All or parts of 29 southern and eastern States (Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ohio (the part outside WGL DPS), West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas (east of Interstate Highway 35), Oklahoma (east of Interstate Highway 35 and southeast of Interstate Highway 44 north of Oklahoma City), Arkansas, Missouri (southeast of Interstate Highway 44 and southeast of Interstate Highway 70 east of St. Louis), Indiana (the part outside WGL DPS), and Illinois (the part outside WGL DPS)) were not within the gray wolf's historical range.

In sum, we now recognize three wolf species with ranges in the conterminous United States:
Canis lupus, Canis lycaon,
and
Canis rufus.
The ranges of
C. lupus
and
C. lycaon
overlap in the western Great Lakes region, as discussed in
Taxonomy of Wolves in the Western Great Lakes Region
below; however, in the eastern United States, the historical range of
C. lupus
is considered to fall outside the historical ranges of
C. lycaon
and
C. rufus.

Conformance With the Act's Definition of Species

Given the assurances we provided in the 1978
C. lupus
listing that we would continue to treat gray wolf subspecies as separate entities for conservation purposes (as noted in Gray Wolf Listing History, above), we identified a need to reconsider the listing in light of current statutory and policy standards regarding the Act's definition of species. The Act provides for listing at various taxonomic and subtaxonomic levels through its definition of “species” in section 3(16): The term 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 (16 U.S.C. 1532(16) (italics added). As a matter of procedure, then, the Service determines whether it is most appropriate to list an entity as a full species, a subspecies, or a DPS of either a species or subspecies. The gray wolf has a Holarctic range; the current listing encompasses the United States-Mexico segment of the population and consists, in turn, of multiple entities.

The specific provision for listing distinct population segments of vertebrates was enacted through the 1978 Amendments to the Act (Pub. L. 95-362, November 10, 1978); these amendments replaced the ability to list “populations” with the ability to list “distinct population segments” and treat them as species under the Act. To interpret and implement the 1978 DPS amendment, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service jointly published the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (DPS policy) (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), setting policy standards for designating populations as “distinct.”

The March 1978 gray wolf listing predated the November 1978 amendments to the Act. Although the 1978 rule lists two
C. lupus
entities,
i.e.,
the endangered and threatened entities described above, these listings were not predicated upon a formal DPS analysis and do not comport with current policy standards. Nonetheless, subsequent recovery plans and all gray wolf rulemakings since 1996 have focused on units reflective of the evident intent of the 1978 rule to manage and recover gray wolves as “separate entities” (43 FR 9609),
i.e.,
subspecies or populations. This proposed rule and our proposed National Wolf Strategy, below, constitute an effort to bring the 1978 listing in line, insofar as possible, with the Act's requirements and current policy standards.

Structured Decision-Making for Wolves

In 2008, the Service embarked on a structured decision-making process as a means of developing a more integrated and comprehensive strategy for gray wolf conservation in the lower 48 States and Mexico. The overall intent of the process was to identify appropriate wolf entities (
i.e.,
listing units) for full status review, anticipating that such review would lead to either confirmation or revision of the existing gray wolf listing. We aimed to identify a coherent set of listing units based on best available scientific and commercial information, conformance with existing regulatory and policy requirements, and fundamental wolf management objectives.

We first conducted several iterations of the process in an internal Service effort to develop a viable framework for considering the scientific and policy questions that drive decision-making for wolves. The resulting framework incorporated decision analysis principles and techniques for crafting alternative listing units and then assessing the relative performance of each alternative in terms of achieving management objectives.

Management of wolves is shared among the Service, States, and Tribes. Thus, following our development of a satisfactory decision-making framework, representatives from several States involved with gray wolf conservation joined us to further explore alternative units that could qualify for future status review (Tribal representatives declined to participate). After acquainting state participants with the decision-making framework, we convened a State-Federal workshop in August 2010 to generate and assess alternative taxonomic and population units at various scales and in various configurations, including the 1978 listing as the
status quo
alternative.

Workshop participants also explored the different values that drive wolf decision-making; these values were expressed as the following fundamental management objectives: (1) Promote and sustain wolf recovery; (2) comply with the requirements of the Act; (3) minimize the regulatory burden on States, Tribes, and the general public; (4) facilitate State and Tribal management of wolves; (5) minimize wolf-human conflicts; and (6) promote public acceptance of wolf listing and recovery actions.

Workshop outcomes provided important input to our continuing effort to formulate a comprehensive vision of wolf conservation. Based on further Service deliberations, this comprehensive vision has evolved into the proposed national wolf strategy discussed below. It is important to note that this strategy is a broad outline, the components of which are in various stages of execution.

National Wolf Strategy

The Service's national wolf strategy is intended to: (1) Lay out a cohesive and coherent approach to addressing wolf conservation needs, including protection and management, in accordance with the Act's statutory framework; (2) ensure that actions taken for one wolf population do not cause unintended consequences for other populations; and (3) be explicit about the role of historical range in the conservation of extant wolf populations.

The strategy is based on three precepts. First, in order to qualify for any type of listing or delisting action, wolf entities must conform to the Act's definition of “species,” whether as taxonomic species or subspecies or as distinct population segments. Second, the strategy promotes the continued representation in this country of all substantially unique genetic lineages found historically in the lower 48 States. Third, wolf conservation under the Act is concerned with reducing extinction risks to imperiled entities; the strategy thus focuses on conservation of the four extant gray wolf entities identified through the structured decision-making process and being considered for section 4 actions: (1) The western Great Lakes population, (2) the northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) population, (3) gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest, and (4) the Southwestern population of Mexican wolves.

Various reviews and listing actions are underway for these gray wolf populations. The WGL DPS is proposed for delisting in the proposed rule being published in today's
Federal Register
. With regard to the NRM gray wolf population, Congress is considering legislation that would direct us to reissue our 2009 final rule (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009), that delisted the NRM DPS in the States of Idaho and Montana,

and in portions of Oregon, Washington, and Utah. This rule retained ESA protections of wolves in Wyoming as non-essential experimental. If passed, we would publish a separate notice in the
Federal Register
. Negotiations regarding potential future post-delisting wolf management in Wyoming are ongoing.

The biological and conservation status of wolves in the Pacific Northwest (we are considering this to be the area west of the NRM gray wolf population, including portions of Oregon, Washington, northern California, and western Nevada) is being assessed to determine their appropriate listing classification. When this review is completed, we will evaluate a potential Pacific Northwest DPS in accordance with our DPS policy and will reclassify this population as appropriate through an additional rulemaking process. The status of the Southwestern population (
i.e.,
Mexican wolves within their historical range) is being reviewed pursuant to our 90-day finding on two listing petitions (75 FR 46894, August 4, 2010). We anticipate that the Southwestern population will be proposed for listing as either the subspecies
C. l. baileyi
or as a DPS of
C. lupus;
in the meantime, recovery planning will continue to proceed for these wolves.

As separate actions move forward for the NRM, Pacific Northwest, and Southwest, wolves in these regions will retain their current classification as endangered, except where delisted and where currently listed as non-essential experimental populations (see 50 CFR 17.84(k)). We plan to move forward with a rulemaking to replace the remainder of the 1978 listing with more targeted regional units, as appropriate, concurrently with publication of the final rule for the WGL DPS.

It is likely that revision of the 1978 gray wolf listing into finer-scale taxonomic or population units will result in removal of the Act's protections in areas of the historical
C. lupus
range, such as the Great Plains States and areas of the western States, that do not support extant wolf populations
and
do not play a role in the recovery of any of the four gray wolf entities. Although some of these areas are within the species' historical range, these areas lack sufficient suitable habitat for wolf pack persistence. Thus, we believe recovery in these areas is both unrealistic and unnecessary. We note, however, that such areas would not necessarily be precluded from wolf conservation efforts under other authorities,
e.g.,
Tribes, States, and Federal land management agencies.

Our national wolf strategy also addresses the two other wolf taxa that fall within the range described for
Canis lupus
in the 1978 listing,
C. lycaon
and
C. rufus.
With regard to
Canis lycaon,
we are announcing a rangewide status review of this species, which occurs in Canada and the western Great Lakes region of the United States. The historical range of
C. lycaon
also extends into the northeastern United States, which the 1978 listing inaccurately treated as part of the range of
C. lupus.
The role of the Northeast region in conservation of
C. lycaon
will be considered in the rangewide review, which will look at the status of extant populations in terms of uniqueness, demography, and extinction risks. A determination as to whether to proceed with any
C. lycaon
listing action—and, if listing is warranted, whether or not to include the northeastern United States in the listed range—will depend on the results of the status review. Notification of our intentions with regard to
C. lycaon
will be provided in conjunction with publication of the final rule for the WGL DPS. Meanwhile, we propose to revise the range of the gray wolf (the species
C. lupus
) by removing all or parts of 29 eastern states that we now recognize were not part of the historical range of the gray wolf. New information indicates that these areas should not have been included in the original listing of the gray wolf. These States are specified under
Taxonomy and Historical Ranges of Wolves in the United States,
above.

Finally, with regard to
Canis rufus,
we propose to remove the southeastern states included in the 1978 gray wolf listing from the List due to error, because we now recognize were not part of the historical range of the gray wolf. These states instead constitute the range of
Canis rufus;
see
Taxonomy and Historical Ranges of Wolves in the United States,
above. Red wolves currently are listed as endangered where found (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967); this listing will be retained and recovery efforts for red wolves will continue as warranted (Red Wolf Recovery and Species Survival Plan; Service 1990).

Five-Year Review of Gray Wolves

Under section 4(c)(2) of the Act, we have a duty to review listed species' status every 5 years and determine whether a change in listing status is appropriate. We announce initiation of the 5-year review for the gray wolf in this rule and seek new information as requested in Public Comments above.

Western Great Lakes Wolves

Previous Federal Actions for WGL Wolves

The eastern timber wolf (
Canis lupus lycaon
) was listed as endangered in Minnesota and Michigan in the first list of species that were protected under the 1973 Act, published in May 1974 (USDI 1974). On March 9, 1978, we published a rule (43 FR 9607) reclassifying the gray wolf at the species level (
Canis lupus
) as endangered throughout the conterminous 48 States and Mexico, except for the Minnesota population, which we classified to threatened. The separate subspecies listings, including
C. l. lycaon,
thus were subsumed into the listings for the gray wolf in Minnesota and the gray wolf in the rest of the conterminous United States and Mexico. In that 1978 rule, we also identified Isle Royale National Park, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf management zones 1, 2, and 3, 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 portion of the special regulation was later modified (50 FR 50793; December 12, 1985); these special regulations are found in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(2).

On April 1, 2003, we published a final rule revising the listing status of the gray wolf across most of the conterminous United States (68 FR 15804). Within that rule, we identified three DPSs for the gray wolf (see Gray Wolf Listing History, above), including an Eastern DPS, which was reclassified from endangered to threatened, except where already classified as threatened. In addition, we established a second section 4(d) rule that applied provisions similar to those previously in effect in Minnesota to most of the Eastern DPS. The special rule was codified in 50 CFR 17.40(o).

U.S. District Court rulings in Oregon and Vermont on January 31, 2005, and August 19, 2005, respectively, invalidated the April 1, 2003, final rule. Consequently, the status of gray wolves outside of Minnesota reverted back to endangered status, as had been the case prior to the 2003 reclassification. The courts also invalidated the three DPSs identified in the April 1, 2003, rule, as well as the associated special regulations.

On March 27, 2006, we published a proposal (71 FR 15266-15305) to identify a WGL DPS of the gray wolf, to remove the WGL DPS from the protections of the Act, to remove designated critical habitat for the gray wolf in Minnesota and Michigan, and to

remove special regulations for the gray wolf in Minnesota. The proposal was followed by a 90-day comment period, during which we held four public hearings on the proposal.

On February 8, 2007, the Service issued a rule that identified and delisted the WGL DPS of the gray wolf (
Canis lupus
) (72 FR 6052). Three parties challenged this rule (
Humane Society of the United States
v.
Kempthorne,
579 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008)), and on September 29, 2008, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and vacated the rule and remanded it to the Service. On remand, the Service was directed to provide an explanation as to how simultaneously identifying and delisting a DPS is consistent with the Act's text, structure, policy objectives, legislative history, and any relevant judicial interpretations.

The court's primary question was whether the Service has the authority to identify a DPS within a larger already-listed entity and, in the same decision, determine the DPS does not warrant the Act's protections even though the other populations of the species retain the old listing status. Our authority to make these determinations and to revise the list accordingly is a reasonable interpretation of the language of the Act, and our ability to do so is an important component of the Service's program for the conservation of threatened and endangered species.

Our authority to revise the existing listing of a species (the gray wolf in Minnesota and the gray wolf in the lower 48 States and Mexico, excluding Minnesota) to identify a Western Great Lakes DPS and determine that it is healthy enough that it no longer needs the Act's protections is found in the precise language of the Act. Moreover, even if that authority were not clear, our interpretation of this authority to make determinations under section 4(a)(1) and to revise the endangered and threatened species list to reflect those determinations under section 4(c)(1) is reasonable and fully consistent with the Act's text, structure, legislative history, relevant judicial interpretations, and policy objectives.

We consulted with the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior to address the issue in the court's opinion. On December 12, 2008, a formal opinion was issued by the Solicitor, “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Authority Under Section 4(c)(1) of the Endangered Species Act to Revise Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species to `Reflect Recent Determinations'” (U.S. DOI 2008). The Service fully agrees with the analysis and conclusions set out in the Solicitor's opinion. This proposed action is consistent with the opinion. The complete text of the Solicitor's opinion can be found at
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/.

On December 11, 2008, we published a notice reinstating protections for the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes (and northern Rocky Mountains) pursuant to court orders (73 FR 75356).

On April 2, 2009, we published a final rule identifying the western Great Lakes populations of gray wolves as a DPS and revising the list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing the DPS from that list (74 FR 15070). We did not seek additional public comment on the 2009 final rule. On June 15, 2009, five parties filed a complaint against the Department and the Service alleging that we violated the Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the court's remand order by publishing the 2009 final rule (74 FR 15070). On July 2, 2009, pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties, the court issued an order remanding and vacating the 2009 final rule.

On March 1, 2000, we received a petition from Mr. Lawrence Krak of Gilman, Wisconsin, and on June 28, 2000, we received a petition from the Minnesota Conservation Federation. Mr. Krak's petition requested the delisting of gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The Minnesota Conservation Federation requested the delisting of gray wolves in a Western Great Lakes DPS. Because the data reviews resulting from the processing of these petitions would be a subset of the review begun by our July 13, 2000, proposal (65 FR 43450) to revise the current listing of the wolf across most of the conterminous United States, we did not initiate separate reviews in response to those two petitions. While we addressed these petitions in our February 8, 2007, final rule (72 FR 6052), this rule was vacated by the subsequent District Court ruling. While we view our actions on these petitions as final upon publication of the
Federal Register
determinations, we nevertheless restate our 90-day findings that the action requested by each of the petitions may be warranted, as well as our 12-month finding that the action requested by each petition is warranted.

On March 15, 2010, we received a petition from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources requesting that the gray wolf in Minnesota be removed from the List of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife under the Act. Likewise, on April 26, 2010, we received a petition from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources requesting that the gray wolf in Minnesota and Wisconsin be delisted. On April 26, 2010, we received a petition from the Sportsmen's Alliance, representing five other organizations, requesting that gray wolves in the Great Lakes area be delisted. On June 17, 2010, we received a petition from Safari Club International, Safari Club International Foundation and the National Rifle Association of America requesting that wolves of the western Great Lakes be delisted. In response to those four petitions, on September 14, 2010, we published a 90-day finding determining that the petitions presented substantial information that delisting may be warranted and reinitiated a full status review. Therefore, this delisting proposal constitutes our 12-month finding that the action requested by each petition is warranted.

In response to a separate petition, on June 10, 2010, we made a 90-day finding that there was no evidence of any breeding population of wolves to support the requested listing of a DPS of the gray wolf in New England (75 FR 32869).

Species Concepts

As noted in Conformance with the Act's Definition of Species above, the Act defines “species” as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). It has not been uncommon in the years since the Act was passed for significant controversy to arise over the propriety of recognizing various groups of organisms as eligible for protection under the Act. Our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11) require us to use standard taxonomic distinctions (such as species and subspecies) when they are available, clearly defined, and generally accepted. In determining that a taxonomic entity qualifies as a species or subspecies we carefully evaluate the best available taxonomic data to determine whether we have sufficient information to conclude that a taxonomic entity qualifies as a species under the Act.

In identifying species, there is not a single set of criteria, and, therefore, no single species concept that is accepted by all taxonomists. In 1942, Ernst Mayr identified five different species concepts (Mayr 1942), and many more have been recognized since then (Wilkins 2006; 2003; Mayden 1997, pp. 381-384). Many of these species concepts can be associated with one of two major classes of concepts or approaches. The first is the biological species concept (BSC). This concept is based on reproductive relationships among populations. The

ability to interbreed and realize gene flow between two populations is the indication that they belong to the same species. The concept is most commonly associated with Mayr (1963), but has antecedents during the development of evolutionary biology in the 20th century. The second major class of concepts is the phylogenetic species concept (PSC). Under this group of concepts, species are identified by their genealogical (lineages) or phylogenetic (evolutionary) relationships and diagnosability. The many variations of these concepts and others are reviewed by Wiley (1981), Avise (2004), and Coyne and Orr (2004).

There is, likewise, no scientific consensus on what constitutes a subspecies, and some authorities (Wilson and Brown 1953) have questioned the utility of the subspecies level of classification. Following is a description of various subspecies criteria that have been proposed and applied in the taxonomic literature. Because some criteria are more stringent than others, a putative, or generally accepted, subspecies may meet the criteria and be recognized following one concept, but found to be invalid under a more stringent concept. Nowak (1995, p. 394) discussed the standards he used when he revised the subspecies of
Canis lupus:
“My investigation largely disregarded such questions [concerning use of very localized characters] and concentrated on general trends in measurable size and proportion that could be evaluated on a continent-wide or worldwide basis. Substantive statistical breaks in such trends, as discussed above, were taken as evidence of taxonomic division.” In The Mammals of North America, Hall (1981, p. viii) included the following in his “Criteria for Species versus Subspecies.”

If crossbreeding occurs in nature at a place or places where the geographic ranges of two kinds of mammals meet, the two kinds are to be treated as subspecies of one species. If no crossbreeding occurs, the two kinds are to be regarded as two distinct, full species.

Mayr (1963, glossary) defined subspecies as, “an aggregate of local populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of the species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species.” He further explains “differing taxonomically” as differing “by diagnostic morphological characters” (Mayr 1963, p. 348). Mayr (1969, p. 190) also describes a quantitative method for determining whether populations differ taxonomically: “A so-called 75-percent rule is widely adopted. According to this, a population is recognized as a valid subspecies if 75 percent of the individuals differ from “all” (97 percent) of the individuals of a previously recognized subspecies. At the point of intersection between the two curves where this is true, about 90 percent of population A will be different from about 90 percent of the individuals of population B (to supply a symmetrical solution)”.

Patten and Unitt (2002, p. 27) provide another definition of subspecies as “diagnosable clusters of populations of biological species occupying distinct geographic ranges.” They do not require that diagnosability be absolute, but advocate 90 percent separation as a more stringent criterion than the 75-percent rule.

Avise (2004, p. 362) attempted to incorporate phylogenetic information within a biological species concept in providing the following guidance on recognizing subspecies: “Within such units [=species], “subspecies” warranting formal recognition could then be conceptualized as groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations (normally mostly allopatric) that are genealogically highly distinctive from, but reproductively compatible with, other such groups. Importantly, the empirical evidence for genealogical distinction must come, in principle, from concordant genetic partitions across multiple, independent, genetically based molecular (or phenotypic; Wilson and Brown 1953) traits.”

A common feature of all of the above definitions is that they recognize that subspecies are groups of populations, and most recognize that subspecies can be variable and overlap, to some degree, in distinguishing characters. Taxonomists do not assign an individual to one subspecies or another; instead individuals are assigned a specific taxonomic classification based on the population in which they exist.

The existence of multiple concepts of species and subspecies is not the only complicating factor in the debate surrounding the classification of organisms; it is further complicated by the way organisms occur in the natural world. Taxonomists are determined to categorize natural organisms into specific groups and identify and name those groups, while also striving to understand the evolutionary processes that give rise to these specific groups (Hey 2001, pp. 328-329). When viewed on the ground, a particular organism may appear to clearly fit into one group or another, but when their evolutionary history is viewed, these groups are revealed as changeable and without clear boundaries. In the reverse, individuals may appear different (that is be morphometrically distinct) but in fact be of the same taxon (that is, genetically similar). In many situations, it is difficult to determine where one species ends and another begins. This is especially true in wide-ranging species and in the zones where multiple forms (for example, where either two species or two subspecies) contact each other or meet, which is the situation with wolves in the WGL region. Ultimately, species are evolving, dynamic populations, and at times are difficult to categorize. Nevertheless, Congress directs that the Service classify populations as species, subspecies, and DPSs, despite the difficulty and complexity of various taxonomic concepts.

Taxonomy of Wolves in the Western Great Lakes Region

The taxonomic status of the wolves in the western Great Lakes region has long been debated. They have been considered a subspecies of gray wolf,
Canis lupus lycaon
(Goldman 1944), Nowak 1995, 2002, 2003); a
Canis lupus
population that has been influenced by interbreeding with coyotes (Lehman
et al.
1991); members of a full species,
Canis lycaon
(or eastern wolf) that is separate from
Canis lupus
(Wilson
et al.
2000, Baker
et al.
2003); possibly the same species as the red wolf,
C. rufus
(Wilson
et al.
2000); the result of hybridization between
C. rufus
and
C. lupus
(Nowak 2002, 2003, 2009); and, most recently, as a mixed population of
C. lupus, C. lycaon,
and their intercrosses (for example, Wheeldon and White 2009, Fain
et al.
2010, Wheeldon
et al.
2010). These varying interpretations of the taxonomic status of western Great Lakes wolves are summarized, respectively, below.

Wolves in Michigan, Wisconsin, and eastern Minnesota were considered by Goldman (1944, p. 437 and Figure 14) to be within the range of the subspecies
Canis lupus lycaon.
Goldman based his classification on variation in body size and proportions, and in pelage (coat) color. According to Goldman, this was the subspecies of gray wolf historically found across a wide range east of the Mississippi River in the United States and in southeastern Canada. Wolves immediately to the west of the Mississippi River were considered to be part of the subspecies
Canis lupus nubilus.
This taxonomic interpretation was followed by Hall and Kelson (1959, p. 849) and Hall (1981, p. 932).

Nowak's (1995, p. 396; 2003, p. 243) revision of the subspecies taxonomy reduced the range of
C. l. lycaon
to southern Ontario and Quebec and northern portions of New York,

Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Nowak's classification was primarily based on statistical analysis of measurements of skull features. He considered gray wolves that historically occupied Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota to be within the range of
C. l. nubilus.
Based on analysis of additional specimens, Nowak (2002, p. 119; 2003; 2009, p. 238) continued to recognize western Great Lakes wolves as
C. l. nubilus,
but noted that historical specimens from the Upper Peninsula (UP) of Michigan were somewhat transitional between the two subspecies.

Based on a study of DNA variation in North American wolves, Wilson
et al.
(2000, p. 2165) proposed that the taxonomic standing of eastern wolves be restored to full species as
Canis lycaon.
They found that eastern wolves were divergent from
Canis lupus
in both mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and autosomal microsatellite DNA composition. They considered the geographic range of
C. lycaon
as extending west across the Great Lakes region to Minnesota and Manitoba.

Leonard and Wayne (2008, pp. 2-3) have reported on maternally inherited mtDNA sequence haplotypes (DNA sequences or groups of alleles of different genes on a single chromosome that are inherited together as a single unit) from historical (“prerecovery”) wolves from Ontario, Quebec, Michigan, and Wisconsin compared with the recent population of the area. Their interpretation of these results is that the 6 unique haplotypes) identified in 15 historical individuals indicate that the pre-recovery population was “an endemic American wolf,” which they call “the Great Lakes wolf” (p. 1). However, only the two haplotypes most common in the historical sample still occur in the modern wolf population of the western Great Lakes area. Leonard and Wayne (2007) conclude that the modern population does not contain the diversity of Great Lakes wolf haplotypes found in the prerecovery population and that the current population is primarily a mixture of
Canis lupus
and coyote hybrids, with minor influence from the endemic Great Lakes wolf (p. 3).

Koblmüller
et al.
(2009) examined wolves from the western Great Lakes region using three types of genetic markers: mtDNA; Y-chromosome haplotypes based on microsatellite DNA loci on the Y-chromosome, which is a paternally-inherited marker; and autosomal microsatellite DNA, which provides information on recent and ongoing interactions among populations rather than evolutionary lineage information. The historical sample from Minnesota was found to exhibit a third Great Lakes wolf mtDNA haplotype that is common in the modern population. However, the Y-chromosome haplotypes identified in the historical sample were more similar to those of western gray wolves, suggesting that interbreeding between Great Lakes wolves and western gray wolves had taken place before 1910, the year of collection.

Koblmüller
et al.
(2009) conclude that, despite what they consider both ancient and recent incidences of interbreeding with coyotes and western gray wolves, Great Lakes wolves remain morphologically distinct and represent a “distinct taxon” of gray wolf (
Canis lupus
) that is adapted to the region. They do not, however, conclude that this taxon is differentiated enough to be recognized as a species separate from gray wolves, as proposed by Wilson
et al.
(2000).

Several recent studies conclude that the eastern wolf is a unique species and should be recognized as
C. lycaon
(Wheeldon and White 2009; Wilson
et al.
2009; Fain
et al.
2010, p. 15; Wheeldon
et al.
2010). Wheeldon and White (2009, pp. 3-4) state that both the present-day and pre-recovery wolf populations in the western Great Lakes region are genetically similar and that both were derived from hybridization between
C. lupus
and the eastern wolf,
C. lycaon.
Fain
et al.
(2010, p. 10) recognize
C. lycaon
as a unique species of North American wolf, and based on mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplotypes and autosomal microsatellite markers, they establish that the population of wolves in the western Great Lakes region comprise
C. lupus, C. lycaon,
and their hybrids. Contrary to Koblmüller
et al.
(2009), Fain
et al.
(2010, p. 14) found no evidence of interbreeding with coyotes. Furthermore, they conclude that the western Great Lakes States were included in the historical range of
C. lycaon
and that hybridization between the two species “predates significant human intervention” (Fain
et al.
2010, pp. 13-14).

Wheeldon
et al.
(2010, p. 2) used multiple genetic markers to clarify the taxonomic status of
Canis
species in the western Great Lakes region of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and western Ontario. They conclude that the current western Great Lakes wolf population is “composed of gray-eastern wolf hybrids that probably resulted from historic hybridization between the parental species” (Wheeldon
et al.
2010, p. 10), and that the appropriate taxonomic designation for the western Great Lakes hybrid wolves is
C. lupus × lycaon,
replacing Nowak's (2009) wolf subspecies designation of
C. lupus lycaon.
We note, however, that a name in the form of
C. lupus × lycaon
has no standing as an available species name under the rules of zoological nomenclature (ICZN 1999).

It is clear from the studies discussed above that the taxonomic classification of wolves in the western Great Lakes region is one that has been, and will continue to be, of great debate in the scientific community. Most researchers, however, appear to agree that there is a unique and genetically identifiable form of wolf that occupies the western Great Lakes region, and that this form has hybridized with
Canis lupus,
whose origins were from elsewhere in North America. Researchers differ in whether this unique form of wolf should be recognized as a species (Wilson
et al.
2000; Fain
et al.
2010, p. 15; Wheeldon
et al.
2010), a subspecies (Nowak 1995), or a distinct taxon or ecotype but without applying a formal scientific name to that form (Koblmüller
et al.
2009). In choosing among these three alternatives, we find that the large divergence of both mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplotypes between Great Lakes wolves and
C. lupus
is greater than that found between subspecies of
Canis lupus
and favors recognition of the eastern wolf as a species. Currently, the best available scientific information supports recognition of the eastern wolf,
C. lycaon,
as a species (rather than, as previous believed, as a subspecies of gray wolf), and establishes that this species has intercrossed with
C. lupus
in the western Great Lakes region to constitute a population composed of
C. lupus, C. lycaon,
and their hybrids (Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 1; Fain
et al.
2010, p. 14; Mech
et al.
2010; Wheeldon
et al.
2010).

The existence of two wolf species in the western Great Lakes region was not known or suspected in 1978, when the Service replaced the listings of four subspecies of gray wolf, including
C. lupus lycaon,
with the listing of all
Canis lupus
and
Canis lupus
subspecies in the conterminous United States and Mexico as endangered, except for the Minnesota population, which was listed as threatened (USFWS 1978). Since that time, increasingly powerful genetic techniques for the characterization of populations have been developed and applied to wild populations, including wolves. These advances have shown that hybridization between species is much more prevalent than was appreciated in 1978 (Schwenk
et al.
2011); thus the detection of hybridization in western Great Lakes wolves is not unique among mammalian species.

Nowak's (1995, 2002, 2003) exclusion of the western Great Lakes region from
C. l. lycaon
was likely influenced by his inclusion of both
C. lupus
and
C. lycaon
in his western Great Lakes sample. In any event, the various genetic investigations of western Great Lakes wolves clearly show a distribution of eastern wolf (
C. lycaon
) genetic markers throughout the region.

We do not accept the proposal of Wilson
et al.
(2000) that
C. lycaon
and
C. rufus
(red wolf) are the same species. Their conclusion was based on red wolf and
C. lycaon
occurring on the same branch of a phylogenetic network representing mtDNA differences (Wilson
et al.
2000, Figure 5A). This relationship has not been found in subsequent studies (Wilson
et al.
2003; Leonard and Wayne 2008, p. 2; Fain
et al.
2010, p. 9), which placed the red wolf and
C. lycaon
on different branches separated by intervening coyote lineages. This suggests that the red wolf and
C. lycaon
may have evolved independently from common ancestors with modern coyotes, but does not support uniting them as a single species.

Genetic Composition of Wolves in the Western Great Lakes Region

Estimates of the genetic composition of the wolves of the western Great Lakes region with respect to the two species (
C. lupus
and
C. lycaon
) are based on the frequencies of different paternal (Y-chromosome) and maternal (mtDNA) markers specific to the each species in samples of wolves from the region. For mtDNA, 66 percent of sampled wolves had
C. lycaon
haplotypes (Fain
et al.
2010, p. 13; Wheeldon
et al.
2010). For Y-chromosome haplotypes, 54 percent (Wheeldon
et al.
2010) or 50 percent (Fain
et al.
2010, p. 7) of sampled wolves had haplotypes of
C. lycaon.
Male wolves carry both paternal and maternal markers. Of male wolves sampled by Fain
et al.
(2010, p. 12), 41 percent had both maternal and paternal haplotypes of
C. lycaon,
and 13 percent had both maternal and paternal haplotypes of
C. lupus.
Based on a larger sample that also included some wolves from western Ontario, Wheeldon
et al.
(2010) reported 42 percent of the sampled male wolves had both maternal and paternal haplotypes of
C. lycaon
and 21 percent had both maternal and paternal haplotypes of
C. lupus.
Maternal and paternal haplotypes were mixed with respect to the two species for the remaining wolves in both studies.

Although it is clear that
C. lycaon
and
C. lupus
have hybridized in the western Great Lakes region, same-species combinations of paternal and maternal markers in male wolves are more common than expected by random mating (Wheeldon
et al.
2010). This suggests that there is some constraint on complete hybridization between the two species and that complete blending of the two components of the population is not inevitable. The limited number of historical specimens from the western Great Lakes region that have been genetically characterized all have mtDNA indicative of
C. lycaon
(Leonard and Wayne 2008, pp. 2-3; Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 1), but four of these from the early 20th century also had
C. lupus
Y-chromosome haplotypes, which indicates that hybridization had occurred by that time. The opportunity for hybridization between
C. lycaon,
which belongs to a North American lineage, and
C. lupus,
which evolved in Eurasia, has existed since
C. lupus
entered North America about 500,000 years ago (Kurtén and Anderson 1980), yet a predominantly
C. lycaon
population of wolves still persists in the western Great Lakes region.

Wolf-Coyote Relationships

For a discussion on interpretations of wolf-coyote relationships in the western Great Lakes, see the discussion under Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence in this proposed rule.

Procedural Aspects of Proposal Applying to the Gray Wolf (C. lupus)

When the Service revised the endangered species list in 1978 to include the species
Canis lupus
in the lower 48 States and Mexico, regulatory protections were applied to all gray wolves in the lower 48 States, including all subspecies of gray wolves, which were subsumed at that time into
C. lupus.
That rule classified the Minnesota gray wolf population as a threatened “species” and gray wolves elsewhere in the lower 48 States and Mexico as another “species” with endangered status. The best scientific information available supports the existence of distinct taxa and populations within the
C. lupus
listing and changes our understanding of North American wolf taxonomy. With regard to the WGL wolf population, current scientific data indicate that
Canis lycaon,
which was understood in 1978 to be a subspecies of
C. lupus,
should be recognized as a full species, and that
C. lycaon
and
C. lupus
both occur, and to some extent, interbreed in the western Great Lakes area (see
Taxonomy of Wolves in the Western Great Lakes Region
).

The existence of this new information does not by itself change the regulatory status of the gray wolf (
C. lupus
) under the Act—such changes must be made through rulemaking. This proposed rule recognizes the taxonomic changes and the improved status of the WGL gray wolf populations and proposes those appropriate and necessary administrative changes for the gray wolf in the WGL and portions of the eastern United States.

Based on our current understanding of wolf systematics, we recognize that not all individual wolves in the WGL region are in fact, gray wolves,
Canis lupus.
Within this rule we are proposing changes to the listing for
C. lupus
and are initiating a status review for
C. lycaon.
These two actions combined will address all wolves in the WGL region.

The procedural aspects of this proposed rule (
e.g.,
the revision of the 1978 listing of the group of gray wolves in Minnesota as a “species” to a DPS and the delisting of that DPS) refer to the gray wolf (
C. lupus
), because that is the named entity currently on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Our proposed action here is to establish the existence of a WGL distinct population segment of
C. lupus
and to determine that the DPS is neither endangered nor threatened, despite its proximity to a closely related species,
C. lycaon
—a species whose status we will evaluate for possible protection under the Act in the near future.

Biology and Ecology of Wolves in the Western Great Lakes

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 kg (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) 1999). Wolves' fur color is frequently a grizzled gray, but it can vary from pure white to coal black. Wolves may appear similar to coyotes (
Canis latrans
) and some domestic dog breeds (such as the German shepherd or Siberian husky) (
C. lupus familiaris
). Wolves' longer legs, larger feet, wider head and snout, and straight tail distinguish them from both coyotes and dogs.

Wolves primarily are predators of medium and large mammals. Wild prey species in North America include white-tailed deer (
Odocoileus virginianus
) and mule deer (
O. hemionus
), moose (
Alces alces
), elk (
Cervus elaphus
), 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
), snowshoe hare (
Lepus americanus
), and muskrat (
Ondatra zibethicus
), with small mammals, birds, and large invertebrates sometimes being taken (Chavez and Gese 2005, Mech 1974, Stebler 1944, WI DNR 1999, Huntzinger
et al.
2005). In the WGL DPS, during the last 25 years, wolves have also killed domestic animals including horses (
Equus caballus
), cattle (
Bos taurus
), sheep (
Ovis aries
), goats (
Capra hircus
), llamas (
Lama glama
), pigs (
Sus scrofa
), geese (
Anser sp.
), ducks (
Anas sp.
), turkeys (
Meleagris gallopavo
), chickens (
Gallus sp.
), guinea fowl (
Numida meleagris
), pheasants (
Phasianus colchicus
), dogs, cats (
Felis catus
), and captive white-tailed deer (Paul 2004, 2005; Wydeven 1998; Wydeven
et al.
2001; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 1999, 2000, 2001, 2005).

Wolves are social animals, normally living in packs of 2 to 12 wolves. Winter pack size in Michigan's Upper Peninsula (UP) averaged from 2.7 to 4.6 wolves during the 1995 through 2005 period and ranged from 2 to 14 wolves per pack (Huntzinger
et al.
2005). Pack size in Wisconsin is similar, averaging 3.8 to 4.1 wolves per pack, and ranging from 2 to 11 wolves in winter 2004-05 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005). In Minnesota the average pack size found in the 1988-89, 1997-98, and 2003-04 winter surveys was higher—5.55, 5.4, and 5.3 wolves per pack, respectively (Erb and Benson 2004).

Packs are primarily family groups consisting of a breeding pair, their pups from the current year, offspring from one or two previous years, and occasionally an unrelated wolf. Packs typically occupy, and defend from other packs and individual wolves, a territory of 20 to 214 square (sq) miles (mi) (50 to 550 sq kilometers (km)). Midwest wolf packs tend to occupy territories on the lower end of this size range. Michigan Upper Peninsula territories averaged 103 sq mi (267 sq km in 2000-01 (Drummer
et al.
2002), Wisconsin territories 37 sq mi (96 sq km) in 2004-05 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005), and Minnesota territory size averaged 39 sq mi (102 sq km) in 2003-04 (Erb and Benson 2004). Normally, only the top-ranking (“alpha”) male and female in each pack breed and produce pups. Litters are born from early April into May; they range from 1 to 11 pups, but generally include 4 to 6 pups (Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MI DNR) 1997; USFWS 1992; USFWS
et al.
2001). Normally a pack has a single litter annually, but the production of 2 or 3 litters in one year has been routinely documented in Yellowstone National Park (USFWS
et al.
2002; Smith
et al.
2005).

Yearling wolves frequently disperse from their natal packs, although some remain with their natal pack. Adult wolves and pups older than 5 months also may disperse but at much lower frequencies (Fuller 1989). Dispersers may range over large areas as lone animals after leaving their natal pack or they may locate suitable unoccupied habitat and a member of the opposite sex and begin their own pack. These dispersal movements allow a wolf population to quickly expand and colonize areas of suitable habitat that are nearby or even those that are isolated by a broad area of unsuitable habitat. Additional details on extraterritorial movements are found in
Delineating the Boundaries of the Proposed WGL Gray Wolf DPS,
below.

Recovery of Western Great Lakes Wolves

Recovery Criteria

Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are instead intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and achieving recovery. These documents include, among other elements required under section 4(f) of the Act, criteria for determining when a species can be delisted. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species; in fact, recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, strictly adhere to the guidance provided in a recovery plan.

We use recovery criteria in concert with evidence that threats have been minimized sufficiently and populations have achieved long-term viability to judge when a species can be reclassified from endangered to threatened or delisted. Recovery plans, including recovery criteria, are subject to change based upon new information and are revised accordingly and when practicable. In a similar sense, implementation of planned actions is subject to changing information and availability of resources. We have taken these considerations into account in the following discussion.

The 1978 Recovery Plan (hereafter Recovery Plan) and the 1992 Revised Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (hereafter Revised Recovery Plan) contain the same two recovery criteria. The first recovery criterion states that the survival of the wolf in Minnesota must be assured. We, and the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team (Peterson in litt. 1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b), have concluded that this recovery criterion remains valid. It addresses a need for reasonable assurances that future state, Tribal, and Federal wolf management and protection will maintain a viable recovered population of wolves within the borders of Minnesota for the foreseeable future.

The Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf was based on the best available information on wolf taxonomy at the time of its original publication and subsequent revision. As discussed above in
Taxonomy of Wolves in the Western Great Lakes Region,
since the publication of those plans, several studies have produced conflicting results regarding the taxonomic identity of the wolf that historically occupied the eastern States. Currently, the Service subscribes to the view that what was formerly recognized as the subspecies
C. lupus lycaon
should be recognized as a unique species,
C. lycaon.
Regardless of its taxonomic identity, however, this recovery program has always focused on recovering the wolf population that survived in, and has expanded outward from, northeastern Minnesota. Thus, the Plans guide our analysis of recovery of the wolves in the western Great Lakes area.

Although the recovery criteria identified in the Recovery Plan predate the scientific field of conservation biology, the conservation principles of representation (conserving the genetic diversity of a taxon), resilience (the ability to withstand demographic and environmental variation), and redundancy (sufficient populations to provide a margin of safety) were incorporated into these criteria. Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf population is vital in terms of representation and resilience, because the remaining genetic diversity of wolves in the eastern United States (other than red wolves) was carried by the several hundred wolves that survived in Minnesota into the early 1970s. The Recovery Team insisted that the remnant Minnesota wolf population be maintained and protected to achieve wolf recovery in the eastern United States. The successful growth of the remnant Minnesota population has maintained and maximized the representation of that genetic diversity among wolves in the WGL. Although the Revised Recovery Plan did not establish a specific numerical criterion for the Minnesota wolf population, it did identify, for planning purposes only, a population goal of 1,251-1,400

animals for that Minnesota population (USFWS 1992, p. 28). A population of this size would increase the likelihood of maintaining its genetic diversity over the long term. This large Minnesota wolf population also provides resiliency to reduce the adverse impacts of unpredictable demographic and environmental events. Furthermore, the Revised Recovery Plan specifies a wolf population that is spread across about 40 percent of Minnesota (Zones 1 through 4) (USFWS 1992, p. 28), adding a geographic component to the resiliency of the Minnesota wolf population.

The second recovery criterion in the Recovery Plan states that at least one viable wolf population should be reestablished within the historical range of the eastern timber wolf outside of Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan (USFWS 1992, pp. 24-26). The reestablished population enhances both the resiliency and redundancy of the WGL metapopulation.

The Recovery Plan provides two options for reestablishing this second population. If it is an isolated population, that is, located more than 100 mi (160 km) from the Minnesota wolf population, the second population should consist of at least 200 wolves for at least 5 years, based upon late-winter population estimates, to be considered viable. Late-winter estimates are made at a time when most winter mortality has already occurred and before the birth of pups, thus, the count is made at the annual low point of the population. Alternatively, if the second population is located within 100 mi (160 km) of a self-sustaining wolf population (for example, the Minnesota wolf population), it should be maintained at a minimum of 100 wolves for at least 5 years, based on late-winter population estimates, to be considered viable. A nearby second population would be considered viable at a smaller size because it would be geographically close enough to exchange wolves with the Minnesota population (that is, they would function as a metapopulation), thereby bolstering the smaller second population both genetically and numerically.

The original Recovery Plan did not specify where in the eastern United States the second population should be re-established. Therefore, the second population could have been established anywhere within the triangular Minnesota-Maine-Florida area covered by the Recovery Plan and the Revised Recovery Plan, except on Isle Royale (Michigan) or within Minnesota. The Revised Recovery Plan identified potential gray wolf reestablishment areas in northern Wisconsin, the UP of Michigan, the Adirondack Forest Preserve of New York, a small area in eastern Maine, and a larger area of northwestern Maine and adjacent northern New Hampshire (USFWS 1992, pp. 56-58). Neither the 1978 nor the 1992 recovery criteria suggest that the restoration of the gray wolf throughout all or most of what was thought to be its historical range in the eastern United States, or to all of these potential re-establishment areas, is necessary to achieve recovery under the Act.

In 1998, the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team clarified the application of the recovery criterion for the second population to the wolf population that had developed in northern Wisconsin and the adjacent UP of Michigan. This second population is less than 100 mi (160 km) from the Minnesota wolf population. The Recovery Team recommended that the numerical recovery criterion for the Wisconsin-Michigan population be considered met when consecutive late-winter wolf surveys document that the population equals or exceeds 100 wolves (excluding Isle Royale wolves) for the 5 consecutive years between the first and last surveys (Peterson in litt. 1998).

Recovery Trends for Wolves in the Western Great Lakes Region

Minnesota Recovery

During the pre-1965 period of wolf bounties and legal public trapping, wolves persisted in the remote northeastern portion of Minnesota but were eliminated from the rest of the State. Estimated numbers of Minnesota wolves before their listing under the Act in 1974 include 450 to 700 wolves in 1950-53 (Fuller
et al.
1992, p. 43, based on data in Stenlund 1955, p. 19), 350 to 700 wolves in 1963 (Cahalane 1964, p. 10), 750 wolves in 1970 (Leirfallom 1970, p. 11), 736 to 950 wolves in 1971-72 (Fuller
et al.
1992, p. 44), and 500 to 1,000 wolves in 1973 (Mech and Rausch 1975, p. 85). Although these estimates were based on different methodologies and are not directly comparable, each puts the pre-listing abundance of wolves in Minnesota at 1,000 or less. This was the only significant wolf population in the United States outside Alaska during those time periods.

After the gray wolf was listed as endangered under the Act in 1974, the Minnesota population estimates increased (see table 1 below). Mech estimated the population to be 1,000 to 1,200 wolves in 1976 (USFWS 1978, pp. 4, 50-52), and Berg and Kuehn (1982, p. 11) estimated that there were 1,235 wolves in 138 packs in the winter of 1978-79. In 1988-89, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) repeated the 1978-79 survey and also used a second method to estimate wolf numbers in Minnesota. The resulting independent estimates were 1,500 and 1,750 wolves in at least 233 packs; the lower number was derived by a method comparable to the 1978-79 survey (Fuller
et al.
1992, pp. 50-51).

During the winter of 1997-98, the MN DNR repeated a statewide wolf population and distribution survey, using methods similar to those of the two previous surveys. Field staff of Federal, State, Tribal, and county land management agencies and wood products companies were queried to identify occupied wolf range in Minnesota. Data from 5 concurrent radio telemetry studies tracking 36 packs, representative of the entire Minnesota wolf range, were used to determine average pack size and territory area. Those figures were then used to calculate a statewide estimate of wolf and pack numbers in the occupied range, with single (non-pack) wolves factored into the estimate (Berg and Benson 1999, pp. 1-2).

Table 1—Minimum Winter Wolf Populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (Excluding Isle Royale) From 1976 Through 2010. (Note That There are Several Years Between the First Three estimates. Minnesota Does Not Conduct Annual Surveys.)

Year
Number of wolves
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Michigan
Wisconsin and Michigan total

1976
1,000-1,200

1978-79
1,235

1988-89
1,500-1,750
31
3
34

1989-90

34
10
44

1990-91

40
17
57

1991-92

45
21
66

1992-93

40
30
70

1993-94

57
57
114

1994-95

83
80
163

1995-96

99
116
215

1996-97

148
113
261

1997-98
2,445
180
139
319

1998-99

205
169
374

1999-2000

248
216
464

2000-01

257
249
506

2001-02

327
278
604

2002-03

335
321
656

2003-04
3,020
373
360
733

2004-05

435
405
840

2005-06

467
434
899

2006-07

546
509
1,055

2007-08
2,921
549
520
1,069

2008-09

637
577
1,214

2009-10

690
557
1,247

The 1997-98 survey concluded that approximately 2,445 wolves existed in about 385 packs in Minnesota during that winter period (90 percent confidence interval from 1,995 to 2,905 wolves) (Berg and Benson 1999, p. 4). This figure indicated the continued growth of the Minnesota wolf population at an average rate of about 3.7 percent annually from 1970 through 1997-98. Between 1979 and 1989 the annual growth rate was approximately 3 percent, and it increased to between 4 and 5 percent in the next decade (Berg and Benson 1999, p. 5; Fuller
et al.
1992, p. 51). As of the 1998 survey, the number of Minnesota wolves had reached approximately twice the number specified in the recovery planning goal for Minnesota (USFWS 1992, p. 28).

Minnesota DNR conducted another survey of the State's wolf population and range during the winter of 2003-04, again using methodology similar to the previous surveys. That survey concluded that an estimated 3,020 wolves in 485 packs occurred in Minnesota (90 percent confidence interval for this estimate is 2,301 to 3,708 wolves) (Erb and Benson 2004, pp. 7, 9). The MN DNR conducted its most recent survey of wolf population and range during the winter of 2007-08. That survey concluded that an estimated 2,921 wolves in 503 packs occurred in Minnesota (90 percent confidence interval for this estimate is 2,192 to 3,525 wolves). The results of the past three surveys suggest that the wolf population has been numerically stable over the past 10 or more years (Erb 2008, p. 6).

As wolves increased in abundance in Minnesota, they also expanded their distribution. During 1948-53, the primary wolf range was estimated at 11,954 sq mi (31,080 sq km) (Stenlund 1955, p. 19). A 1970 questionnaire survey in Minnesota resulted in an estimated wolf range of 14,769 sq mi (38,400 sq km) (calculated by Fuller
et al.
1992, p. 43, from Leirfallom 1970). Fuller
et al.
(1992, p. 44), using data from Berg and Kuehn (1982), estimated that Minnesota primary wolf range encompassed 14,038 sq mi (36,500 sq km) during the winter of 1978-79. By 1982-83, pairs or breeding packs of wolves were estimated to occupy an area of 22,000 sq mi (57,050 sq km) in northern Minnesota (Mech
et al.
1988, p. 86). That study also identified an additional 15,577 sq mi (40,500 sq km) of peripheral range, where habitat appeared suitable but no wolves or only lone wolves existed. The 1988-89 study produced an estimate of 23,165 sq mi (60,200 sq km) as the contiguous wolf range at that time in Minnesota (Fuller
et al.
1992, pp. 48-49; Berg and Benson 1999, p. 3, 5), an increase of 65 percent over the primary range calculated for 1978-79.

The 1997-98 study concluded that the contiguous wolf range had expanded to 33,971 sq mi (88,325 sq km), a 47 percent increase in 9 years (Berg and Benson 1999, p. 5). By that time the Minnesota wolf population was using most of the available primary and peripheral range identified by Mech
et al.
(1988, p. 86). The wolf population in Minnesota had increased in abundance and distribution to the point that its contiguous range covered approximately 40 percent of the State during 1997-98. In contrast, the 2003-04 survey failed to show a continuing expansion of wolf range in Minnesota, and any actual increase in wolf numbers since 1997-98 was attributed to increased wolf density within a stabilized range (Erb and Benson 2004, p. 7). The results of the 2007-08 survey also indicated that wolf range in Minnesota remained “essentially unchanged” since 2004 (Erb 2008, not paginated).

Although the Minnesota DNR does not conduct a formal wolf population survey annually, it includes the species in its annual carnivore track survey. This survey, standardized and operational since 1994, provides an annual index of abundance for several species of large carnivores by counting their tracks along 20-mile (32-km) long standardized survey routes in northern Minnesota. In 2009, wolves were detected on 71 percent of the 58 routes surveyed, and the resulting indices of abundance and distribution were not appreciably different from recent years (Erb 2009, not paginated).

Summary for Minnesota

The Minnesota wolf population has increased from an estimated 1,000 individuals in 1976 to nearly 3,000 today and the estimated wolf range in the State has expanded by approximately 225 percent (from approximately 15,000 sq mi (24,100 sq km) to approximately 34,000 sq mi (54,700 sq km)) since 1970. Over the past 10-12 years, the population size and range have remained stable, as most of the primary and peripheral habitat has been occupied. Based on the current abundance and distribution of the Minnesota wolf population, we believe its continued survival is ensured, and it achieves the first recovery criterion of the Revised Recovery Plan.

Wisconsin Recovery

Wolves were considered to have been extirpated from Wisconsin by 1960. No formal attempts were made to monitor the State's wolf population from 1960 through 1978. Although individual wolves and an occasional wolf pair were reported from 1960 through 1975, (Thiel 1978, Thiel 1993), there was no documentation of wolf reproduction occurring in Wisconsin, and the wolves that were reported may have been dispersing animals from Minnesota.

Wolves are believed to have reestablished breeding packs in Wisconsin in the winter of 1975-76. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR) began wolf population monitoring in 1979-80, estimating a statewide population of 25 wolves at that time (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2000, pp. 151, 159; Wydeven
et al.
2009c, pp. 93-97). This population remained relatively stable for several years, and then declined to approximately 15 to 19 wolves in the mid-1980s. In the late 1980s, the Wisconsin wolf population began an increase that has continued into 2010, when 690 wolves were counted (Wydeven
et al.
2010, Figure 3).

Since 1979, WI DNR has intensively surveyed its wolf population on an annual basis using a combination of aerial, ground, and satellite radio telemetry complemented by snow tracking and wolf sign surveys (Wydeven
et al.
2006a, pp. 4-5; Wydeven
et al.
2009c, pp. 90-91). Wolves are trapped from May through September and fitted with radio collars, with a goal of having at least one radio collared wolf in approximately half of the wolf packs in Wisconsin. Aerial locations are obtained from each functioning radio collar about once per week, and pack territories are estimated and mapped from the movements of the individuals who exhibit localized patterns. From December through March, the pilots make special efforts to visually locate and count the individual wolves in each radio-tracked pack.

Snow tracking is used to supplement the information gained from aerial sightings and to provide pack size estimates for packs lacking a radio-collared wolf. Tracking is done by assigning survey blocks to trained trackers, who then drive snow-covered roads in their blocks and follow all wolf tracks they encounter. Snowmobiles are used to locate wolf tracks in more remote areas with few roads. The results of the aerial and ground surveys are carefully compared to properly separate packs and to avoid over-counting (Wydeven
et al.
2006a, pp. 4-5). The estimated number of wolves in each pack is based on the aerial and ground observations made of the individual wolves in each pack over the winter.

Because the monitoring methods focus on wolf packs, lone wolves are likely undercounted in Wisconsin. As a result, the annual population estimates are probably slight underestimates of the actual wolf population within the State during the late-winter period. Fuller (1989, p. 19) noted that lone wolves are estimated to compose from 2 to 29 percent of the total population in the area. Wisconsin DNR surveys have estimated 2-15 percent of the winter population as loners (Wydeven
et al.
2009c, p. 96). These surveys, however, are focused on heavily forested portions of northern and central Wisconsin; therefore, dispersing wolves traveling other portions of the State are less likely to be detected, and often such wolves are only documented after vehicle collisions or accidental shootings. Broader use of trail cameras by members of the public is improving the WI DNR's ability to detect lone wolves across the State.

As previously stated, population estimates are made at the low point of the annual wolf population cycle. Thus, Wisconsin wolf population estimates are conservative in two respects. They undercount lone wolves, and the count is made at the annual low point of the population. This methodology is consistent with the recovery criteria established in the Revised Recovery Plan, which established numerical criteria to be measured with data obtained by late-winter surveys. Based on these considerations, an estimated 690 to 733 wolves in 181 packs, including 35 wolves on Native American reservations, were in Wisconsin in early 2010, representing an 8 percent increase from 2009 (Wydeven
et al.
2010, pp. 12-13).

In the winter of 1994-95, wolves were first documented in Jackson County, Wisconsin, well to the south of the area occupied by other Wisconsin wolf packs in the northern part of the State (Thiel
et al.
2009, pp. 109-110). The number of wolves in this central Wisconsin area has dramatically increased since that time. During the winter of 2009-10, there were 100-106 wolves in 25 packs in the central forest wolf range (Zone 2 in the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan; Wydeven
et al.
2010, p. 5) and an additional 46 to 48 wolves in 12 or 13 packs in the marginal habitat in Zone 3, located between Zone 1 (northern forest wolf range) and Zones 2 and 4 (Wydeven
et al.
2010, p. 5).

During the winter of 2004-05, 11 to 13 wolves were believed to be primarily occupying Native American reservation lands in Wisconsin (Wydeven in litt. 2005); this increased to 16 to 17 in 2005-06, 17 to 19 in 2007-08 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2008, Summary), approximately 27 in 2008-2009 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2008, p. 1), and approximately 35 in 2009-10 (Wydeven
et al.
2010, p. 1). The 2009-10 survey consisted of 3 packs totaling 10-11 wolves on the Bad River Chippewa Reservation and a pack of 2 wolves on the Lac Courtes Oreilles Chippewa Reservation, both in northwestern Wisconsin. There also were two packs of five wolves each on the Lac du Flambeau Reservation in north-central Wisconsin. A pack of four wolves and three pairs occurred on the Menominee Reservation and a three-wolf pack occurred on the Stockbridge Reservation, both in northeastern Wisconsin (Wydeven
et al.
2010, Table 6). A pack of four to five wolves spent time on portions of the Red Cliff Chippewa Reservation along the Lake Superior shoreline. Wolf packs also used scattered lands of the St. Croix Chippewa in northwest Wisconsin, the Ho Chunk Nation in central Wisconsin, and Potawatomi in northeast Wisconsin. The Tribal land of the Ho-Chunk, St. Croix Chippewa, and Potawatomi are composed mostly of scattered parcels of land, and are not likely to provide significant amounts of wolf habitat. About 90 percent of packs in northern Wisconsin Zone 1, and northern portions of Zone 3 are located in ceded territory where Chippewa Bands have retained hunting and gathering rights.

In 2002, wolf numbers in Wisconsin alone surpassed the 1992 Revised Recovery Plan criterion for a second population within 100 miles of the Minnesota population (100 wolves for a minimum of 5 consecutive years (USFWS 1992, p. 4)). Furthermore, in 2004, Wisconsin wolf numbers

exceeded the 1992 recovery criterion of 200 animals for 6 successive late-winter surveys for an isolated wolf population (USFWS 1992, p. 4). Wisconsin population estimates for 1985 to 2010 increased from 15 to 690 wolves (see table 1 above) and from 4 to 181 packs (Wydeven
et al.
2010, figure 3). This represents an annual population increase of 21 percent through 2000, and an average annual increase of 6 percent for the most recent 6 years. The slower rates of increase since 2000 are an indication that the State's wolf population growth and geographic expansion are beginning to level off.

Michigan Recovery

Except for Isle Royale, wolves were extirpated from Michigan as a reproducing species long before they were listed as endangered under the Act in 1974. Prior to 1989, the last known breeding population of wild Michigan wolves outside Isle Royale occurred in the mid-1950s. However, as wolves began to reoccupy northern Wisconsin, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MI DNR) began noting single wolves at various locations in the UP of Michigan. Wolf recovery in Michigan began with the documentation of three wolves traveling together and making territorial marks in the central UP during the fall of 1988; and the subsequent birth of pups in this territory during spring 1989 (Beyer
et al.
2009, p. 73). Since that time, wolf packs have spread throughout the UP, with immigration occurring from Wisconsin on the west and possibly from Ontario on the east. Wolves now are found in every county of the UP, with the possible exception of Keweenaw County (Huntzinger
et al.
2005, p. 6; Roell 2009, pers. comm.).

The MI DNR annually monitors the wolf population in the UP by conducting a winter survey. Roads and trails are searched intensively and extensively for wolf tracks and other wolf sign using trucks and snowmobiles (Potvin
et al.
2005). Complete surveys conducted from 1999 to 2006 provided an opportunity to evaluate multiple sampling approaches (MI DNR 2008). Based on these evaluations, it was determined that a geographically stratified sampling protocol produced unbiased, precise estimates of wolf abundance (Potvin
et al.
2005; Drummer, unpublished data). The sampling protocol implemented in 2007 allows trackers to spend more time in smaller areas (MI DNR 2008).

The UP is divided into 21 survey units from which a stratified random sample is drawn, covering roughly 50 percent of the UP every year (MI DNR 2008). Pack locations are derived from previous surveys, citizen reports, and extensive ground and aerial tracking of radio-collared wolves. During the winter of 2009-10, 557 wolves in 109 packs were resident in the UP (MI DNR in litt. 2010, Table 1). Surveys along the border of adjacent survey units are coordinated to avoid double counting of wolves and packs occupying those border areas. In areas with a high density of wolves, ground surveys by four to six surveyors with concurrent aerial tracking are used to accurately delineate territories of adjacent packs and count their members (Beyer
et al.
2004, pp. 2-3; Huntzinger
et al.
2005, pp. 3-6; Potvin
et al.
2005, p. 1661). As with Wisconsin, the Michigan surveys likely miss lone wolves, thus underestimating the actual population.

Based on annual surveys in late winter, estimates of wolves in the UP increased from 57 wolves in 1994 to 557 in late winter 2009-10 (see table 1 above). Over the last 10 years, the annualized rate of increase has been about 12 percent (MI DNR in litt. 2010, table 1). This rate has varied from year to year, but there appear to be two distinct phases of population growth, with relatively rapid growth (25.8 percent average) from 1995 through 2000 and slower growth (10.1 percent average) from 2001 through 2010. In 2005, the number of wolves in the Michigan population alone surpassed the recovery criterion for an isolated wolf population of 200 animals for 6 successive late-winter surveys, as specified in the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 24-26).

To date, no wolf packs are known to be primarily using Tribal-owned lands in Michigan (Roell 2011, pers. comm.). Native American Tribes in the UP of Michigan own small, scattered parcels of land relative to the size of wolf pack territories. Thus, no one Tribal property would likely support a wolf pack. However, as wolves occur in all counties in the UP and are wide-ranging, Tribal land is likely used periodically by wolves.

In October 2004, a coyote trapper mistakenly captured and killed a wolf in Presque Isle County in the northern Lower Peninsula (LP) of Michigan. This was the first verification of a wolf in the northern LP in at least 65 years (Roell
et al.
2010, p. 4). This wolf had been trapped and radio-collared by the MI DNR the previous year (2003) while it was a member of an eastern UP pack. Since 2004, Michigan has surveyed the northern LP to determine whether wolves had successfully colonized the area. From 2005 through 2007, the survey had two components: A prioritized area search and a targeted area search based on citizen reports of wolves or wolf sign. USDA-Wildlife Services, Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians, and Central Michigan University worked cooperatively on the surveys. Nine units ranging in size from 200-400 sq mi (322-644 sq km) were surveyed; however, no wolf sign was found (Roell
et al.
2010, p. 4). Beginning in 2008, a targeted search approach was used. The MI DNR issued a press release asking citizens to report any wolves or wolf sign; again, no wolves were detected in winters of 2008-10 (Roell
et al.
2009, p. 5; Roell 2010, pers. comm.).

In the summer of 2009, video images of single wolves were recorded in two of the three northern LP counties nearest to the UP (Roell
et al.
2010, p. 4). The videos, taken in Emmet County in May 19, 2009, and Presque Isle County in July 27, 2009, may have been of the same animal (Roell 2009, pers. comm.). In 2010, USDA Wildlife Services and MI DNR staff confirmed a single breeding pair with three pups in Cheboygan County in the northern LP (MI DNR 2010). This is the first time a wolf pack has been verified in the LP since the early 1900s. In 2008, the DNR recognized the likelihood that small numbers of wolves would eventually move into the northern LP and form persistent packs (Potvin 2003, pp. 29-30; Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1242; Beyer
et al.
2006, p. 35), and revised its Wolf Management Plan in part to incorporate provisions for wolf management in the northern LP (MI DNR 2008a, p. 46).

The wolf population of Isle Royale National Park, Michigan, is not considered to be an important factor in the recovery of wolves in the WGL. The Park population is small and isolated and lacks genetic uniqueness (Wayne
et al.
1991, pp. 47-49). In addition, this island population probably has not had any contact with mainland wolf populations since its founding pair crossed the Lake Superior ice in the late 1940s (Peterson
et al.
1998, p. 828). For genetic reasons and constraints on expansion due to the island's small size, this wolf population does not contribute significantly towards meeting numerical recovery criteria; however, long-term research on this wolf population has added a great deal to our knowledge of the species. The wolf population on Isle Royale has ranged from 12 to 50 wolves since 1959, and was 19 wolves in the winter of 2009-2010 (Vucetich and Peterson 2010, p. 5).

Summary for Wisconsin and Michigan

The two-State wolf population, excluding Isle Royale wolves, has

exceeded 100 wolves since late-winter 1993-94 and has exceeded 200 wolves since late-winter 1995-96. Therefore, the combined wolf population for Wisconsin and Michigan has exceeded the second recovery criterion of the 1992 Revised Recovery Plan for a nonisolated wolf population, since 1999. Furthermore, the two-State population has exceeded the recovery criterion for an isolated second population since 2001.

Other Areas In and Near the Proposed Western Great Lakes DPS

No surveys have been conducted to document the number of wolves present in North Dakota or South Dakota, but an increasing number of wolves has apparently been detected in the eastern portions of these States. The eastern boundaries of North Dakota and South Dakota are approximately 19 and 81 mi (30 and 130 km), respectively, from occupied habitat in Minnesota. Biologists who are familiar with wolves in these States, however, generally agree that the wolves found there are primarily lone dispersers, although there were reports of pups being seen in the Turtle Mountains of North Dakota, in 1994 (Collins in litt. 1998).

Other records include an adult male shot near Devil's Lake, North Dakota in 2002, another adult male shot in Richland County in extreme southeastern North Dakota in 2003 (Fain in litt. 2006), and a vehicle-killed adult male found near Sturgis, South Dakota, in 2006 (Larson in litt. 2006). In contrast to the other South Dakota wolves of the last 25 years, the animal found near Sturgis was genetically identified as having come from the Greater Yellowstone area (Fain in litt. 2006). Most recently, a wolf was shot in Roberts County, South Dakota in January 2009 (reportedly running with two or three other wolves) (Prieksat in litt. 2009), and another wolf was found dead in a foothold trap that was set as part of an ongoing USDA Wildlife Service's coyote control operation in southeastern Eddy County, North Dakota (Bicknell in litt. 2009). See
Delineating the Boundaries of the Proposed WGL Gray Wolf DPS
in this proposed rule for a detailed discussion of movement of wolves.

Wolf dispersal is expected to continue as wolves travel away from the more saturated habitats in the primary range into peripheral areas where wolves are extremely sparse or absent. Unless they return to the primary range and join or start a pack there, they are unlikely to contribute to long-term maintenance of WGL wolf populations.

Although it is possible for these dispersers to encounter and mate with a mature wolf outside the primary range, the lack of large expanses of unfragmented habitat make it unlikely that wolf packs will persist in these peripheral areas; lack of contiguous habitat is expected to seriously impede further expansion. The only exception is the northern LP of Michigan, where several studies indicate that a persistent wolf population may develop (Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1242; Potvin 2003, pp. 29-30), albeit dependent on occasional to frequent immigration of UP wolves. Despite the constraints on further expansion described here, however, current wolf populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP of Michigan have already greatly exceeded the recovery levels defined in the 1992 Revised Recovery Plan, and maintenance of these numbers is not contingent on recruitment of wolves from areas outside the primary range that has been established for the WGL.

Summary of Wolf Recovery in the Western Great Lakes Region

Wolves in the proposed WGL DPS greatly exceed the recovery criteria (USFWS 1992, pp. 24-26) for (1) a secure wolf population in Minnesota, and (2) a second population outside Minnesota and Isle Royale consisting of 100 wolves for 5 successive years. Based on the criteria set by the Eastern Wolf Recovery Team in 1992 and reaffirmed in 1997 and 1998 (Peterson in litt. 1997, in litt. 1998), the proposed DPS contains sufficient wolf numbers and distribution to ensure their long-term survival within the DPS.

The maintenance and expansion of the Minnesota wolf population has maximized the preservation of the genetic diversity that remained in the proposed WGL DPS when its wolves were first protected in 1974. Furthermore, the Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population has exceeded the numerical recovery criterion even for a completely isolated second population. Therefore, even in the unlikely event that this two-State population was to become totally isolated and wolf immigration from Minnesota and Ontario completely ceased, it would still remain a viable wolf population for the foreseeable future, as defined by the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 25-26). Finally, each of the wolf populations in Wisconsin and Michigan has exceeded 200 animals for 11 and 10 years, respectively, so if either were somehow to become isolated, they would remain viable, and each State has committed to manage its wolf population at or above viable population levels. The wolf's numeric and distributional recovery criteria in the WGL have been met.

Have the Wolves of the Western Great Lakes Region Been Restored?

Leonard and Wayne (2008, p. 3) have stated that Great Lakes wolves have not been restored based on absence of certain historical mtDNA haplotypes from the current population, an estimated historical population size far greater than the current population size, and the admixture of coyote and western wolf haplotypes in the current population.

The spatial representativeness of both the historical and recent samples reported by Leonard and Wayne (2008) has been questioned by Mech (2009). For example, 16 recent but no historical samples from Minnesota were included in the study. Leonard and Wayne (2009) responded that they did not believe that genetic differences were likely to be pronounced at the geographic scale discussed by Mech and Paul (2008) and Mech (2009).

The current population of wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan is derived from expansion of the remnant population in northeastern Minnesota (Fain
et al.
2010, p. 12), which was likely to have included both
C. lupus
and
C. lycaon
(Mech and Frenzel 1971; Mech 2010, p. 135), and in the case of UP Michigan, with possible contributions from
C. lycaon
from southern Ontario (Fain
et al.
2010, p. 12).

Subsequent studies with larger samples of the current wolf population find, despite acknowledged influence of western wolves, the current population is generally representative of the historical population (Fain
et al.
2010, p. 14; Wheeldon
et al.
2010). Koblmüller
et al.
(2009, pp. 10-11) found “comparatively slight” differentiation at autosomal microsatellite DNA loci between historical and current Great Lakes wolves. Wheeldon and White (2009, p. 4) present microsatellite DNA evidence that the hybridization processes noted by Leonard and Wayne (2008) were taking place over a century ago, so that the current population is comparable to the historical population with respect to admixture. Hybridization between eastern wolves and western wolves in the western Great Lakes region occurred prior to significant human effects on population size or habitat (Fain
et al.
2010, p. 14). According to Fain
et al.
(2010, p. 14), the current population of wolves in the western Great Lakes “represents an ancient component of the northeast ecosystem and have been

established throughout the region for thousands of years.”

The loss of mtDNA haplotypes found in historical but not the current western Great Lakes wolf population reported by Leonard and Wayne (2008, pp. 2-3) and the loss of allelic diversity (Fain
et al.
2010, p. 11), indicate that a genetic bottleneck occurred when wolves were nearly extirpated from the western Great Lakes region and the period of slow recovery that immediately followed. Despite these “founder effects” on the genetic composition of the western Great Lakes population, various measures of genetic diversity remain comparable to other wolf populations (Koblmüller
et al.
2009; Fain
et al.
2010, p. 12; Wheeldon
et al.
2010), at least partially owing to contributions from western wolves (
C. lupus
).

Wolves in the WGL region display a healthy level of heterozygosity (Fain
et al.
2010, p. 12), and show no evidence of genetic bottlenecks (Koblmuller
et al.
2009, p. 1). Schwartz and Vucetich (2009, p. 2) have stated that “By all accounts, the return of wolves to the Great Lakes region has been successful * * * they are doing superbly—both in terms of population viability and ecological function.” Cronin and Mech (2009, p. 2) state, “We suggest that wolves in the [W]GL region can simply be called a wolf population with mixed ancestry.” They further state that, “It is generally acknowledged that the Great Lakes wolf population is fit, with abundant genetic variation” (Cronin and Mech 2009, p. 2).

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview

Pursuant to the Act, we consider whether information is sufficient to indicate that listing, reclassifying, or delisting any species, subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa may be warranted. To interpret and implement the DPS provision of the Act and congressional guidance, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a policy regarding the identification of distinct vertebrate population segments under the Act (Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act, 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996) (hereafter DPS Policy). Under the DPS policy, two factors are considered in a decision regarding the potential identification of a DPS: (1) Discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon, and (2) the significance of the population segment to the taxon to which it belongs. If a population meets both tests, it can be identified as a DPS. Then a third factor, the DPS's conservation status, is evaluated in relation to the Act's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification, meaning that we undertake an analysis to determine whether the DPS is endangered or threatened or does not meet the criteria for listing. All three steps are necessary components of a complete DPS analysis.

Past Practice and History of Using DPSs

As of February 1, 2011, of the 392 native vertebrate listings, 85 are listed as less than an entire taxonomic species or subspecies (henceforth referred to in this discussion as populations) under one of several authorities, including the “distinct population segment” language in the Act's definition of species (section 3(16)). Thirty-three of these 85 populations, which span 52 different taxa, predate the 1996 DPS Policy; as such, the final listing determinations for these populations did not include formal policy-based analyses or expressly designate the listed entity as a DPS. In several instances, however, the Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have established a DPS and revised the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in a single action, as shown in the following examples.

In February 1985, the Service delisted the brown pelican (
Pelecanus occidentalis
) in the southeastern United States and continued to identify it as endangered throughout the remainder of its range (50 FR 4938). In June 1994, NMFS revised the entry for the gray whale (
Eschrichtius robustus
) to remove the eastern North Pacific population from the List while retaining the western North Pacific population as endangered (59 FR 31094). In July 2003, the Service established two DPSs of the Columbian white-tailed deer (
Odocoileus virginianus leucurus
)—the Douglas County DPS and the Columbia River DPS—and delisted only the Douglas County DPS, while listing the Columbia River DPS (68 FR 43647). In March 2007, the Service established a DPS of the grizzly bear (
Ursus arctos horribilis
) for the Greater Yellowstone Area and surrounding area within the existing grizzly bear listing in the lower 48 States, and delisted this DPS (72 FR 14865). Also in March 2007, the Service identified the American crocodile (
Crocodylus acutus
) in Florida as a DPS within the existing endangered listing of the American crocodile in the United States and reclassified the Florida DPS from endangered to threatened (71 FR 13027). Revising and delisting the WGL DPS of wolves is consistent with the Service's past practice and does not represent a change in agency position.

Proposed Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment

In 1978, based on what was at that time the “best available biological data,” the Service stated that there were two “species” of gray wolves in the conterminous United States: “For purposes of this rulemaking, the gray wolf (
Canis lupus
) group in Mexico and the 48 conterminous States of the United States, other than Minnesota, is being considered as one “species,” and the gray wolf group in Minnesota is being considered as another “species.” (43 FR 9607, 9610, March 9, 1978). The Service then assigned a different status under the Act to each of those two “species,” finding the Minnesota gray wolf “species” to be threatened, while the other gray wolf “species” (the 48 conterminous States, except Minnesota, and in Mexico) to be endangered. The 1978 rule referred to the Minnesota listing as the listing of a “species” when, clearly, based on the information available at that time, the Minnesota wolves did not taxonomically constitute a separate species of wolf. Therefore, the 1978 listing either effectively established a Minnesota DPS or listed an entity in a portion of its broader range.

The DPS Policy (61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996) expressly provides for reexamining pre-policy DPS listings: “Any DPS of a vertebrate taxon that was listed prior to implementation of this policy will be reevaluated on a case-by-case basis as recommendations are made to change the listing status for that distinct population segment. The appropriate application of the policy will also be considered in the 5-year reviews of the status of listed species required by section 4(c)(2) of the Act.” Based on this provision, we are, within this proposed rule, (1) recognizing that a Minnesota DPS was established in 1978, (2) reevaluating that DPS listing, and (3) proposing to revise that DPS to meet the criteria in the DPS policy and to reflect the “best available biological data.”

A gray wolf DPS that includes only Minnesota does not meet the criteria in the DPS policy because it is not discrete “* * * in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs” (61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996). The Minnesota wolf population has expanded beyond State boundaries and is connected to the wolf population in Wisconsin and Michigan, as evidenced by frequent movements of wolves among the States (Van Deelen 2009, p. 140; Treves
at al.
2009, pp. 192-195) and genetic analyses

that demonstrate the Wisconsin and Michigan wolves are mostly from the same genetic mix as Minnesota wolves (Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 4; Fain
et al.
2010). Therefore, we are proposing to revise the boundaries of the Minnesota DPS to meet the criteria in the DPS policy as discussed under the
Distinct Population Segment Analysis,
below.

Geographical Area of the Proposed Western Great Lakes DPS

The geographical area of the proposed WGL DPS is shown in figure 1, below, and is described as all of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; the portion of North Dakota north and east of the Missouri River upstream to Lake Sakakawea and east of the centerline of Highway 83 from Lake Sakakawea to the Canadian border; the portion of South Dakota north and east of the Missouri River; the portions of Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana north of the centerline of Interstate Highway 80; and the portion of Ohio north of the centerline of Interstate Highway 80 and west of the Maumee River at Toledo.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

EP05MY11.124

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Distinct Population Segment Analysis

Analysis for Discreteness

Under the 1996 DPS Policy (61 FR 4722), a population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be considered discrete if it satisfies either of the following conditions: (1) it is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or (2) it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.

Markedly Separated from Other Populations of the Same Taxon
—The western boundaries of the proposed WGL DPS are approximately 400 mi (644 km) from the nearest known gray wolf packs in Wyoming and Montana. The distance between those western packs and the nearest packs within the proposed WGL DPS is nearly 600 mi

(966 km). The area between Minnesota packs and northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) packs largely consists of unsuitable habitat, with only scattered islands of possibly suitable habitat, such as the Black Hills of eastern Wyoming and western South Dakota. There are no known populations of gray wolves to the south or east of the proposed WGL DPS within the United States.

As discussed in the previous section, wolves are known to disperse over vast distances, but straight line documented dispersals of 400 mi (644 km) or more are very rare. Although we cannot rule out the possibility of a WGL wolf traveling 600 mi (966 km) or more and joining or establishing a pack in the northern Rockies, such a movement has not been documented and is expected to happen very infrequently, if at all. Similar movements from the NRM wolf population into the proposed WGL DPS are unknown and are expected to happen infrequently. The 2006 Sturgis (South Dakota) wolf is the closest that an NRM wolf has come to entering the proposed WGL DPS (Fain in litt. 2006); however, the Sturgis wolf would still have had to travel over 300 mi (500 km) before encountering the nearest wolf pack in the proposed WGL DPS. As the discreteness criterion requires that the DPS be “markedly separated” from other populations of the taxon rather than requiring complete isolation, this high degree of physical separation between the WGL DPS and the northern Rocky Mountains satisfies the discreteness criterion.

Delimited by International Boundaries with Significant Management Differences
—The DPS policy allows us to use international borders to delineate the boundaries of a DPS if there are differences in control of exploitation, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms between the countries. The border between the United States and Canada has been used as the northern boundary of the listed entity since gray wolves were reclassified in the lower 48 States and Mexico in 1978. There remain significant cross-border differences in exploitation, management, conservation status, and regulatory mechanisms. About 52,000 to 60,000 wolves occur in Canada, where suitable habitat is abundant (Boitani 2003, p. 322). Because of this abundance, wolves in Canada are not protected by Federal laws and are only minimally protected in most Canadian provinces (Pletscher
et al.
1991, p. 546). In the United States, unlike Canada, Federal protection and intensive management has been necessary to recover the wolf (Carbyn 1983).

In general, Canadian gray wolf populations are sufficiently large and healthy so that population regulation, rather than protection and close monitoring, is the management focus. There are an estimated 4,000 wolves in Manitoba (Manitoba Conservation undated). Hunting is allowed nearly province-wide, including in those provincial hunting zones adjoining northwestern Minnesota, with last year's season running from August 31, 2009, through March 31, 2010 (Manitoba Conservation 2009a). Trapping wolves is allowed province-wide, except in and immediately around Riding Mountain National Park (southwestern Manitoba), with last year's season running from October 14, 2008, through February 28 or March 31, 2009 (varies with trapping zone) (Manitoba Conservation 2009b).

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources estimates there are 8,850 wolves in the province, based on prey composition and abundance, topography, and climate and wolf numbers in most parts of the province are believed to be stable or increasing since about 1993 (Ontario MNR 2005a

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2011-9557. Public record. Not legal advice.