Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the Western Great Lakes Population of Gray Wolves as a Distinct Population Segment; Removing the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment of the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

FederalRegulations

Ask Donna

How this section applies to your facts.

Federal Register › Vol. 71 › 71 FR 15266

This text was captured on Aug 14, 2026. It is a snapshot, not a live feed, so check the official code before relying on it.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AU54 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the Western Great Lakes Population of Gray Wolves as a Distinct Population Segment; Removing the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment of the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) propose to establish the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (WGL DPS) of the gray wolf ( Canis lupus ). This DPS includes all of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; the eastern half of North Dakota and South Dakota; the northern half of Iowa; the northern portions of Illinois and Iowa; and the northwestern portion of Ohio. We further propose to remove the WGL DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife established under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We propose these actions because available data indicate that this DPS no longer meets the definitions of threatened or endangered under the Act. The threats have been reduced or eliminated as evidenced by a population that is stable or increasing in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and greatly exceeds the numerical recovery criteria established in its recovery plan. Completed State wolf management plans will provide adequate protection and management of the species if delisted in the WGL DPS. The proposed rule, if finalized, would remove this DPS from the protections of the Act. This proposed rule would also remove the currently designated critical habitat for the gray wolf in Minnesota and Michigan and remove the current special regulations for gray wolves in Minnesota.

DATES:

remove the currently designated critical habitat for the gray wolf in Minnesota and Michigan and remove the current special regulations for gray wolves in Minnesota.

DATES:

We request that comments be received by June 26, 2006 in order to ensure their consideration in our final decision. We have scheduled four informational meetings followed by public hearings for May 8, 10, 16, and 17, 2006. At each location the informational meeting will be held from 6 to 7:15 p.m., followed by a public hearing from 7:30 to 9 p.m.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments and other information, identified by “RIN 1018-AU54,” by any of the following methods:

• Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Web Site: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/ Follow the instructions found there.

• E-mail: WGLwolfdelist@fws.gov

• Fax: 612-713-5292. Put “WGL Wolf Delisting; RIN 1018-AU54” in the subject line.

• Mail: WGL Wolf Delisting, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056.

• Hand Delivery/Courier: WGL Wolf Delisting, Ecological Services—Room 646, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056.

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the instructions found there for submitting comments.

All submissions received must include the agency name and Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Comments Solicited” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

Hearings: We have scheduled informational meetings followed by public hearings at the following four locations:

• May 8, 2006—Duluth, Minnesota. Meeting and hearing will be in the Northern Lights I Room at the Inn on Lake Superior, 350 Canal Park Drive.

• May 10, 2006—Wausau, Wisconsin

ess, see the “Public Comments Solicited” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

Hearings: We have scheduled informational meetings followed by public hearings at the following four locations:

• May 8, 2006—Duluth, Minnesota. Meeting and hearing will be in the Northern Lights I Room at the Inn on Lake Superior, 350 Canal Park Drive.

• May 10, 2006—Wausau, Wisconsin. Meeting and hearing will be at the Westwood Conference Room of the Westwood Center, 1800 West Bridge Street.

• May 16, 2006—Marquette, Michigan. Meeting and hearing will be in the Michigan Room of the Don H. Bottum University Center, Northern Michigan University, 540 West Kaye Avenue. (Use parking lot #8.)

• May 17, 2006—Grayling, Michigan. Meeting and hearing will be held in the Evergreen Room of the Holiday Inn, 2650 Business Loop South I-75.

Additional details on the hearings, including maps, will be provided on our Web site (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at our Midwest Regional Office: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, MN 55111-4056. Call 612-713-5350 to make arrangements. The comments and materials we receive during the comment period also will be made available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours following the close of the comment period. See the “Public Comments Solicited” section of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for location information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

RTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ron Ressnider, 612-713-5350. Direct all questions or requests for additional information to the Service using the Gray Wolf Phone Line—612-713-7337, facsimile—612-713-5292, the general gray wolf electronic mail address— GRAYWOLFMAIL@FWS.GOV , or write to: GRAY WOLF QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, MN 55111-4056. Additional information is also available on our World Wide Web site at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf . In the event that our internet connection is not functional, please contact the Service by the alternative methods mentioned above. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance. Do not submit comments or other information by the methods described in this paragraph.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves

Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the Canidae, or dog family, with adults ranging from 18 to 80 kilograms (kg) (40 to 175 pounds (lb)) depending upon sex and subspecies (Mech 1974). The average weight of male wolves in Wisconsin is 35 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.

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 ), 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 WGLDPS, 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 2004-2005 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005). In Minnesota the average pack size found in the 1988-89, 1997-98, and 2003-2004 winter surveys was higher—5.55, 5.4, and 5.3 wolves per pack, respectively (Erb and Benson 2004)

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 2004-2005 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005). In Minnesota the average pack size found in the 1988-89, 1997-98, and 2003-2004 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 50 to 550 square kilometers (km 2 ) (20 to 214 square miles (mi 2 )). Midwest wolf packs tend to occupy territories on the lower end of this size range. Michigan Upper Peninsula territories averaged 267 km 2 in 2000-2001 (Drummer et al. 2002), Wisconsin territories 37 mi 2 in 2004-2005 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005), and Minnesota territory size averaged 102 km 2 in 2003-2004 (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 Midwestern Gray Wolf Population DPS , below.

Recovery

Background —The gray wolf historically occurred across most of North America, Europe, and Asia. In North America, gray wolves formerly occurred from the northern reaches of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland to the central mountains and the high interior plateau of southern Mexico. The only areas of the conterminous United States that apparently lacked gray wolf populations since the last ice age are parts of California (but some authorities question the reported historical absence of gray wolves from parts of California (Carbyn in litt . 2000; Mech, U.S. Geological Survey, in litt . 2000)) and portions of the eastern and southeastern United States (areas occupied by the red wolf or a recently suggested eastern wolf, C. lycaon (Wilson et al. 2000; Grewal et al. 2004; White et al. 2001)). In addition, wolves were generally absent from the deserts and mountaintop areas of the western United States (Young and Goldman 1944; Hall 1981; Mech 1974; Nowak 2000).

western United States (Young and Goldman 1944; Hall 1981; Mech 1974; Nowak 2000).

European settlers in North America and their cultures often had superstitions and fears of wolves and a unified desire to eliminate them (Boitani 1995). Their attitudes, coupled with perceived and real conflicts between wolves and human activities along the western frontier, led to widespread persecution of wolves. Poison, trapping, snaring, and shooting spurred by Federal, State, and local government bounties extirpated this once widespread species from nearly all of its historical range in the 48 conterminous States.

Recovery Planning —Gray wolf populations in the United States are currently protected under the Act as a threatened species in Minnesota and endangered in the remaining 47 conterminous states and Mexico (50 CFR 17.11(h)), by separate regulations establishing three non-essential experimental populations (50 CFR 17.84(i), (k), and (n)), and by special regulations for Minnesota wolves (50 CFR 17.40(d)). The current status of wolves is discussed below under Previous Federal Action. At the time the Act was passed, only several hundred wolves occurred in northeastern Minnesota and on Isle Royale, Michigan, and a few scattered wolves may have occurred in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Montana, the American Southwest, and Mexico.

We approved the 1978 Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (Recovery Plan) on May 2, 1978 (USFWS 1978). We subsequently approved an updated and revised version on January 31, 1992 (USFWS 1992), which replaced the 1978 Recovery Plan. The 1978 Recovery Plan and its 1992 revision were intended to apply to the eastern timber wolf, Canis lupus lycaon , thought at that time to be the wolf subspecies that historically inhabited the United States east of the Great Plains (Young and Goldman 1944; Hall 1981; Mech 1974). Thus, these Recovery Plans cover a geographic triangle extending from Minnesota to Maine and into northeastern Florida

he 1978 Recovery Plan and its 1992 revision were intended to apply to the eastern timber wolf, Canis lupus lycaon , thought at that time to be the wolf subspecies that historically inhabited the United States east of the Great Plains (Young and Goldman 1944; Hall 1981; Mech 1974). Thus, these Recovery Plans cover a geographic triangle extending from Minnesota to Maine and into northeastern Florida. The Recovery Plan was based on the best available information on wolf taxonomy at the time of its original publication and subsequent revision. Since the publication of those Recovery Plans, several studies have produced conflicting results regarding the taxonomic identity of the wolf that historically occupied the eastern States. While this issue remains unresolved, this recovery program has continued to focus on recovering the wolf population that survived in, and has expanded outward from, northeastern Minnesota, regardless of its taxonomic identity.

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

on of gray wolves

Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf population is vital because the remaining genetic diversity of gray wolves in the eastern United States was carried by the several hundred wolves that survived in the State into the early 1970s. The Recovery Team insisted that the remnant Minnesota wolf population be maintained and protected to achieve wolf recovery in the eastern United States. The successful growth of that remnant population has maintained and maximized the representation of that genetic diversity among gray wolves in the WGL DPS. Furthermore, the Recovery Team established a planning goal of 1,250-1,400 animals for the Minnesota wolf population (USFWS 1992), which would increase the likelihood of maintaining its genetic diversity over the long term. This large Minnesota wolf population also provides the resiliency to reduce the adverse impacts of unpredictable demographic and environmental events. Furthermore, the Recovery Plan promotes a wolf population across 4 of 5 wolf management zones, encompassing about 40 percent of the State, further adding to the resiliency of the Minnesota wolf population. The State's wolf population currently is estimated to be more than double that numerical goal, and occupies all 4 management zones.

The second delisting criterion in the Recovery Plan states that at least one viable wolf population should be reestablished within the historical range of the eastern timber wolf outside of Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. The Recovery Plan provides two options for reestablishing this second viable wolf population. If it is an isolated population, that is, located more than 100 miles 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

f outside of Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. The Recovery Plan provides two options for reestablishing this second viable wolf population. If it is an isolated population, that is, located more than 100 miles from the Minnesota wolf population, the second population should consist of at least 200 wolves for at least 5 years (based upon late-winter population estimates) to be considered viable. Alternatively, if the second population is not isolated, that is, located within 100 miles of a self-sustaining wolf population (for example, the Minnesota wolf population), a reestablished second population having a minimum of 100 wolves for at least 5 years would be considered viable.

The Recovery Plan does not specify where in the eastern United States the second population should be reestablished. Therefore, the second population could be located anywhere within the triangular Minnesota-Maine-Florida area covered by the Recovery Plan, except on Isle Royale (Michigan) or within Minnesota. The 1978 Recovery Plan identified potential gray wolf restoration areas throughout the eastern United States, including northern Wisconsin and Michigan and areas as far south as the Great Smoky Mountains and adjacent areas in Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia. The revised 1992 Recovery Plan dropped from consideration the more southern potential restoration areas, because recovery efforts for the red wolf were being initiated in those areas. The 1992 revision retained potential gray wolf re-establishment 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). Neither the 1978 nor the 1992 recovery criteria suggest that the restoration of the gray wolf throughout all or most of its historical range in the eastern United States, or to all of these potential re-establishment areas, is necessary to achieve recovery under the Act

ew York, a small area in eastern Maine, and a larger area of northwestern Maine and adjacent northern New Hampshire (USFWS 1992). Neither the 1978 nor the 1992 recovery criteria suggest that the restoration of the gray wolf throughout all or most of its historical range in the eastern United States, or to all of these potential re-establishment areas, is necessary to achieve recovery under the Act.

In 1998, the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team clarified the delisting criterion for the second population (i.e., the wolf population that had developed in northern Wisconsin and the adjacent Upper Peninsula of Michigan). It stated that the numerical delisting criterion for the Wisconsin-Michigan population will be achieved when 6 consecutive late-winter wolf surveys documented that the population equaled or exceeded 100 wolves (excluding Isle Royale wolves) for the 5 consecutive years between the 6 surveys (Rolf Peterson, Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team, in litt . 1998). This second population is less than 200 miles from the Minnesota wolf population, and it has had a late-winter population exceeding 100 animals since 1994, and exceeding 200 animals since 1996, thus the recovery goals have been met.

The Recovery Plan has no goals or criteria for the gray wolf population on 546 sq km (210 sq mi) of Isle Royale, Michigan. The wolf population of Isle Royale is not considered to be an important factor in the recovery or long-term survival of wolves in the WGL DPS. This wolf population is small, varying from 12 to 30 animals in 2 or 3 packs over the last 20 years (Peterson and Vucetich 2005). Due to its small insular nature, it is almost completely isolated from other wolf populations and has never exceeded 50 animals. For these reasons, the Recovery Plan does not include these wolves in its recovery criteria, but recommends the continuation of research and complete protection for these wolves that is assured by National Park Service management (USFWS 1992)

Peterson and Vucetich 2005). Due to its small insular nature, it is almost completely isolated from other wolf populations and has never exceeded 50 animals. For these reasons, the Recovery Plan does not include these wolves in its recovery criteria, but recommends the continuation of research and complete protection for these wolves that is assured by National Park Service management (USFWS 1992). Unless stated otherwise in this proposal, subsequent discussions of Michigan wolves do not refer to wolves on Isle Royale.

The Recovery Plan recognizes the potential for wolves to come into conflict with human activities, and that such conflicts are likely to impede wolf recovery unless they can be reduced to socially tolerated levels. Among major recovery actions identified in the 1992 Recovery Plan is the need to “minimize losses of domestic animals due to wolf predation.” [p.6] The Recovery Plan recommends measures to avoid such conflicts and to reduce conflicts when they develop. These measures include promoting the re-establishment of wolf populations only in areas where such conflicts are likely to be relatively infrequent, a recommendation that wolf density in peripheral wolf range in Minnesota (Zone 4, 26 percent of the State) be limited to an average of one wolf per 50 square miles (128 sq km) [p.15], and a recommendation that wolves that move into Minnesota Zone 5 (about 61 percent of the State) “should be eliminated by any legal means” because livestock production and other human activities make that area “not suitable for wolves.” [p.20]

When wolves kill domestic animals, the Recovery Plan recommends that government agents remove those wolves. In Minnesota Zone 1 (4,462 sq mi in northeastern Minnesota), wolf removal should be by livetrapping and translocation, whereas in Zones 2 and 3 (1,864 and 3,501 sq mi in northeastern and north central Minnesota, respectively), those wolves may be removed by any means including lethal take. In Zones 4 and 5, the Recovery Plan recommends preventive depredation control be conducted by trapping wolves in the vicinity of previous depredation sites. Similarly, the Recovery Plan recommends management practices “including the potential taking of problem animals” for wolf populations that develop in Wisconsin and Michigan. [p.34] (Service 1992). Neither the trapping and translocations (Minnesota Zone 1) nor the preventive depredation control (Zones 4 and 5) have been implemented. Lethal taking of depredating wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan has occurred only on a very limited basis. More detailed discussion of wolf depredation control activities in the Midwest is found in Factor D.

Recovery of the Gray Wolf in the Western Great Lakes

Minnesota

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

1970 (Leirfallom 1970), 736 to 950 in 1971-72 (Fuller et al. 1992), and 500 to 1,000 in 1973 (Mech and Rausch 1975). Although these estimates were based upon different methodologies and are not directly comparable, each puts the pre-listing abundance of wolves in Minnesota at 1,000 or less. This was the only significant wolf population in the United States outside Alaska during those time-periods.

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

During the winter of 1997-98, a statewide wolf population and distribution survey was repeated by MN DNR, using methods similar to those of the two previous surveys. 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 five 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).

Table 1.—Gray wolf winter populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (excluding Isle Royale) from 1976 through 2005

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).

Table 1.—Gray wolf winter populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (excluding Isle Royale) from 1976 through 2005. Note that there are several years between the first four estimates Year Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan WI & MI Total 1976 1,000-1,200 1978-79 1,235 1988-89 1,500-1,750 31 3 34 1993-94 57 57 114 1994-95 83 80 163 1995-96 99 116 215 1996-97 148 112 260 1997-98 2,445 180 140 320 1998-99 205 174 379 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 2004-05 425 405 830 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). This figure indicated the continued growth of the Minnesota wolf population at an average rate of about 3.7 percent annually from 1970 through 1997-98. Between 1979 and 1989 the annual growth rate was about 3 percent, and it increased to between 4 and 5 percent in the next decade (Berg and Benson 1999; Fuller et al. 1992). As of the 1998 survey, the number of Minnesota wolves was approximately twice the planning goal for Minnesota, as specified in the Eastern Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992).

ng goal for Minnesota, as specified in the Eastern Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992).

Minnesota DNR conducted another survey of the State's wolf population and range during the winter of 2003-04, again using similar methodology. That survey concluded that an estimated 3,020 wolves in 485 packs occurred in Minnesota at that time (90 percent confidence interval for this estimate is 2,301 to 3,708 wolves). Due to the wide overlap in the confidence intervals for the 1997-98 and 2003-04 surveys, the authors conclude that, although the population point estimate increased by about 24 percent over the 6 years between the surveys (about 3.5 percent annually), there was no statistically significant increase in the State's wolf population during that period (Erb and Benson 2004).

As wolves increased in abundance in Minnesota, they also expanded their distribution. During 1948-53, the major wolf range was estimated to be about 11,954 sq mi (31,080 sq km) (Stenlund 1955). A 1970 questionnaire survey resulted in an estimated wolf range of 14,769 sq mi (38,400 sq km) (calculated by Fuller et al. 1992 from Leirfallom 1970). Fuller et al. (1992), using data from Berg and Kuehn (1982), estimated that Minnesota primary wolf range included 14,038 sq mi (36,500 sq km) during winter 1978-79. By 1982-83, pairs or breeding packs of wolves were estimated to occupy an area of 22,000 sq mi (57,050 sq km) in northern Minnesota (Mech et al. 1988). 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), 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)

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), 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). By that time the Minnesota wolf population was using most of the occupied and peripheral range identified by Mech et al. (1988). The wolf population in Minnesota had recovered to the point that its contiguous range covered approximately 40 percent of the State

Although Minnesota DNR does not conduct a formal wolf population survey annually, it includes the species in its annual carnivore track survey. This survey, standardized and operational since 1994, provides an annual index of abundance for several species of large carnivores by counting their tracks along 51 standardized survey routes in the northern portion of Minnesota. Based on these surveys, the wolf track indices for winter 2004-05 showed little change from the previous winter, and no statistically significant trends are apparent since 1994. However, the data show some indication of an increase in wolf density (Erb 2005). Thus, the winter track survey results are consistent with a stable or slowly increasing wolf population in northern Minnesota over this 11-year period.

Wisconsin

Wolves were considered to have been extirpated from Wisconsin by 1960. No formal attempts were made to monitor the State's wolf population from 1960 until 1979. From 1960 through 1975, individual wolves and an occasional wolf pair were reported. There is no documentation, however, of any wolf reproduction occurring in Wisconsin, and the wolves that were reported may have been dispersing animals from Minnesota

considered to have been extirpated from Wisconsin by 1960. No formal attempts were made to monitor the State's wolf population from 1960 until 1979. From 1960 through 1975, individual wolves and an occasional wolf pair were reported. There is no documentation, however, of any wolf reproduction occurring in Wisconsin, and the wolves that were reported may have been dispersing animals from Minnesota.

Wolves are believed to have returned to Wisconsin in more substantial numbers in about 1975, and the WI DNR began wolf population monitoring in 1979-80 and estimated a statewide population of 25 wolves at that time (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2001). This population remained relatively stable for several years then declined slightly to approximately 15 to 19 wolves in the mid-1980s. In the late 1980s, the Wisconsin wolf population began an increase that has continued into 2005 (Wydeven et al. 2005).

Wisconsin DNR intensively surveys its wolf population annually using a combination of aerial, ground, and satellite radio telemetry, complemented by snow tracking and wolf sign surveys (Wydeven et al. 1995, 2005). Wolves are trapped from May through September and fitted with radio collars, with a goal of having at least one radio-collared wolf in about 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

d 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. 2003). The number of wolves in each pack is estimated based on the aerial and ground observations made of the individual wolves in each pack over the winter.

Because the monitoring methods focus on wolf packs, lone wolves are likely undercounted in Wisconsin. As a result, the annual population estimates are probably slight underestimates of the actual wolf population within the State during the late-winter period. Fuller (1989) noted that lone wolves are estimated to compose from 2 to 29 percent. Also, these estimates are made at the low point of the annual wolf population cycle; the late-winter surveys produce an estimate of the wolf population at a time when most winter mortality has already occurred and before the birth of pups. Thus, Wisconsin wolf population estimates are conservative in two respects: they undercount lone wolves and the count is made at the annual low point of the population. This methodology is consistent with the recovery criteria established in the 1992 Recovery Plan, which established numerical criteria to be measured with data obtained by late-winter surveys.

hodology is consistent with the recovery criteria established in the 1992 Recovery Plan, which established numerical criteria to be measured with data obtained by late-winter surveys.

During the July 2004 through June 2005 period, 63 radio collars were active on Wisconsin wolves, including 7 dispersers. At the beginning of the winter of 2004-05 radio collars were functioning in at least 39 packs. An estimated 425 to 455 wolves in 108 packs, including 11 to 13 wolves on Native American reservations, were in the State in early 2005, representing a 14 percent increase from 2004 (Wydeven et al. 2005a).

Wisconsin population estimates for 1985 through 2005 increased from 15 to 425-455 wolves (see Table 1 above) and from 4 to 108 packs (Wydeven et al. 2005a). This represents an annual increase of 21 percent through 2000, and an average annual increase of 11 percent for the most recent five years. This declining rate of increase may indicate that the Wisconsin wolf population is nearing the carrying capacity in the State.

In 1995, wolves were first documented in Jackson County, Wisconsin, well to the south of the northern Wisconsin area occupied by other Wisconsin wolf packs. The number of wolves in this central Wisconsin area has dramatically increased since that time. During the winter of 2004-05, there were 42-44 wolves in 11 packs in the central forest wolf range (Zone 2 in the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan) and an additional 19 wolves in 6 packs in the marginal habitat in Zone 3, located between Zone 1 (northern forest wolf range) and Zone 2 (Wisconsin DNR 1999, Wydeven et al. 2005a) (see Figure 3).

n 6 packs in the marginal habitat in Zone 3, located between Zone 1 (northern forest wolf range) and Zone 2 (Wisconsin DNR 1999, Wydeven et al. 2005a) (see Figure 3).

During the winter of 2002-03, 7 wolves were believed to be primarily occupying Native American reservation lands in Wisconsin (Wydeven et al. 2003); this increased to 11 to 13 wolves in the winter of 2004-05 (Wydeven in litt. 2005). The 2004-05 animals consisted of 2 packs totaling 7 to 9 wolves on the Bad River Chippewa Reservation and a pack of 4 wolves on the Lac Courtes Oreilles Chippewa Reservation, both in northern Wisconsin. There were an additional 24 to 26 wolves that spent some time on reservation lands in the winter of 2004-05, including the Lac du Flambeau Chippewa Reservation, the Red Cliff Chippewa Reservation, the St. Croix Chippewa Reservation, the Menominee Reservation, and the Ho Chunk Reservation. It is likely that the Potowatomi Reservation lands will also host wolves in the near future (Wydeven in litt. 2005). Of these reservations the Ho-Chunk, St. Croix Chippewa, and Potowatomi are composed mostly of scattered parcels of land, and are not likely to provide significant amounts of wolf habitat.

In 2002, wolf numbers in Wisconsin alone surpassed the Federal criterion for a second population, as identified in the 1992 Recovery Plan (i.e., 100 wolves for a minimum of 5 consecutive years, as measured by 6 consecutive late-winter counts). Furthermore, in 2004 Wisconsin wolf numbers exceeded the Recovery Plan criterion of 200 animals for 6 successive late-winter surveys for an isolated wolf population. The Wisconsin wolf population continues to increase, although the slower rates of increase seen since 2000 may be the first

Michigan

lated wolf population. The Wisconsin wolf population continues to increase, although the slower rates of increase seen since 2000 may be the first

Michigan

Wolves were extirpated from Michigan as a reproducing species long before they were listed as endangered in 1974. Prior to 1991, and excluding Isle Royale, the last known breeding population of wild Michigan wolves occurred in the mid-1950s. However, as wolves began to reoccupy northern Wisconsin, the MI DNR began noting single wolves at various locations in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. In 1989, a wolf pair was verified in the central Upper Peninsula, and it produced pups in 1991. Since that time, wolf packs have spread throughout the Upper Peninsula, with immigration occurring from Wisconsin on the west and possibly from Ontario on the east. They now are found in every county of the Upper Peninsula, with the possible exception of Keweenaw County (Huntzinger et al. 2005).

The MI DNR annually monitors the wolf population in the Upper Peninsula by intensive late-winter tracking surveys that focus on each pack. The Upper Peninsula is divided into seven monitoring zones, and specific surveyors are assigned to each zone. Pack locations are derived from previous surveys, citizen reports, and extensive ground and aerial tracking of radio-collared wolves. During the winter of 2004-05 at least 87 wolf packs were resident in the Upper Peninsula (Huntzinger et al. 2005). A minimum of 40 percent of these packs had members with active radio-tracking collars during the winter of 2004-05 (Huntzinger et al. 2005). Care is taken to avoid double-counting packs and individual wolves, and a variety of evidence is used to distinguish adjacent packs and accurately count their members. Surveys along the border of adjacent monitoring zones are coordinated to avoid double-counting of wolves and packs occupying those border areas

ith active radio-tracking collars during the winter of 2004-05 (Huntzinger et al. 2005). Care is taken to avoid double-counting packs and individual wolves, and a variety of evidence is used to distinguish adjacent packs and accurately count their members. Surveys along the border of adjacent monitoring zones are coordinated to avoid double-counting of wolves and packs occupying those border areas. In areas with a high density of wolves, ground surveys by 4 to 6 surveyors with concurrent aerial tracking are used to accurately delineate territories of adjacent packs and count their members (Beyer et al. 2004, Huntzinger et al. 2005, Potvin et al. in press). As with Wisconsin, the Michigan surveys likely miss many lone wolves, thus underestimating the actual population.

Annual surveys have documented minimum late-winter estimates of wolves occurring in the Upper Peninsula as increasing from 57 wolves in 1994 to 405 in 87 packs in 2005 (see Table 1 above). Over the last 10 years the annualized rate of increase has been about 18 percent (MI DNR 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003; Beyer et al. 2003, 2004; Huntzinger et al. 2005). The rate of annual increase has varied from year to year during this period, but there appears to be two distinct phases of population growth, with relatively rapid growth (about 25 percent per year from 1997 through 2000) and slower growth (about 14 percent from 2000 to the present time). Similar to Wisconsin, this may indicate a slowing growth rate as the population increases. The 2005 late-winter population was up 13 percent from the previous year's estimated population (Huntzinger et al. 2005). As with the Wisconsin wolves, the number of wolves in the Michigan Upper Peninsula wolf population by itself has surpassed the recovery criterion for a second population in the eastern United States (i.e., 100 wolves for a minimum of 5 consecutive years, based on 6 late-winter estimates), as specified in the Federal Recovery Plan, since 2001

us year's estimated population (Huntzinger et al. 2005). As with the Wisconsin wolves, the number of wolves in the Michigan Upper Peninsula wolf population by itself has surpassed the recovery criterion for a second population in the eastern United States (i.e., 100 wolves for a minimum of 5 consecutive years, based on 6 late-winter estimates), as specified in the Federal Recovery Plan, since 2001. In addition, the Upper Peninsula numbers have now surpassed the Federal criterion for an isolated wolf population of 200 animals for 6 successive late-winter surveys (FWS 1992).

In 2004-05, no wolf packs were known to be primarily using tribal-owned lands in Michigan (Beyer pers comm. 2005). Native American tribes in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan own small, scattered parcels of land. As such, no one tribal property would likely support a wolf pack. However, as wolves occur in all counties in the Upper Peninsula and range widely, tribal land is likely utilized periodically by wolves.

As mentioned previously, the wolf population of Isle Royale National Park, Michigan, is not considered to be an important factor in the recovery or long-term survival of wolves in the WGL DPS. This small and isolated wolf population cannot make a significant numerical contribution to gray wolf recovery, although long-term research on this wolf population has added a great deal to our knowledge of the species. The wolf population on Isle Royale has ranged from 12 to 50 wolves since 1959, and was 30 wolves in the winter of 2004-05 (Peterson and Vucetich 2005).

Although there have been verified reports of wolf sightings in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, resident breeding packs have not been confirmed there. In October 2004 the first gray wolf since 1910 was documented in the Lower Peninsula (LP). This wolf had been trapped and radio-collared by the MI DNR while it was a member of a central UP pack in late 2003. At some point it had moved to the LP and ultimately was killed by a trapper who believed it was a coyote (MI DNR 2004a)

sula of Michigan, resident breeding packs have not been confirmed there. In October 2004 the first gray wolf since 1910 was documented in the Lower Peninsula (LP). This wolf had been trapped and radio-collared by the MI DNR while it was a member of a central UP pack in late 2003. At some point it had moved to the LP and ultimately was killed by a trapper who believed it was a coyote (MI DNR 2004a). Shortly after that, MI DNR biologists and conservation officers confirmed that two additional wolves were traveling together in Presque Isle County in the northern Lower Peninsula (NLP). A subsequent two-week survey was conducted in that area, but no additional evidence of wolf presence was found (Huntzinger et al. 2005). Recognizing the likelihood that small numbers of gray wolves will eventually move into the Lower Peninsula and form persistent packs (Potvin 2003, Gehring and Potter 2005 in press), MI DNR has begun a revision of its Wolf Management Plan in part to incorporate provisions for wolf management there.

Summary for Wisconsin and Michigan

The two-State wolf population, excluding Isle Royale wolves, has exceeded 100 wolves since late-winter 1993-94 and has exceeded 200 wolves since late-winter 1995-96. Therefore, the combined wolf population for Wisconsin and Michigan has exceeded the second population recovery goal of the 1992 Recovery Plan for a non-isolated wolf population since 1999. Furthermore, the two-state population has exceeded the recovery goal for an isolated second population since 2001.

Other Areas in the Western Great Lakes DPS

n the Western Great Lakes DPS

As described earlier, the increasing wolf population in Minnesota and the accompanying expansion of wolf range westward and southwestward in the State have led to an increase in dispersing wolves that have been documented in North and South Dakota in recent years. No surveys have been conducted to document the number of wolves present in North Dakota or South Dakota. However, biologists who are familiar with wolves there generally agree that there are only occasional lone dispersers that appear primarily in the eastern portion of these States. There were reports of pups being seen in the Turtle Mountains of North Dakota in

An examination of eight skulls from North and South Dakota wolves indicates that seven likely had dispersed from Minnesota; the eighth probably came from Manitoba, Canada (Licht and Fritts 1994). Genetic analyses of an additional gray wolf killed in 2001 in extreme northwestern South Dakota and another killed in central Nebraska in 2002 (both outside of this proposed WGL DPS) indicate that they, too, originated from the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population (Straughan and Fain 2002, Steve Anschutz, USFWS, Lincoln, NE, in litt. 2003).

Additionally, some wolves from the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan population have traveled to other portions of the WGL DPS. In October 2001, a wolf was killed in north-central Missouri by a farmer who stated that he thought it was a coyote. The wolf's ear tag identified it as having originated from the western portion of Michigan's Upper Peninsula, where it had been captured as a juvenile in July 1999. A wolf, presumably from the Wisconsin or possibly Minnesota wolf population, was shot and killed in Marshall County, in north-central Illinois, in December 2002. A second wolf was killed by a vehicle strike in northeastern Illinois in February 2005, and a third (verified as originating from the Western Great Lakes wolf population) was killed in Pike County, Illinois, (near Quincy) in December 2005

A wolf, presumably from the Wisconsin or possibly Minnesota wolf population, was shot and killed in Marshall County, in north-central Illinois, in December 2002. A second wolf was killed by a vehicle strike in northeastern Illinois in February 2005, and a third (verified as originating from the Western Great Lakes wolf population) was killed in Pike County, Illinois, (near Quincy) in December 2005. Another Great Lakes wolf was found dead in Randolph County in east-central Indiana (about 12 miles from the Ohio border) in June 2003. That wolf originated in Jackson County, Wisconsin, based on a Wisconsin DNR ear tag that it carried (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003b).

Wolf dispersal is expected to continue as wolves travel away from the more saturated habitats in the core recovery areas into areas where wolves are extremely sparse or absent. Unless they return to a core recovery population and join or start a pack there, they are unlikely to contribute to long-term maintenance of recovered wolf populations. Although it is possible for them to encounter a mature wolf of the opposite sex, to mate, and to reproduce outside the core wolf areas, the lack of large expanses of unfragmented public land make it unlikely that any wolf packs will persist in these areas. The only exception is the NLP of Michigan, where several studies indicate a persistent wolf population may develop (Gehring and Potter in press, Potvin 2003), perhaps dependent on occasional to frequent immigration of UP wolves. However, currently existing wolf populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP of Michigan have already greatly exceeded the Federal recovery criteria, and maintaining viable recovered wolf populations in these areas will not be dependent in any way on wolves or wolf populations in other areas of the WGL DPS.

Previous Federal Action

On April 1, 2003, we published a final rule (68 FR 15804) that reclassified and delisted gray wolves, as appropriate, across their range in the 48 conterminous United States and Mexico

e Federal recovery criteria, and maintaining viable recovered wolf populations in these areas will not be dependent in any way on wolves or wolf populations in other areas of the WGL DPS.

Previous Federal Action

On April 1, 2003, we published a final rule (68 FR 15804) that reclassified and delisted gray wolves, as appropriate, across their range in the 48 conterminous United States and Mexico. Within that rule, we established three DPSs for the gray wolf. Gray wolves in the Western DPS and the Eastern DPS were reclassified from endangered to threatened, except where already classified as threatened or as an experimental population. Gray wolves in the Southwestern DPS retained their previous endangered or experimental population status. Three existing gray wolf experimental population designations were not affected by the April 1, 2003, final rule. We removed gray wolves from the protections of the Act in all or parts of 16 southern and eastern States where the species historically did not occur. We also established a new special rule under section 4(d) of the Act for the threatened Western DPS to increase our ability to effectively manage wolf-human conflicts outside the two experimental population areas in the Western DPS. In addition, we established a second section 4(d) rule that applied provisions similar to those previously in effect in Minnesota to most of the Eastern DPS. These two special rules were codified in 50 CFR 17.40(n) and (o), respectively. In that final rule (on page 15806), we included a detailed summary of the previous Federal actions completed prior to publication of that final rule. The final rule is available at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/esa-status/Reclass-final-fr.PDF . Therefore, we will not repeat the details of that history in this proposal.

al rule. The final rule is available at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/esa-status/Reclass-final-fr.PDF . Therefore, we will not repeat the details of that history in this proposal.

On January 31, 2005, and August 19, 2005, the U.S. District Courts in Oregon and Vermont, respectively, concluded that the 2003 final rule was “arbitrary and capricious” and violated the ESA ( Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton , 03-1348-JO, D. OR 2005; National Wildlife Federation v. Norton , 1:03-CV-340, D. VT. 2005). The courts' rulings invalidated the April 2003 changes to the ESA listing for the gray wolf. These rulings had the effect of eliminating the three DPS listings and reverting all gray wolves south of Canada to endangered status, except those wolves in Minnesota retained their threatened status and the experimental population wolves in the northern U.S. Rockies and the Southwest retained their “nonessential experimental” status. These rulings also vacated the 2003 special rules under section 4(d) that authorized lethal control of problem wolves in the Eastern and Western DPSs. Because we had subsequently used the Eastern DPS as the basis for a July 21, 2004, gray wolf delisting proposal (69 FR 43664), that proposal could not be finalized.

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 gray wolf across most of the conterminous United States, we did not initiate separate reviews in response to those two petitions

deration 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 gray 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 July 21, 2004, proposed rule (69 FR 43664), this rule was mooted by the Court rulings. Therefore, this delisting proposal restates 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.

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview

Pursuant to the ESA, we consider for listing any species, subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa if there is sufficient information to indicate that such action may be warranted. To interpret and implement the DPS provision of the ESA and Congressional guidance, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published, on December 21, 1994, a draft Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the ESA and invited public comments on it (59 FR 65884). After review of comments and further consideration, the Service and NMFS adopted the interagency policy as issued in draft form, and published it in the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). This policy addresses the recognition of a

it in the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). This policy addresses the recognition of a

Under our DPS policy, three factors are considered in a decision regarding the establishment and classification of a possible DPS. These are applied similarly for additions to the list of endangered and threatened species, reclassification of already listed species, and removals from the list. The first two factors—discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon (i.e., Canis lupus ) and the significance of the population segment to the taxon to which it belongs (i.e., Canis lupus )—bear on whether the population segment is a valid DPS. If a population meets both tests, it is a DPS and then the third factor is applied—the population segment's conservation status in relation to the ESA's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is the population segment endangered or threatened).

Analysis for Discreteness

Under our Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions—(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon (i.e., Canis lupus ) 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 ESA.

nces 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 ESA.

Markedly Separated From Other Populations of the Taxon —The western edge of the proposed Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment is approximately 400 mi (644 km) from the nearest known wolf packs in Wyoming and Montana. The distance between those western packs and the nearest packs within the proposed WGL DPS is nearly 600 miles (966 km). The area between Minnesota packs and Northern Rocky Mountain packs largely consists of unsuitable habitat, with only scattered islands of possibly suitable habitat, such as the Black Hills of eastern Wyoming and western South Dakota. There are no known gray wolf populations to the south or east of this proposed WGL DPS.

As discussed in the previous section, gray wolves are known to disperse over vast distances, but straight line documented dispersals of 400 mi (644 km) or more are very rare. Wolf dispersal is expected to continue but unless they return to a core recovery population and join or start a pack there, they are unlikely to contribute to long-term maintenance of recovered wolf populations. Dispersing wolves may encounter a mature wolf of the opposite sex outside the core wolf areas, but the lack of large expanses of unfragmented public land make it unlikely that any wolf packs will persist in these areas. While we cannot rule out the possibility of a Midwest wolf traveling 600 miles or more and joining or establishing a pack in the Northern Rockies, such a movement has not been documented and is expected to happen very infrequently, if at all. 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 satisfies the discreteness criterion

miles or more and joining or establishing a pack in the Northern Rockies, such a movement has not been documented and is expected to happen very infrequently, if at all. 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 satisfies the discreteness criterion.

Delimited by International Boundaries with Significant Management Differences Between the United States and Canada —This border has been used as the northern boundary of the listed entity since gray wolves were reclassified in the 48 states and Mexico in 1978. There remain significant cross-border differences in exploitation, management, conservation status, and regulatory mechanisms. More than 50,000 wolves exist in Canada, where suitable habitat is abundant, human harvest of wolves is common, Federal protection is absent, and provincial regulations provide widely varying levels of protection. In general, Canadian wolf populations are sufficiently large and healthy so that harvest and population regulation, rather than protection and close monitoring, is the management focus. There are an estimated 4,000 wolves in Manitoba (Manitoba Conservation undated). Hunting is allowed nearly province-wide, including in those provincial hunting zones adjoining northwestern Minnesota, with a current season that runs from August 29, 2005, through March 31, 2006 (Manitoba Conservation 2005a). Trapping wolves is allowed province-wide except in and immediately around Riding Mountain Provincial Park (southwestern Manitoba), with a current season running from October 14, 2005, through February 28 or March 31, 2006 (varies with trapping zone) (Manitoba Conservation 2005b). The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources estimates there are 8,850 wolves in the province, based on prey composition and abundance, topography, and climate

ide except in and immediately around Riding Mountain Provincial Park (southwestern Manitoba), with a current season running from October 14, 2005, through February 28 or March 31, 2006 (varies with trapping zone) (Manitoba Conservation 2005b). The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources estimates there are 8,850 wolves in the province, based on prey composition and abundance, topography, and climate. Wolf numbers in most parts of the province are believed to be stable or increasing since about 1993 (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) 2005a). In 2005 Ontario limited hunting and trapping of wolves by closing the season from April 1 through September 14 in central and northern Ontario (Ontario MNR 2005b). In southern Ontario (the portion of the province that is adjacent to the proposed WGL DPS), wolf hunting and trapping is permitted year around except within, and immediately around, Algonquin Provincial Park in southeastern Ontario (north of Lake Ontario) where seasons are closed all year (Ontario MNR 2005c).

We, therefore, conclude that the above described proposed WGL DPS boundary would satisfy both conditions that can be used to demonstrate discreteness of a potential DPS.

Analysis for Significance

If we determine a population segment is discrete, we next consider available scientific evidence of its significance to the taxon (i.e., Canis lupus ) to which it belongs. Our DPS policy states that this consideration may include, but is not limited to, the following—(1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; and/or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its

population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; and/or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. Below we address Factors 1 and 2. Factors 3 and 4 do not apply to the proposed WGL wolf DPS and thus are not included in our analysis for significance.

Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting —Wolves within the proposed WGL DPS occupy the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province, a biotic province that is transitional between the boreal forest and the broadleaf deciduous forest. Laurentian Mixed Forest consists of mixed conifer-deciduous stands, pure deciduous forest on favorable sites, and pure coniferous forest on less favorable sites. Within the United States this biotic province occurs across northeastern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, the UP, and the NLP, as well as the eastern half of Maine, and portions of New York and Pennsylvania (Bailey 1995). In the Midwest, current wolf distribution closely matches this

Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon —This factor may be primarily of value when considering the initial listing of a taxon under the Act to prevent the development of a major gap in a taxon's range (“* * * loss * * * would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon” (71 FR 6641)). However, this successful restoration of a viable wolf metapopulation to large parts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan has filled a significant gap in the historical range of the wolf in the United States, and it provides an important extension of the range of the North American gray wolf population

e (“* * * loss * * * would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon” (71 FR 6641)). However, this successful restoration of a viable wolf metapopulation to large parts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan has filled a significant gap in the historical range of the wolf in the United States, and it provides an important extension of the range of the North American gray wolf population. Without the recovered Western Great Lakes wolf metapopulation, there would not be a wolf population in the conterminous States east of the Rocky Mountains except for the red wolves being restored along the Atlantic Coast.

Conclusion

We conclude, based on our review of the best available scientific information, that the proposed WGL DPS is discrete from other wolf populations as a result of physical separation and the international border with Canada. The proposed DPS is significant to the taxon to which it belongs because it is the only occurrence of the species in the Laurentian Mixed Forest Biotic Province in the United States, it contains a wolf metapopulation that fills a large gap in the historical range of the taxon, and it contains the majority of the wolves in the conterminous States. Therefore, we have determined that this population of wolves satisfies the discreteness and significance criteria required to designate it as a DPS. The evaluation of the appropriate conservation status for the WGL DPS is found below.

Delineating the WGL Gray Wolf Population DPS

to designate it as a DPS. The evaluation of the appropriate conservation status for the WGL DPS is found below.

Delineating the WGL Gray Wolf Population DPS

To delineate the boundary of the WGL DPS, we considered the current distribution of the wolves in those areas we consider significant in the population and the potential dispersal distance wolves may travel from those core population areas. The WGL DPS boundary includes all of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; the part of North Dakota that is north and east of the Missouri River upstream as far as Lake Sakakawea and east of Highway 83 from Lake Sakakawea to the Canadian border; the part of South Dakota that is north and east of the Missouri River; the parts of Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana that are north of Interstate Highway 80; and the part of Ohio north of Interstate Highway 80 and west of the Maumee River (at Toledo). (See Figure 1.) As discussed below, this DPS has been delineated to include the core recovered wolf population plus a zone around the core wolf populations. This geographic delineation is not intended to include all areas where wolves have dispersed from. Rather, it includes the area currently occupied by wolf packs in MN, WI, and MI; the nearby areas in these States, including the Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan, in which wolf packs may become established in the foreseeable future; and a surrounding area into which MN, WI, and MI wolves disperse but where persistent packs are not expected to be established. The area surrounding the core wolf populations includes the locations of most known dispersers from the core populations, especially the shorter and medium-distance dispersers that are most likely to survive and potentially return to the core areas.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P EP27MR06.000

ons, especially the shorter and medium-distance dispersers that are most likely to survive and potentially return to the core areas.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P EP27MR06.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C The WGL areas that are regularly occupied by wolf packs are well documented in Minnesota (Erb and Benson 2004), Wisconsin (Wydeven et al. 2006), and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (Huntzinger et al 2005). Wolves have successfully colonized most, perhaps all, suitable habitat in Minnesota. Minnesota data from the winter of 2003-2004 indicate that wolf numbers and density either have

When delineating the WGL DPS, we had to consider the high degree of mobility shown by wolves. The dispersal of wolves from their natal packs and territories is a normal and important behavioral attribute of the species that facilitates the formation of new packs, the occupancy of vacant territories, and the expansion of occupied range by the “colonization” of vacant habitat. Data on wolf dispersal rates from numerous North American studies (Fuller et al. 2003, Boyd and Pletscher 1991) shows dispersal rates of 13 to 48 percent of the individuals in a pack. Sometimes the dispersal is temporary, and the wolf ends its extra-territorial movement by returning to a location in or near its natal territory. In some cases a wolf may continue its movement for scores or even hundreds of miles until it locates suitable habitat, where it may establish a territory or join an existing pack. In other cases, a wolf may die while apparently continuing its dispersal movement, leaving unanswered the questions of how far it would have gone and whether it eventually would have returned to its natal area or population.

Published and unpublished scientific data provide a great deal of insight into the magnitude of extra-territorial movements, and document the following:

Minnesota —The current record for a documented extra-territorial movement by a gray wolf in North America is held by a Minnesota wolf that moved a straight line distance of at least 550 mi

y would have returned to its natal area or population.

Published and unpublished scientific data provide a great deal of insight into the magnitude of extra-territorial movements, and document the following:

Minnesota —The current record for a documented extra-territorial movement by a gray wolf in North America is held by a Minnesota wolf that moved a straight line distance of at least 550 mi. (886 km) northwest into Saskatchewan (Fritts 1983). Nineteen other primarily MN movements summarized by Mech (2005 in litt.) averaged 154 mi (248 km). Their straight-line distance of travel (i.e., from known starting location to most distant known location) ranged from 32-532 mi (53-886 km) with the straight-line maximum dispersal distance shown by known returning wolves ranging from 54 mi (90 km) to 307 mi (494 km).

Michigan —Drummer et al. (2002) reported 10 instances involving UP wolves. One of these wolves moved to northcentral Missouri and another to southeastern Wisconsin, both beyond the core wolf areas in the WGL. The average straight-line distance traveled by those two wolves was 377 mi (608 km), while the average straight-line distance for all 10 of these wolves was 232 mi. (373 km). Their straight-line distances ranged from 41 to 468 mi. (66 to 753 km).

Wisconsin —In 2004 a wolf tagged in Michigan was killed by a vehicle in Rusk County in northwestern Wisconsin, 295 miles (475 km) west of his original capture location in the eastern UP (Wydeven et al. 2005). A similar distance (298 mi, 480 km) was traveled by a north-central Wisconsin yearling female wolf that moved to the Rainy Lake region of Ontario during 1988-1989 (Wydeven et al. 1995).

2005). A similar distance (298 mi, 480 km) was traveled by a north-central Wisconsin yearling female wolf that moved to the Rainy Lake region of Ontario during 1988-1989 (Wydeven et al. 1995).

In December 2002 a wolf was shot and killed in Marshall County, Illinois. This wolf likely dispersed from the Wisconsin wolf population, nearly 200 miles (322 km) to the north (Great Lakes Directory 2003). Another wolf known to have come from a central Wisconsin wolf pack was found shot in Randolph County in east central Indiana about 12 miles from the Ohio border in June 2003. It had traveled a minimum distance of at least 420 miles (676 km) to get around Lake Michigan; it likely traveled much father than that unless it went through the city or suburbs of Chicago (Wydeven et al. 2004). Another likely Wisconsin wolf was shot in Pike County, Illinois, in late 2005. This animal was about 300 mi (180 km) from the nearest wolf packs in central Wisconsin.

North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska —Licht and Fritts (1994) tabulated 10 gray wolves found dead in ND and SD from 1981 through 1992. Seven of these are believed to have originated from Minnesota, based on skull morphometrics. (Another probably originated in Manitoba and the likely origins of the other two wolves are unknown.) Although none of these wolves were marked or radio-tracked, making it impossible to determine the point of initiation of their journey, a minimum straight-line travel distance can be determined from the nearest wolf breeding range in MN. For the seven, the average distance to the nearest wolf breeding range was 160 mi (257 km) and ranged from 29 to 329 mi (46 to 530 km). One of these seven wolves moved west of the Missouri River before it died.

verage distance to the nearest wolf breeding range was 160 mi (257 km) and ranged from 29 to 329 mi (46 to 530 km). One of these seven wolves moved west of the Missouri River before it died.

Genetic analysis of a wolf killed in Harding County, in extreme northwestern South Dakota, in 2001 indicated that it originated from the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population (Straughan and Fain 2002). The straight-line travel distance to the nearest Minnesota wolf pack is nearly 400 miles (644 km).

A wolf illegally killed near Spalding, Nebraska, in December of 2002 also originated from the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population, as determined by genetic analysis (Anschutz, in litt. 2003). The nearest Minnesota wolf pack is nearly 350 miles (563 km) from this location.

Other notable extra-territorial movements —Notable are several wolves whose extra-territorial movements were radio-tracked in sufficient detail to provide insight into their actual travel routes and total travel distances for each trek, rather than only documenting straight-line distance from beginning to end-point. Merrill and Mech (2000) reported on four such Minnesota wolves with a documented travel distance ranging from 305 to 2641 mi (490 to 4251 km) and an average travel route length of 988 mi (1590 km). Wydeven (1994) described a WI wolf that moved from northwestern WI to the northern suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota, for 2 weeks (apparently not seen or reported to authorities by the local residents), then moved back to north-central WI. The total travel distance was 278 mi (447 km) from her natal pack to the north-central WI location where she settled down.

esidents), then moved back to north-central WI. The total travel distance was 278 mi (447 km) from her natal pack to the north-central WI location where she settled down.

From these extra-territorial movement records we conclude that gray wolf movements of over 200 miles (320 km) straight-line distance have been documented on numerous occasions, while shorter distance movements are more frequent. Movements of 300 miles (480 km) straight-line distance or more are less common, but include one Minnesota wolf that journeyed a straight-line distance of 300 mi (480 km) and a known minimum distance of 2,550 mi (4251 km) before it reversed direction, as determined by its satellite-tracked collar. This wolf returned to a spot only 24 mi (40 km) from its natal territory (Merrill and Mech 2000). While much longer movements have been documented, including some by WGL wolves, return movements to the vicinity of natal territories have not been documented for extra-territorial movements beyond 300 mi (480 km).

Based on extra-territorial movement data, we conclude that affiliation with the midwestern wolf population has

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the ESA and regulations (50 CFR Part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the ESA set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, and delisting species. Species may be listed as threatened or endangered if one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA threaten the continued existence of the species. A species may be delisted, according to 50 CFR 424.11(d), if the best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened because of (1) extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) error in the original data used for classification of the species.

A recovered population is one that no longer meets the ESA's definition of threatened or endangered

cies. A species may be delisted, according to 50 CFR 424.11(d), if the best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened because of (1) extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) error in the original data used for classification of the species.

A recovered population is one that no longer meets the ESA's definition of threatened or endangered. The ESA defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Determining whether a species is recovered requires consolidation of the same five categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1). For species that are being considered for delisting, this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species and the threats that could potentially affect the species in the foreseeable future after its delisting and the consequent removal of the Act's protections.

For the purposes of this notice, we consider “foreseeable future” to be 30 years. This is a period for which we can make reasonable assumptions, based on recent and current observations, regarding the continuation of current trends in human attitudes and behaviors, regulatory mechanisms, and environmental factors that will be the primary determinants of threats to wolf populations in the future.

For the purposes of this notice, the “range” of wolves in this WGL DPS is the area within the DPS boundaries where viable populations of the species now exist. However, a species' historical range is also considered because it helps inform decisions on the species' status in its current range. While wolves historically occurred throughout the geographic area of the DPS, large portions of its historical range are no longer able to support viable wolf populations

L DPS is the area within the DPS boundaries where viable populations of the species now exist. However, a species' historical range is also considered because it helps inform decisions on the species' status in its current range. While wolves historically occurred throughout the geographic area of the DPS, large portions of its historical range are no longer able to support viable wolf populations.

Significance of a portion of the range is viewed in terms of biological significance rather than in quantitative terms. A portion of a species' range that is so important to the continued existence of the species that threats to the species in that area can threaten the viability of the species, subspecies, or DPS as a whole is considered to be a significant portion of the range. In regard to the WGL DPS, the significant portions of the gray wolf's range are those areas that are important or necessary for maintaining a viable, self-sustaining, and evolving representative meta-population or multiple separate populations in order for the WGL DPS to persist into the foreseeable future.

The following analysis examines all significant factors currently affecting wolf populations or likely to affect wolf populations within the foreseeable future. Factor A considers all factors affecting both currently occupied and potentially suitable habitat (defined below in Factor A). The issues discussed under Factors B, C, and E are analyzed throughout the entire DPS. Adequate regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are discussed for each of the States within the DPS, with an emphasis on the three States with enough suitable habitat to sustain viable wolf populations (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan).

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range

suitable habitat to sustain viable wolf populations (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan).

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range

A common misperception is that wolves inhabit only remote portions of pristine forests or mountainous areas, where human developments and other activities have produced negligible change to the natural landscape. Their extirpation south of Canada and Alaska, except for the heavily forested portions of northeastern Minnesota, reinforced this popular belief. Wolves, however, survived in those areas not because those were the only places with the necessary habitat conditions, but because only in those remote areas were they sufficiently free of the human persecution that elsewhere killed wolves faster than the species could reproduce (Mech 1995).

In the western Great Lakes region, wolves in the densely forested northeastern corner of Minnesota have expanded into the more agricultural portions of central and northwestern Minnesota, northern and central Wisconsin, and the entire Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Habitats currently being used by wolves span the broad range from the mixed hardwood-coniferous forest wilderness area of northern Minnesota, through sparsely settled, but similar habitats in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and northern Wisconsin, and into more intensively cultivated and livestock-producing portions of central and northwestern Minnesota and central Wisconsin.

Wolf research and the expansion of wolf range over the last three decades have shown that wolves can successfully occupy a wide range of habitats, and they are not dependent on wilderness areas for their survival (Mech 1995). In the past, gray wolf populations occupied nearly every type of habitat north of mid-Mexico that contained large ungulate prey species, including bison, elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, and woodland caribou; thus, wolves historically occupied the entire Midwest

can successfully occupy a wide range of habitats, and they are not dependent on wilderness areas for their survival (Mech 1995). In the past, gray wolf populations occupied nearly every type of habitat north of mid-Mexico that contained large ungulate prey species, including bison, elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, and woodland caribou; thus, wolves historically occupied the entire Midwest. An inadequate prey density and a high level of human persecution appear to be the only factors that limit wolf distribution (Mech 1995).

An indication of the availability of suitable habitat in portions of historical range is the increase in Midwest wolf population levels. In Minnesota, four comparable surveys of wolf numbers and range have been carried out since 1979. These surveys estimated that there et al. 1992, Berg and Benson 1999, Erb and Benson 2004) (see “Recovery in the Western Great Lakes DPS,” above, for additional details on the increase in numbers and range of Minnesota wolves).

Hearne et al. (2003), determined that a viable wolf population (that is, having less than 10 percent chance of extinction over 100 years) should consist of at least 175 to 225 wolves, and they modeled various likely scenarios of habitat conditions in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and northern Wisconsin through the year 2020 to determine whether future conditions would support a wolf population of that size. Most scenarios of future habitat conditions resulted in viable wolf populations in each State through 2020. When the model analyzed the future conditions in the two States combined, all scenarios produced a viable wolf population through 2020. Their scenarios included increases in human population density, changes in land ownership that may result in decreased habitat suitability, and increased road density.

Federal Lands

National forests, and the prey species found in their various habitats, have been important to wolf conservation and recovery in the core areas of the WGL DPS

enarios produced a viable wolf population through 2020. Their scenarios included increases in human population density, changes in land ownership that may result in decreased habitat suitability, and increased road density.

Federal Lands

National forests, and the prey species found in their various habitats, have been important to wolf conservation and recovery in the core areas of the WGL DPS. There are five national forests with resident wolves (Superior, Chippewa, Chequamegon-Nicolet, Ottawa, and Hiawatha National Forests) in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. Their wolf populations range from approximately 20 on the Nicolet portion of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in northeastern Wisconsin, to 160-170 on the UP's Ottawa National Forest, to an estimated 465 (in winter of 2003-04) on the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota (Lindquist in litt. 2005). Nearly half of the wolves in Wisconsin currently use the Chequamegon portion of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.

Voyageurs National Park, along Minnesota's northern border, has a land base of nearly 882 km 2 (340 mi 2 ). There are 40 to 55 wolves within 7 to 11 packs that exclusively or partially reside within the park, and at least 4 packs are located wholly inside the Park boundaries (Holbeck, Voyageurs NP, in litt. 2005, based on 2000-2001 data).

In the WGL DPS, we currently manage seven units within the National Wildlife Refuge System with significant wolf activity. Primary among these are Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Tamarac NWR, and Rice Lake NWR in Minnesota; Seney NWR in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan; and Necedah NWR in central Wisconsin. Agassiz NWR has had as many as 20 wolves in 2 to 3 packs in recent years. In 1999, mange and illegal shootings reduced them to a single pack of five wolves and a separate lone wolf. Since 2001, however, two packs with a total of 10 to 12 wolves have been using the refuge

Tamarac NWR, and Rice Lake NWR in Minnesota; Seney NWR in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan; and Necedah NWR in central Wisconsin. Agassiz NWR has had as many as 20 wolves in 2 to 3 packs in recent years. In 1999, mange and illegal shootings reduced them to a single pack of five wolves and a separate lone wolf. Since 2001, however, two packs with a total of 10 to 12 wolves have been using the refuge. About 60 percent of the packs' territories are located on the Refuge or on adjacent State-owned wildlife management area (Gary Huschle, USFWS, in litt. 2005). Tamarac NWR has 2 packs, with a 15-year average of 12 wolves in one pack; adults and an unknown number of pups comprise the second pack (Barbara Boyle, USFWS, in litt. 2005). Rice Lake NWR, in Minnesota, has one pack of nine animals using the refuge in 2004; in 2005, the pack had at least 6 individuals. Other single or paired wolves pass through the refuge frequently (Mary Stefanski, USFWS, pers. comm. 2004; Michelle McDowell, USFWS, in litt. 2005). In 2003, Seney NWR had one pack with two adults and two pups; in 2005 there were two pairs of wolves and several lone individuals using the Refuge (Dave Olson, USFWS, in litt. 2005). Necedah NWR currently has 2 packs with at least 13 wolves in the packs (Joel Trick, USFWS, in litt. 2005). Over the past 10 years, Sherburne and Crane Meadows NWRs in central Minnesota have had intermittent, but reliable, observations and signs of individual wolves each year. To date, no established packs have been documented on either of those refuges. The closest established packs are within 15 miles of Crane Meadows NWR at Camp Ripley Military Installation and 30 miles north of Sherburne NWR at Mille Lacs State Wildlife Management Area (Jeanne Holler, USFWS, in litt. 2005).

Suitable Habitat Within the Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPS

Various researchers have investigated habitat suitability for wolves in the eastern portion of the United States

osest established packs are within 15 miles of Crane Meadows NWR at Camp Ripley Military Installation and 30 miles north of Sherburne NWR at Mille Lacs State Wildlife Management Area (Jeanne Holler, USFWS, in litt. 2005).

Suitable Habitat Within the Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf DPS

Various researchers have investigated habitat suitability for wolves in the eastern portion of the United States. In recent years, most of these efforts have focused on using human density, deer density or deer biomass, and road density, or have used road density alone to identify areas where wolf populations are likely to persist or become established (Mladenoff et al. 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999; Harrison and Chapin 1998; Wydeven et al. 2001; Potvin et al. in press).

Road density has largely been adopted as the best predictor of habitat suitability in the Northeast and Midwest due to the connection between roads and human-related wolf mortality. Several studies demonstrated that wolves generally did not maintain breeding packs in areas with a road density greater than about 0.9 to 1.1 linear miles per square mile (0.6 to 0.7 km/km 2 ) (Thiel 1985; Jensen et al. 1986; Mech et al. 1988; Fuller et al. 1992). Work by Mladenoff and associates indicated that colonizing wolves in Wisconsin preferred areas where road densities were less than 0.7 mi/sq mi (0.45 km/sq km) (Mladenoff et al. 1995). However, recent work in the UP of Michigan indicates that in some areas with low road densities, low deer density appears to separately limit wolf occupancy (Potvin et al. in press) and may prevent recolonization of portions of the UP.

Road density increases various forms of other human-related wolf mortality factors. A rural area with more roads generally has a greater human density, more vehicular traffic, greater access by hunters and trappers, more farms and residences, and more domestic animals. As a result, there is a greater likelihood that wolves in such an area will encounter humans, domestic animals, and various human activities

ty increases various forms of other human-related wolf mortality factors. A rural area with more roads generally has a greater human density, more vehicular traffic, greater access by hunters and trappers, more farms and residences, and more domestic animals. As a result, there is a greater likelihood that wolves in such an area will encounter humans, domestic animals, and various human activities. These encounters may result in wolves being hit by motor vehicles, being controlled by government agents after becoming involved in depredations on domestic animals, being shot intentionally by unauthorized individuals, being trapped or shot accidentally, or contracting diseases from domestic dogs (Mech et al. 1988; Mech and Goyal 1983; Mladenoff et al. 1995). Based on mortality data from radio-collared Wisconsin wolves from 1979 to 1999, natural causes of death predominate (57 percent of mortalities) in areas with road densities below 1.35 mi/sq mi (0.84 km/sq km), but human-related factors produced 71 percent of the wolf deaths in areas with higher road densities (Wydeven et al. 2001).

Some researchers have used a road density of 1 mi/sq mi (0.6 km/sq km) of land area as an upper threshold for suitable wolf habitat. However, the common practice in more recent studies is to use road density to predict probabilities of persistent wolf pack presence in an area. Areas with road densities less than 0.7 mi/sq mi (0.45 km/sq km) are estimated to have a greater than 50 percent probability of wolf pack colonization, and areas where road density exceeded 1 mi/sq mi (0.6 km/sq km) have less than a 10 percent probability of occupancy (Mladenoff et al 1995; Mladenoff and Sickley 1998; Mladenoff et al. 1999; Wydeven et al. 2001). The territories of packs that do

percent probability of occupancy (Mladenoff et al 1995; Mladenoff and Sickley 1998; Mladenoff et al. 1999; Wydeven et al. 2001). The territories of packs that do

Recent surveys for Wisconsin wolves and wolf packs show that wolves have now recolonized the areas predicted by habitat models to have high and moderate probability of occupancy (primary and secondary wolf habitat) (Wisconsin DNR 1999). The late winter 2004-05 Wisconsin wolf survey identified packs occurring throughout the central Wisconsin forest area and across the northern forest zone, with highest pack densities in the northwest and north central forest; pack densities are lower, but increasing, in the northeastern corner of the State (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005b). Michigan wolf surveys in winter 2003-04 and 2004-05 continue to show wolf pairs or packs (defined by Michigan DNR as three or more wolves traveling together) in every UP county except Keweenaw County, which probably lacks a suitable ungulate prey base during winter months (Huntzinger et al. 2005).

Habitat suitability studies in the Upper Midwest indicate that the only large areas of suitable or potentially suitable habitat areas that are currently unoccupied by wolves are located in the Northern Lower Peninsula (NLP) of Michigan (Mladenoff et al. 1997; Mladenoff et al 1999; Potvin 2003; Gehring and Potter, in press, Wildlife Soc. Bull.). One Michigan study (Gehring and Potter, in press) estimates that these areas could host 46 to 89 wolves; a masters degree thesis investigation (Potvin 2003) estimates that 110-480 wolves could exist in the NLP. The NLP is separated from the UP by the Straits of Mackinac, whose 4-mile width freezes during mid- and late-winter during some years. In recent years there have been two documented occurrences of wolves in the NLP (the last recorded wolf in the LP was in 1910). In the first instance a radio-collared female wolf from the central UP was trapped and killed by a coyote trapper in Presque Isle County in late October 2004

from the UP by the Straits of Mackinac, whose 4-mile width freezes during mid- and late-winter during some years. In recent years there have been two documented occurrences of wolves in the NLP (the last recorded wolf in the LP was in 1910). In the first instance a radio-collared female wolf from the central UP was trapped and killed by a coyote trapper in Presque Isle County in late October 2004. In late November 2004, tracks from two wolves were verified in the same NLP county. Follow-up winter surveys by the DNR in early 2005 failed to find additional wolf tracks in the NLP (Huntzinger et al. 2005); additional surveys are being conducted in February and March 2006. However, it probably is only a matter of several years before wolf pup production is documented in the NLP.

These NLP patches of suitable habitat contain a great deal of private land, are small in comparison to the occupied habitat on the UP and in MN and WI, and are intermixed with agricultural and higher road density areas (Gehring and Potter in press). Therefore, continuing wolf immigration from the UP may be necessary to maintain an NLP population. The Gehring and Potter study concludes that NLP suitable habitat (i.e., areas with greater than a 50 percent probability of wolf occupancy) amounts to 850 sq mi (2,198 sq km). Potvin, using deer density in addition to road density, believes there are about 3,090 sq mi (8,000 sq km) of suitable habitat in the NLP. Gehring and Potter exclude from their calculations those NLP low road density patches that are less than 19 sq mi (50 sq km), while Potvin does not limit habitat patch size in his calculations (Gehring and Potter in press; Potvin 2003)

850 sq mi (2,198 sq km). Potvin, using deer density in addition to road density, believes there are about 3,090 sq mi (8,000 sq km) of suitable habitat in the NLP. Gehring and Potter exclude from their calculations those NLP low road density patches that are less than 19 sq mi (50 sq km), while Potvin does not limit habitat patch size in his calculations (Gehring and Potter in press; Potvin 2003). Both of these area estimates are well below the minimum area described in the Federal Recovery Plan, which states that 10,000 sq mi (25,600 sq km) of contiguous suitable habitat is needed for a viable isolated gray wolf population, and half that area (5,000 sq mi or 12,800 sq km) is needed to maintain a viable wolf population that is subject to wolf immigration from a nearby population (USFWS 1992).

It is generally recognized that Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, provide the only sufficiently large areas with adequate wild ungulate prey base and low road and human density within this proposed DPS (USFWS 1992). The only other area within the proposed WGL DPS that potentially might hold wolves on a frequent or possibly constant basis is the Turtle Mountain region that straddles the international border in north central North Dakota. Road densities within the Turtle Mountains are below the thresholds believed to limit colonization by wolves. However, this habitat area is only on the order of 579 sq mi (1,500 sq km), with approximately 394 sq mi (1,020 sq km) in North Dakota, and roughly 185 sq mi (480 sq km) in Manitoba (Licht and Huffman 1996). This area is far less than the recommendation in the Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf as the minimum area of habitat necessary to support a wolf population (FWS 1992). Furthermore, the Manitoba portion of the Turtle Mountains is outside the currently listed area for the gray wolf and outside this proposed WGL DPS

ota, and roughly 185 sq mi (480 sq km) in Manitoba (Licht and Huffman 1996). This area is far less than the recommendation in the Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf as the minimum area of habitat necessary to support a wolf population (FWS 1992). Furthermore, the Manitoba portion of the Turtle Mountains is outside the currently listed area for the gray wolf and outside this proposed WGL DPS. While this area may provide a small area of marginal wolf habitat and may support limited and occasional wolf reproduction, the Turtle Mountain area within the United States is not a significant portion of the range of gray wolves within the WGL DPS, because of its very small area and its setting as an island of forest surrounded by a landscape largely modified for agriculture and grazing (Licht and Huffman 1996).

It appears that essentially all suitable habitat in Minnesota is now occupied, and the wolf population within the State may have slowed its increase or has stabilized (Erb and Benson 2004). In Wisconsin, suitable habitat is largely occupied, but there are some gaps in the northeastern part of the State where there appears to be room for additional packs to occupy areas between existing packs (Wydeven et al. 2005a). Similarly, in the UP of Michigan, wolf pairs or packs occur throughout the area identified as suitable (i.e., a high probability of wolf pack occupancy; Mladenoff et al. 1995, Potvin et al. in press), including every county of the UP except possibly Keweenaw. Wolf density is lower in the northern and eastern portions of the UP where lower deer numbers may prevent establishment of packs in some areas (Potvin et al. in press), but over the next several years packs may be able to fill in some of the currently unoccupied areas

of wolf pack occupancy; Mladenoff et al. 1995, Potvin et al. in press), including every county of the UP except possibly Keweenaw. Wolf density is lower in the northern and eastern portions of the UP where lower deer numbers may prevent establishment of packs in some areas (Potvin et al. in press), but over the next several years packs may be able to fill in some of the currently unoccupied areas. The NLP of Michigan appears to have the only unoccupied, but potentially suitable, wolf habitat in the Midwest that is of sufficient size to maintain wolf packs (Gehring and Potter in press; Potvin 2000), although its small size and fragmented nature may mean that NLP wolf population viability may be dependent upon continuing immigration from the UP. Other potentially suitable wolf habitat areas within the proposed DPS boundary, including the Turtle Mountains in North Dakota, are too small to consistently support a viable resident wolf population, and cannot be considered a significant portion of wolf range in the WGL DPS.

Based on the biology of the gray wolf and conservation biology principles, the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992) specifies that two populations (or a single metapopulation) are needed to ensure long-term viability. The Recovery Plan indicates the importance of a large wolf population in Minnesota Wolf Management Zones 1 through 4 (identical to Zone A in the 2001 Minnesota Wolf Management Plan) and the need for a second wolf population occupying 10,000 mi 2 or 5,000 mi 2 elsewhere in the eastern United States (depending on its isolation from the Minnesota wolf population. Based on

sota wolf population. Based on

The Recovery Plan also discusses the importance of low road density areas, the importance of minimizing wolf-human conflicts, and the maintenance of an adequate natural prey base in the areas hosting these two necessary wolf populations. The Recovery Plan, along with numerous other scientific publications, supports the need to manage and reduce wolf-human conflicts. The Recovery Plan specifically recommends managing against wolves in large areas of unsuitable habitat, stating that Minnesota Zone 5 should be managed with a goal of zero wolves there, because “Zone 5 is not suitable for wolves. Wolves found there should be eliminated by any legal means.” (USFWS 1992, p 20). Therefore, the Recovery Plan views Zone 5's roughly 60 percent of the State as not an important part of the range of the gray wolf.

Similarly, other portions of the WGL DPS that lack suitable habitat, or only have areas of suitable habitat that are below the areal thresholds specified in the Recovery Plan and/or are highly fragmented, cannot be considered a significant portion of the range of the gray wolf in the WGL DPS. These areas include North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin Wolf Management Zones 3 and 4 (WI DNR 1999), and most of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan.

The only part of Michigan's Lower Peninsula that warrants any consideration for inclusion in the SPR for the WGL DPS is composed of those areas of fragmented habitat studied by Gehring and Potter (in press) and Potvin (2003). However, this amounts to less than half of the areal thresholds identified by the Recovery Plan for the establishment of viable populations, so these NLP areas may have difficulty maintaining wolf populations even with the help of occasional immigration of wolves from the UP (see F. Suitable Habitat Within the WGL DPS for additional discussion)

d by Gehring and Potter (in press) and Potvin (2003). However, this amounts to less than half of the areal thresholds identified by the Recovery Plan for the establishment of viable populations, so these NLP areas may have difficulty maintaining wolf populations even with the help of occasional immigration of wolves from the UP (see F. Suitable Habitat Within the WGL DPS for additional discussion). These potentially suitable habitat areas are not likely to substantially contribute to maintaining a viable wolf population in Michigan, and they are not necessary to maintain a second viable wolf population in the WGL DPS. In fact, while the UP wolves will be significant to any NLP wolf population that may develop, the reverse will not be true. Thus, we conclude that the NLP is not a significant part of the range of the gray wolf in the WGL DPS.

Based on three decades of wolf research and implementing wolf recovery actions, the Recovery Plan, our analysis of five categories of threats and potential threats to the species, and the numerical growth and geographic expansion of the Midwest's wolf population, we have concluded that the wolf population has expanded to the extent that it now occupies the SPR within the DPS. The species has expanded to the extent that the currently occupied range in the WGL DPS exceeds that portion of the species' historical range in the DPS that is necessary to avoid the likelihood of extinction in the DPS for the foreseeable future.

e DPS that is necessary to avoid the likelihood of extinction in the DPS for the foreseeable future.

While there are large areas of historical range within the DPS that are unoccupied by the species, these areas are almost completely lacking suitable habitat, and there is little likelihood that they can play a meaningful role in ensuring the persistence of a viable wolf population in the WGL DPS. We have assessed the threats to wolves throughout the DPS, and we have determined that the existing and likely future threats to wolves outside the currently occupied areas, and especially to wolves outside of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the UP, do not rise to the level that they threaten the long-term viability of wolf populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Therefore, the large areas of unsuitable habitat in the eastern Dakotas; the northern portions of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio; and the southern areas of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan; as well as the relatively small areas of unoccupied potentially suitable habitat, do not constitute a significant portion of the range for the WGL DPS.

In summary, wolves currently occupy the vast majority of the suitable habitat in the WGL DPS. Unoccupied potentially suitable habitat exists in small and fragmented parcels and would neither make a substantial contribution to wolf population viability in the DPS nor constitute a biologically significant portion of gray wolf range in the WGL DPS. Furthermore, threats to wolves in the unoccupied portions of the DPS are inconsequential to the long-term viability of wolf populations in the DPS. Therefore, within the WGL DPS, gray wolves are not in danger of extinction now, nor are they likely to be so in the foreseeable future, in all or in a significant portion of their range due to inadequate or threatened suitable habitat or contraction of their range

threats to wolves in the unoccupied portions of the DPS are inconsequential to the long-term viability of wolf populations in the DPS. Therefore, within the WGL DPS, gray wolves are not in danger of extinction now, nor are they likely to be so in the foreseeable future, in all or in a significant portion of their range due to inadequate or threatened suitable habitat or contraction of their range.

Prey

Wolf density is heavily dependent on prey availability (e.g., expressed as ungulate biomass, Fuller 1989), but prey availability is not likely to threaten wolves in the WGL DPS. Conservation of primary wolf prey in the WGL DPS, white-tailed deer and moose, is clearly a high priority for State conservation agencies. As Minnesota DNR points out in its wolf management plan (MN DNR 2001:25), it manages ungulates to ensure a harvestable surplus for hunters, nonconsumptive users, and to minimize conflicts with humans. To ensure a harvestable surplus for hunters, MN DNR must account for all sources of natural mortality, including loss to wolves, and adjust hunter harvest levels when necessary. For example, after severe winters in the 1990's, MN DNR modified hunter harvest levels to allow for the recovery of the local deer population (MN DNR 2001). In addition to regulation of human harvest of deer and moose, MN DNR also plans to continue to monitor and improve habitat for these species. Land management carried out by other public agencies and by private land owners in Minnesota's wolf range, including timber harvest and prescribed fire, incidentally and significantly improves habitat for deer, the primary prey for wolves in the State. The success of these measures is apparent from the continuing high deer densities in the Forest Zone of Minnesota, and the fact that the State's three largest deer harvests have occurred in the last three years. Approximately one-half of the MN deer harvest is in the Forest Zone, which encompasses most of the occupied wolf range in the State (Lennarz 2005)

the primary prey for wolves in the State. The success of these measures is apparent from the continuing high deer densities in the Forest Zone of Minnesota, and the fact that the State's three largest deer harvests have occurred in the last three years. Approximately one-half of the MN deer harvest is in the Forest Zone, which encompasses most of the occupied wolf range in the State (Lennarz 2005). There is no indication that harvest of deer and moose or management of their habitat will significantly depress abundance of these species in Minnesota's core wolf range. Therefore, prey availability is not likely to endanger gray wolves in the foreseeable future in the State.

Similarly, the deer populations in Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan are at historically high levels. Wisconsin's pre-season deer population has exceeded 1 million animals since 1984, and hunter harvest has exceeded 400,000 deer in 7 of the last 10 years. A record harvest of 517,169 deer occurred in the 2004 deer season (WI DNR web site, accessed Jan. 27, 2006). Michigan's pre-season deer population was approximately 1.7 million deer, with about 336,000 residing in the UP. Currently MI DNR is proposing revised deer management goals to guide management of the deer population

Summary of Factor A —The wolf population in the WGL DPS currently occupies all the suitable habitat area identified for recovery in the Midwest in the 1978 and 1992 Recovery Plans and most of the suitable habitat in the WGL DPS. Unsuitable habitat, and small, fragmented areas of suitable habitat away from these core areas, largely represent geographic locations where wolf packs cannot persist. Although they may have been historical habitat, many of these areas are no longer suitable; none of them are important or necessary for maintaining a viable, self-sustaining, and evolving representative wolf population in the WGL DPS into the foreseeable future, and they are not a significant portion of the range of the WGL DPS

argely represent geographic locations where wolf packs cannot persist. Although they may have been historical habitat, many of these areas are no longer suitable; none of them are important or necessary for maintaining a viable, self-sustaining, and evolving representative wolf population in the WGL DPS into the foreseeable future, and they are not a significant portion of the range of the WGL DPS.

The WGL DPS wolf population exceeds its numerical, temporal, and distributional goals for recovery. A delisted wolf population would be safely maintained above recovery levels for the foreseeable future, because much important wolf habitat is in public ownership, the states will continue to manage for high ungulate populations, and the States, Tribes, and Federal land management agencies will adequately regulate human-caused mortality of wolves and wolf prey. This will allow these three States to easily support a recovered and viable wolf metapopulation into the foreseeable future

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

Since their listing under the Act, no gray wolves have been legally killed or removed from the wild in any of the nine States included in the WGL DPS for either commercial or recreational purposes. Some wolves may have been illegally killed for commercial use of the pelts and other parts, but we think that illegal commercial trafficking in wolf pelts or parts and illegal capture of wolves for commercial breeding purposes is rare. State wolf management plans for Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan ensure that wolves will not be killed for these purposes for at least several years following Federal delisting, so these forms of mortality will not emerge as new threats upon delisting. See Factor D for a detailed discussion of State wolf management plans, and for applicable regulations in States lacking wolf management plans

re. State wolf management plans for Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan ensure that wolves will not be killed for these purposes for at least several years following Federal delisting, so these forms of mortality will not emerge as new threats upon delisting. See Factor D for a detailed discussion of State wolf management plans, and for applicable regulations in States lacking wolf management plans.

We do not expect the use of wolves for scientific purposes to increase in proportion to total wolf numbers in the WGL DPS after delisting. Prior to delisting, the intentional or incidental killing, or capture and permanent confinement, of endangered or threatened gray wolves for scientific purposes has only legally occurred under permits or subpermits issued by the Service (under section 10(a)(1)(A)) or by a State agency operating under a cooperative agreement with the Service pursuant to section 6 of the Act (50 CFR 17.21(c)(5) and 17.31(b)). Although exact figures are not available, throughout the coterminous 48 States, such removals of wolves from the wild have been very limited and probably comprise an average of not more than two animals per year since the species was first listed as endangered. In the WGL DPS, these animals were either taken from the Minnesota wolf population during long-term research activities (about 15 gray wolves) or were accidental takings as a result of research activities in Wisconsin (4 to 5 mortalities and 1 long-term confinement) and in Michigan (2 mortalities) (William Berg, MN DNR, in litt. 1998; Mech, in litt. 1998; Wydeven 1998; Roell, in litt. June 22, 2004 & July 19, 2005).

The Minnesota DNR plans to encourage the study of wolves with radio-telemetry after delisting, with an emphasis on areas where they expect wolf-human conflicts and where wolves are expanding their range (MN DNR 2001). Similarly, Wisconsin and Michigan DNRs will continue to trap wolves for radio-collaring, examination, and health monitoring for the foreseeable future (WI DNR 1999, WI DNR 1997). The continued handling of wild wolves for research, including the administration of drugs, may result in some accidental deaths of wolves. We believe that capture and radio-telemetry-related injuries or mortalities will not increase significantly above the level observed before delisting in proportion to wolf abundance; adverse effects to wolves associated with such activities has been minimal (see below) and would not constitute a threat to the WGL DPS.

No wolves have been legally removed from the wild for educational purposes in recent years. Wolves that have been used for such purposes are the captive-reared offspring of wolves that were already in captivity for other reasons, and this is not likely to change as a result of Federal delisting. We do not expect taking for educational purposes to constitute any threat to Midwest wolf populations for the foreseeable future.

See Factor E for a discussion of taking of gray wolves by Native Americans for religious, spiritual, or traditional cultural purposes. See the Depredation Control Programs sections under Factor D for discussion of other past, current, and potential future forms of intentional and accidental take by humans, including depredation control, public safety, and under public harvest. While public harvest may include recreational harvest, it is likely that public harvest will also serve as a management tool, so it is discussed in Factor D

ee the Depredation Control Programs sections under Factor D for discussion of other past, current, and potential future forms of intentional and accidental take by humans, including depredation control, public safety, and under public harvest. While public harvest may include recreational harvest, it is likely that public harvest will also serve as a management tool, so it is discussed in Factor D.

Summary of Factor B—Threats to wolves resulting from scientific or educational purposes are not likely to increase substantially following delisting of the DPS, and any increased use for these purposes will be regulated and monitored by the States and Tribes in the core recovery areas. Taking wolves for scientific or educational purposes in the other WGL DPS States may not be regulated or closely monitored in the future, but the threat to wolves in those States will not be significant to the long-term viability of the wolf population in the WGL DPS. The potential limited commercial and recreational harvest that may occur in the DPS will be regulated by State and/or Tribal conservation agencies and is discussed under Factor D.

C. Disease or predation

Disease

Many diseases and parasites have been reported for the gray wolf, and several of them have had significant impacts during the recovery of the species in the 48 conterminous United States (Brand et al. 1995, WI DNR 1999). If not monitored and controlled by States, these diseases and parasites, and perhaps others, may threaten gray wolf populations in the future. Thus, to avoid a future decline caused by diseases or parasites, States and their partners will have to diligently monitor the prevalence of these pathogens in order to effectively respond to significant outbreaks.

Canine parvovirus (CPV) is a relatively new disease that infects wolves, domestic dogs, foxes, coyotes, skunks, and raccoons

others, may threaten gray wolf populations in the future. Thus, to avoid a future decline caused by diseases or parasites, States and their partners will have to diligently monitor the prevalence of these pathogens in order to effectively respond to significant outbreaks.

Canine parvovirus (CPV) is a relatively new disease that infects wolves, domestic dogs, foxes, coyotes, skunks, and raccoons. Recognized in the United States in 1977 in domestic dogs, it appeared in Minnesota wolves (based upon retrospective serologic evidence) live-trapped as early as 1977 (Mech et al. 1986). Minnesota wolves, however, may have been exposed to the virus as et al. 1995) and exposure in wolves is now believed to be almost universal.

There is no evidence that CPV has caused a population decline or has had a significant impact on the recovery of the Minnesota gray wolf population. Mech and Goyal (1995), however, found that high CPV prevalence in the wolves of the Superior National Forest in Minnesota occurred during the same years in which wolf pup numbers were low. Because the wolf population did not decline during the study period, they concluded that CPV-caused pup mortality was compensatory, that is, it replaced deaths that would have occurred from other causes, especially starvation of pups. They theorized that CPV prevalence affects the amount of population increase and that a wolf population will decline when 76 percent of the adult wolves consistently test positive for CPV exposure. Their data indicate that CPV prevalence in adult wolves in their study area increased by an annual average of 4 percent during 1979-93 and was at least 80 percent during the last 5 years of their study (Mech and Goyal 1995). Additional unpublished data gathered since 1995 indicate that CPV had reduced wolf population growth in that area from 1979 to 1989, but not since that period (Mech in litt. 1999). These data provide strong justification for continuing population and disease monitoring.

Wisconsin DNR, in conjunction with the U.S

as at least 80 percent during the last 5 years of their study (Mech and Goyal 1995). Additional unpublished data gathered since 1995 indicate that CPV had reduced wolf population growth in that area from 1979 to 1989, but not since that period (Mech in litt. 1999). These data provide strong justification for continuing population and disease monitoring.

Wisconsin DNR, in conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin, (formerly the National Wildlife Health Laboratory) has an extensive dataset on the incidence of wolf diseases, beginning in 1981. Canine parvovirus exposure was evident in 5 of 6 wolves tested in 1981, and probably stalled wolf population growth in Wisconsin during the early and mid-1980s when numbers there declined or were static; at that time 75 percent of 32 wolves tested positive for CPV. During the following years of population increase (1988-96) only 35 percent of the 63 wolves tested positive for CPV (WI DNR 1999). More recent exposure rates for CPV continue to be high in Wisconsin wolves, with annual rates ranging from 60 to 100 percent among wild wolves handled from 2001 through mid-2005. Part of the reason for high exposure percentages is likely an increased emphasis in sampling pups and Central Forest wolves starting in 2001, so comparisons of post- and pre-2001 data are of limited value. CPV appears not to be a significant cause of mortality, as only a single wolf (male pup) is known to have died from CPV during this period (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2002a, 2003a, 2004a, 2005). While the difficulty of discovering CPV-killed pups must be considered, and it is possible that CPV-caused pup mortality is being underestimated, the continuing increase of the Wisconsin wolf population indicates that CPV mortality is no longer impeding wolf population growth in the State. It may be that many Wisconsin wolves have developed some degree of resistance to CPV, and this disease is no longer a significant threat in the State

killed pups must be considered, and it is possible that CPV-caused pup mortality is being underestimated, the continuing increase of the Wisconsin wolf population indicates that CPV mortality is no longer impeding wolf population growth in the State. It may be that many Wisconsin wolves have developed some degree of resistance to CPV, and this disease is no longer a significant threat in the State.

Canine parvovirus, hypothesized to have been introduced to the island by a dog whose owners visited the island over the Fourth of July holiday, is considered to have been the cause of the precipitous decline of the isolated Isle Royale, Michigan, population in 1981-82. The island's gray wolf population dropped from 30 wolves in 1981 to only 14 in 1982, due in large part to 100 percent pup mortality (at least 9 pups) in 1981 (Peterson and Vucetich 2002). CPV appears to have disappeared from the island by 1989, but the wolf population remained low through 1995, before commencing an increase that continued into 2005 (Peterson and Vucetich 2005). Factors other than disease, however, may have caused, or contributed to, high mortality and a low level of reproductive success post-CPV decline, including a low level of genetic diversity and a prey population composed of young healthy moose that may make it difficult to secure sufficient prey for pups (Peterson et al. 1998).

Similar to Wisconsin wolves, serological testing of Michigan wolves captured from 1992 through 2001 (most recent available data) shows that the majority of Upper Peninsula wolves have been exposed to CPV. Fifty-six percent of 16 wolves captured from 1992 to 1999 and 83 percent of 23 wolves captured in 2001 showed antibody titers at levels established as indicative of previous CPV exposure that may provide protection from future infection from CPV (Kerry Beheler, WI DNR Wildlife Health Specialist, in litt. undated and April 14, 2004)

t the majority of Upper Peninsula wolves have been exposed to CPV. Fifty-six percent of 16 wolves captured from 1992 to 1999 and 83 percent of 23 wolves captured in 2001 showed antibody titers at levels established as indicative of previous CPV exposure that may provide protection from future infection from CPV (Kerry Beheler, WI DNR Wildlife Health Specialist, in litt. undated and April 14, 2004). There are no data showing any CPV-caused wolf mortality or population impacts to the gray wolf population on the Upper Peninsula, but few wolf pups are handled in the UP (Peterson et al. 1998, Hammill pers. comm. 2002, Beyer in litt. 2006), so low levels of CPV-caused pup mortality may go undetected there. Mortality data are primarily collected from collared wolves, which until recently received CPV inoculations. Therefore, mortality data for the Upper Peninsula should be interpreted cautiously.

Sarcoptic mange is caused by a mite ( Sarcoptes scabiei ) infection of the skin. The irritation caused by the feeding and burrowing mites results in scratching and then severe fur loss, which in turn can lead to mortality from exposure during severe winter weather. The mites are spread from wolf to wolf by direct body contact or by common use of “rubs” by infested and uninfested animals. Thus, mange is frequently passed from infested females to their young pups, and from older pack members to their pack mates. In a long-term Alberta, Canada, wolf study, higher wolf densities were correlated with increased incidence of mange, and pup survival decreased as the incidence of mange increased (Brand et al. 1995).

From 1991 to 1996, 27 percent of live-trapped Wisconsin wolves exhibited symptoms of mange. During the winter of 1992-93, 58 percent showed symptoms, and a concurrent decline in the Wisconsin wolf population was attributed to mange-induced mortality (WI DNR 1999). Seven Wisconsin wolves died from mange from 1993 through October 15, 1998, and severe fur loss affected five other wolves that died from other causes

996, 27 percent of live-trapped Wisconsin wolves exhibited symptoms of mange. During the winter of 1992-93, 58 percent showed symptoms, and a concurrent decline in the Wisconsin wolf population was attributed to mange-induced mortality (WI DNR 1999). Seven Wisconsin wolves died from mange from 1993 through October 15, 1998, and severe fur loss affected five other wolves that died from other causes. During that period, mange was the third largest cause of death in Wisconsin wolves, behind trauma (usually vehicle collisions) and shooting (Nancy Thomas in litt . 1998). Largely as a result of mange, pup survival was only 16 percent in 1993, compared to a normal 30 percent survival rate from birth to one year of age.

Mange continues to be prevalent in Wisconsin, especially in the central Wisconsin wolf population. Mortality data from closely monitored radio-collared wolves provides a relatively unbiased estimate of mortality factors, especially those linked to disease or illegal actions, because nearly all carcasses are located within a few days of deaths. (Diseased wolves suffering from hypothermia or nearing death et al. 2000, 2001).

The survival of pups during their first winter is believed to be strongly affected by mange. The highest to date wolf mortality (30 percent of radio-collared wolves) from mange in Wisconsin in 2003 may have had more severe effects on pup survival than in previous years (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2004). The prevalence of the disease may have contributed to the relatively small population increase in 2003 (2.4 percent in 2003 as compared to the average 18 percent to that point since 1985). However, mange has not caused a decline in the State's wolf population, and even though the rate of population increase has slowed in recent years, the wolf population continues to increase despite the continued prevalence of mange in Wisconsin wolves

ontributed to the relatively small population increase in 2003 (2.4 percent in 2003 as compared to the average 18 percent to that point since 1985). However, mange has not caused a decline in the State's wolf population, and even though the rate of population increase has slowed in recent years, the wolf population continues to increase despite the continued prevalence of mange in Wisconsin wolves. Although mange mortality may not be the primary determinant of wolf population growth in the State, the impacts of mange in Wisconsin need to be closely monitored as identified and addressed in the Wisconsin wolf management plan (WI DNR 1999).

Seven wild Michigan wolves died from mange during 1993-97, making it responsible for 21 percent of all mortalities, and all disease-caused deaths, during that period (MI DNR 1997). During bioyears (mid-April to mid-April) 1999-04, mange-induced hypothermia killed 9 of the 11 radio-collared Michigan wolves whose cause of death was attributed to disease, and it represented 17 percent of the total mortality during those years. Mange caused the death of 31 percent of radio-collared wolves during the 1999-2001 bioyears, but that rate decreased to 11 percent during the 2001-2004 bioyears. However, the sample sizes are too small to reliably detect a trend (MI DNR, unpublished data). Before 2004, MI DNR treated all captured wolves with Ivermectin if they showed signs of mange. In addition, MI DNR vaccinated all captured wolves against CPV and canine distemper virus (CDV) and administered antibiotics to combat potential leptospirosis infections. These inoculations were discontinued in 2004 to provide more natural biotic conditions and to provide biologists with an unbiased estimate of disease-caused mortality rates in the population (Roell in litt. 2005).

nued in 2004 to provide more natural biotic conditions and to provide biologists with an unbiased estimate of disease-caused mortality rates in the population (Roell in litt. 2005).

Wisconsin wolves similarly had been treated with Ivermectin and vaccinated for CPV and CDV when captured, but the practice was stopped in 1995 to allow the wolf population to experience more natural biotic conditions. Since that time, Ivermectin has been administered only to captured wolves with severe cases of mange. In the future, Ivermectin and vaccines will be used sparingly on Wisconsin wolves, but will be used to counter significant disease outbreaks (Wydeven in litt . 1998).

Among Minnesota wolves, mange may always have been present at low levels. However, based on observations of wolves trapped under the Federal wolf depredation control program, mange appears to have become more widespread in the State during the 1999-2005 period. Data from Wildlife Services trapping efforts showed only wolves showing symptoms of mange were trapped during a 22-month period in 1994-96; in contrast, Wildlife Services trapped 10, 6, and 19 mangy wolves in 2003, 2004, and 2005, respectively (2005 data run through November 22 only). These data indicate that 12.6 percent of Minnesota wolves were showing symptoms of mange in 2005, (Paul 2005 in litt. ). However, the thoroughness of these observations may not have been consistent over this 11-year period. In a separate study, mortality data from 12 years (1994-2005) of monitoring radio-collared wolves in 7-9 packs in north-central Minnesota show that 11 percent died from mange (DelGiudice, MN DNR in litt. 2005). However, the sample size (17 total mortalities, 2 from mange in 1998 and 2004) is far too small to deduce trends in mange mortality over time. Furthermore, these data are from mange mortalities, while the Wildlife Services' data are based on mange symptoms, not mortalities

llared wolves in 7-9 packs in north-central Minnesota show that 11 percent died from mange (DelGiudice, MN DNR in litt. 2005). However, the sample size (17 total mortalities, 2 from mange in 1998 and 2004) is far too small to deduce trends in mange mortality over time. Furthermore, these data are from mange mortalities, while the Wildlife Services' data are based on mange symptoms, not mortalities.

It is hypothesized that the current incidence of mange is more widespread than it would have otherwise been, because the WGL wolf range has experienced a series of mild winters beginning with the winter of 1997-1998 (Van Deelen 2005). Mange-induced mortality is chiefly a result of winter hypothermia, thus the less severe winters resulted in higher survival of mangy wolves, and increased spread of mange to additional wolves during the following spring and summer. The high wolf population, and especially higher wolf density on the landscape, may also be contributing to the increasing occurrence of mange in the WGL wolf population. There has been speculation that 500 or more Minnesota wolves died as a result of mange over the last 5 to 6 years, causing a slowing or cessation of previous wolf population increase in the State (Paul, in litt. 2005).

Lyme disease, caused by the spirochete ( Borrelia burgdorferi ), is another relatively recently recognized disease, first documented in New England in 1975; although it may have occurred in Wisconsin as early as 1969. It is spread by ticks that pass the infection to their hosts when feeding. Host species include humans, horses, dogs, white-tailed deer, white-footed mice, eastern chipmunks, coyotes, and wolves. The prevalence of Lyme disease exposure in Wisconsin wolves averaged 70 percent of live-trapped animals in 1988-91, dropped to 37 percent during 1992-97 and was back up to 56 percent (32 of 57 tested) in 2002-04 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2004b, 2005)

to their hosts when feeding. Host species include humans, horses, dogs, white-tailed deer, white-footed mice, eastern chipmunks, coyotes, and wolves. The prevalence of Lyme disease exposure in Wisconsin wolves averaged 70 percent of live-trapped animals in 1988-91, dropped to 37 percent during 1992-97 and was back up to 56 percent (32 of 57 tested) in 2002-04 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2004b, 2005). Clinical symptoms have not been reported in wolves, but infected dogs can experience debilitating conditions, and abortion and fetal mortality have been reported in infected humans and horses (Kreeger 2003). It is possible that individual wolves may be debilitated by Lyme disease, perhaps contributing to their mortality; however, Lyme disease is not believed to be a significant factor affecting wolf populations.

The dog louse ( Trichodectes canis ) has been detected in wolves in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alaska, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (Mech et al. 1985, Kreeger 2003, Paul in litt. 2005). Dogs are probably the source of the initial infections, and subsequently wild canids transfer lice by direct contact with other wolves, particularly between females and pups (Brand et al. 1995). Severe infestations result in irritated and raw skin, substantial hair loss, particularly in the groin. However, in contrast to mange, lice infestations generally result in loss of guard hairs but not the insulating under fur, thus, hypothermia is less likely to occur and much less likely to be fatal. Even though observed in nearly 4 percent in a sample of 391 Minnesota wolves in 2003-05 in litt. ), dog lice infestations have not been confirmed as a cause of wolf mortality, and are not expected to have a significant impact even at a local scale.

Canine distemper virus (CDV) is an acute disease of carnivores that has been known in Europe since the sixteenth century and is now infecting dogs worldwide (Kreeger 2003)

n nearly 4 percent in a sample of 391 Minnesota wolves in 2003-05 in litt. ), dog lice infestations have not been confirmed as a cause of wolf mortality, and are not expected to have a significant impact even at a local scale.

Canine distemper virus (CDV) is an acute disease of carnivores that has been known in Europe since the sixteenth century and is now infecting dogs worldwide (Kreeger 2003). CDV generally infects dog pups when they are only a few months old, so mortality in wild wolf populations might be difficult to detect (Brand et al. 1995). CDV mortality among wild wolves has been documented only in two littermate pups in Manitoba (Carbyn 1982), in two Alaskan yearling wolves (Peterson et al. 1984), and in a single Wisconsin pup (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003b). Carbyn (1982) concluded that CDV was a contributor to a 50 percent decline of the wolf population in Riding Mountain National Park (Manitoba, Canada) in the mid-1970s. Serological evidence indicates that exposure to CDV is high among some Midwest wolves—29 percent in northern Wisconsin wolves and 79 percent in central Wisconsin wolves in 2002-2004 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2004b, 2005). However, there has been only a single CDV mortality documented among Midwestern wolves (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003b), and continued strong recruitment in Wisconsin and elsewhere in North American wolf populations indicates that distemper is not likely a significant cause of mortality (Brand 1995).

Other diseases and parasites, including rabies, canine heartworm, blastomycosis, bacterial myocarditis, granulomatous pneumonia, brucellosis, leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, hookworm, coccidiosis, and canine hepatitis have been documented in wild gray wolves, but their impacts on future wild wolf populations are not likely to be significant (Brand et al. 1995, Hassett in litt. 2003, Johnson 1995, Mech and Kurtz 1999, Mech et al. 1985, Thomas in litt . 1998, WI DNR 1999, Kreeger 2003)

yocarditis, granulomatous pneumonia, brucellosis, leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, hookworm, coccidiosis, and canine hepatitis have been documented in wild gray wolves, but their impacts on future wild wolf populations are not likely to be significant (Brand et al. 1995, Hassett in litt. 2003, Johnson 1995, Mech and Kurtz 1999, Mech et al. 1985, Thomas in litt . 1998, WI DNR 1999, Kreeger 2003). Continuing wolf range expansion, however, likely will provide new avenues for exposure to several of these diseases, especially canine heartworm, rabies, and bovine tuberculosis (Thomas in litt. 2000), further emphasizing the need for disease monitoring programs. In addition, the possibility of new diseases developing and existing diseases, such as chronic wasting disease, West Nile Virus and canine influenza (Crawford et al. 2005), moving across species barriers or spreading from domestic dogs to wolves must all be taken into account, and monitoring programs will need to address such threats.

In aggregate, diseases and parasites were the cause of 21 percent of the diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared wolves in Michigan from 1999 through 2004 (MI DNR unpublished data 2005) and 27 percent of the diagnosed mortalities of radio-collared wolves in Wisconsin and adjacent Minnesota from October 1979 through June 2005 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2005).

Many of the diseases and parasites are known to be spread by wolf-to-wolf contact. Therefore, their incidence may increase as wolf densities increase in the more recently colonized areas. Because wolf densities generally are relatively stable following the first few years of colonization, wolf-to-wolf contacts will not likely lead to a continuing increase in disease prevalence in areas that have been occupied for several years or more and are largely saturated with wolf packs (Mech in litt. 1998).

Disease and parasite impacts may increase because several wolf diseases and parasites are carried and spread by domestic dogs

ively stable following the first few years of colonization, wolf-to-wolf contacts will not likely lead to a continuing increase in disease prevalence in areas that have been occupied for several years or more and are largely saturated with wolf packs (Mech in litt. 1998).

Disease and parasite impacts may increase because several wolf diseases and parasites are carried and spread by domestic dogs. This transfer of pathogens from domestic dogs to wild wolves may increase as gray wolves continue to colonize non-wilderness areas (Mech in litt . 1998). Heartworm, CPV, and rabies are the main concerns (Thomas in litt. 1998) but dogs may become significant vectors for other diseases with potentially serious impacts on wolves in the future (Crawford et al. 2005). However, to date wolf populations in Wisconsin and Michigan have continued their expansion into areas with increased contacts with dogs and have shown no adverse pathogen impacts since the mid-1980s impacts from CPV.

Disease and parasite impacts are a recognized concern of the Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin DNRs. The Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and Management Plan states that necropsies will be conducted on all dead wolves, and that all live wolves that are handled will be examined, with blood, skin, and fecal samples taken to provide disease information (MI DNR 1997). Similarly, the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan states that as long as the wolf is State-listed as a threatened or endangered species, the WI DNR will conduct necropsies of dead wolves and test a sample of live-captured wolves for diseases and parasites, with a goal of screening 10 percent of the State wolf population for diseases annually. However, the plan anticipates that after State delisting (which occurred on March 24, 2004), disease monitoring will be scaled back because the percentage of the wolf population that is live-trapped each year will decline

psies of dead wolves and test a sample of live-captured wolves for diseases and parasites, with a goal of screening 10 percent of the State wolf population for diseases annually. However, the plan anticipates that after State delisting (which occurred on March 24, 2004), disease monitoring will be scaled back because the percentage of the wolf population that is live-trapped each year will decline. To date, however, the number of wolves subject to disease testing has not been reduced, with 27 wolves captured and tested in the 9 months of 2004 following State delisting, compared to 22 in 2002 and 19 in 2003 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2004b, 2005). The State will continue to test for disease and parasite loads through periodic necropsy and scat analyses. The plan also recommends that all wolves live-trapped for other studies should have their health monitored and reported to the WI DNR wildlife health specialists (WI DNR 1999).

The Minnesota Wolf Management Plan (MN DNR 2001) states that MN DNR “will collaborate with other investigators and continue monitoring disease incidence, where necessary, by examination of wolf carcasses obtained through depredation control programs, and also through blood/tissue physiology work conducted by DNR and the U.S. Geological Survey. DNR will also keep records of documented and suspected incidence of sarcoptic mange.” In addition, it will initiate “(R)egular collection of pertinent tissues of live captured or dead wolves” and periodically assess wolf health “when circumstances indicate that diseases or parasites may be adversely affecting portions of the wolf population.” Unlike Michigan and Wisconsin, Minnesota has not established minimum goals for the proportion of its wolves that will be assessed for disease nor does it plan to treat any wolves, although it does not rule out these measures. Minnesota's less intensive approach to disease monitoring and management seems warranted in light of its much greater abundance of wolves than in the other two States

ation.” Unlike Michigan and Wisconsin, Minnesota has not established minimum goals for the proportion of its wolves that will be assessed for disease nor does it plan to treat any wolves, although it does not rule out these measures. Minnesota's less intensive approach to disease monitoring and management seems warranted in light of its much greater abundance of wolves than in the other two States.

In areas within the WGL DPS, but outside Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, we lack data on the incidence of diseases or parasites in transient wolves. However, the WGL DPS boundary is laid out in a manner such that the vast majority of, and perhaps all, wolves that will occur in the DPS in the foreseeable future will have originated from the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf metapopulation. Therefore, they will be carrying the “normal” complement of Midwest wolf parasites, diseases, and disease resistance with them. Any new pairs, packs, or populations that develop within the DPS are likely to experience the same low to moderate adverse impacts from pathogens that have been occurring in the core recovery areas. The most likely exceptions to this generalization would arise from

Disease summary—We believe that several diseases have had noticeable impacts on wolf population growth in the Great Lakes region in the past. These impacts have been both direct, resulting in mortality of individual wolves, and indirect, by reducing longevity and fecundity of individuals or entire packs or populations. Canine parvovirus stalled wolf population growth in Wisconsin in the early and mid-1980s and has been implicated in the decline of the isolated Isle Royale wolf population in Michigan. Sarcoptic mange has affected wolf recovery in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and in Wisconsin over the last ten years, and it is recognized as a continuing problem. Despite these and other diseases and parasites, the overall trend for wolf populations in the WGL DPS continues to be upward

arly and mid-1980s and has been implicated in the decline of the isolated Isle Royale wolf population in Michigan. Sarcoptic mange has affected wolf recovery in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and in Wisconsin over the last ten years, and it is recognized as a continuing problem. Despite these and other diseases and parasites, the overall trend for wolf populations in the WGL DPS continues to be upward. Wolf management plans for Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin include disease monitoring components that we expect will identify future disease and parasite problems in time to allow corrective action to avoid a significant decline in overall population viability. We conclude that diseases and parasites will not prevent the continuation of wolf recovery or the maintenance of viable wolf populations in the DPS. Delisting wolves in the WGL DPS will not significantly change the incidence or impacts of disease and parasites on these wolves.

Predation

No wild animals habitually prey on gray wolves. Large prey, such as deer, elk, or moose (Mech and Nelson 1989, Smith et al. 2001), or other predators, such as mountain lions ( Felis concolor ) or grizzly bears ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) where they are extant (USFWS 2005), occasionally kill wolves, but this has only been rarely documented. This very small component of wolf mortality will not increase with delisting.

Wolves frequently are killed by other wolves, most commonly when packs encounter and attack a dispersing wolf as an intruder or when two packs encounter each other along a territorial boundary. This form of mortality is likely to increase as more of the available wolf habitat becomes saturated with wolf pack territories, as is the case in northeastern Minnesota, but such a trend is not yet evident from Wisconsin or Michigan data

other wolves, most commonly when packs encounter and attack a dispersing wolf as an intruder or when two packs encounter each other along a territorial boundary. This form of mortality is likely to increase as more of the available wolf habitat becomes saturated with wolf pack territories, as is the case in northeastern Minnesota, but such a trend is not yet evident from Wisconsin or Michigan data. From October 1979 through June 1998, seven (12 percent) of the mortalities of radio-collared Wisconsin wolves resulted from wolves killing wolves, and 8 of 73 (11 percent) mortalities were from this cause during 2000-05 (Wydeven 1998, Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2001a, 2002, 2003a, 2004a, 2005). Gogan et al. (1997) studied 31 radio-collared wolves in northern Minnesota from 1987-91 and found that 3 (10 percent) were killed by other wolves. Intra-specific strife was the primary cause of mortality within Voyageurs National Park. The Del Giudice data ( in litt. 2005) show a 17 percent mortality rate from other wolves in another study area in north central Minnesota from 1994-2005. This behavior is normal in healthy wolf populations and is an expected outcome of dispersal conflicts and territorial defense, as well as occasional intra-pack strife. This form of mortality is something that the species has evolved with and it should not pose a threat to wolf populations in the WGL DPS following delisting.

Humans have functioned as highly effective predators of the gray wolf in North America for several hundred years. European settlers in the Midwest attempted to eliminate the wolf entirely in earlier times, and the United States Congress passed a wolf bounty that covered the Northwest Territories in 1817. Bounties on wolves subsequently became the norm for States across the species' range. In Michigan, an 1838 wolf bounty became the ninth law passed by the First Michigan Legislature; this bounty remained in place until 1960

ers in the Midwest attempted to eliminate the wolf entirely in earlier times, and the United States Congress passed a wolf bounty that covered the Northwest Territories in 1817. Bounties on wolves subsequently became the norm for States across the species' range. In Michigan, an 1838 wolf bounty became the ninth law passed by the First Michigan Legislature; this bounty remained in place until 1960. A Wisconsin bounty was instituted in 1865 and was repealed about the time wolves were extirpated from the State in 1957. Minnesota maintained a wolf bounty until 1965.

Subsequent to the gray wolf's listing as a federally endangered species, the Act and State endangered species statutes prohibited the killing of wolves except under very limited circumstances, such as in defense of human life, for scientific or conservation purposes, or under special regulations intended to reduce wolf depredations of livestock or other domestic animals. The resultant reduction in human-caused wolf mortality is the main cause of the wolf's reestablishment in large parts of its historical range. It is clear, however, that illegal killing of wolves has continued in the form of intentional mortality and incidental deaths.

Illegal killing of wolves occurs for a number of reasons. Some of these killings are accidental ( e.g. , wolves are hit by vehicles, mistaken for coyotes and shot, or caught in traps set for other animals); some of these accidental killings are reported to State, Tribal, and Federal authorities. It is likely that most illegal killings, however, are intentional and are never reported to government authorities. Because they generally occur in remote locations and the evidence is easily concealed, we lack reliable estimates of annual rates of intentional illegal killings.

In Wisconsin, all forms of human-caused mortality accounted for 54 percent of the diagnosed deaths of radio-collared wolves from October 1979 through June 2005

however, are intentional and are never reported to government authorities. Because they generally occur in remote locations and the evidence is easily concealed, we lack reliable estimates of annual rates of intentional illegal killings.

In Wisconsin, all forms of human-caused mortality accounted f

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.